May 14, 2025 • 34 mins
Is your reality a lie? Jorge talks to a philosopher and a quantum scientist to learn if we're real or not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, Welcome to Science Stuff, a production of iHeartRadio. My
name is Jorge cham and today we're asking the question
are we living in a simulation? Are you and I
real people? Or are we characters in a fake video
game put on by an advanced alien civilization. Believe it
or not, this is a possibility that is actually being
(00:22):
considered and discussed by really smart philosophers and scientists. We're
going to talk to the man who first proposed this
philosophical argument, and we'll talk to a quantum information scientist
who thinks he knows how to tell if we're living
in a computer or not. So whether you're simulated or real,
join us as we break the code and answer the
question are we living in a simulation?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Hi?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Everyone, Okay, we're going to do something different today, and
that is we're going to give you a choice. In
this episode, there's an argument that none of this and
none of us us are real. But as Morphius said
in the Matrix movies, not everyone is ready to hear
the truth. So we're going to offer you a red
pill and a blue pill. If you take the red pill,
(01:12):
you will hear the argument for the idea that we're
living in a simulation, and if you're convinced, as many
smart people are, it's going to turn your world upside down.
But if you take the blue pill, then you'll hear
the argument against the idea we're all living in a simulation,
and you can go back to the life you've been living,
even if it's all a lie. And then later on
(01:35):
we're going to offer you a third pill, a purple pill,
but that's going to come later. So here's your choice
for now. To take the red pill, skip to the
next chapter and hopefully your podcast player recognizes chapter markers,
or just keep listening and you'll hear why some scholars
think we're living inside a computer. Or to take the
(01:56):
blue pill and be reassured you're a real person. Kip
ahead two chapters. We go to after the first ad
break at about the middle of the episode, and you'll
jump straight to the argument against the idea we're living
in a simulation. All right, pause the episode if you
have to. I'll give you a second to make your choice,
And here we go the red pill, Why we are
(02:23):
probably living in a simulation. One of the first mentions
of this idea is in a nineteen sixty four science
fiction novel called Simulacron three. In the book, a man
named Douglas Hall helps create a computer simulation of a
city filled with simulated people who think they are real
people as a platform to do marketing research. But when
(02:45):
strange events happen to him and his coworkers, he starts
to realize that he is living in a computer simulation.
He's a computer program and the simulation he was working
on is a simulation inside of another simulation. But the
reason this idea has been so talked about in recent
years is due to a man named Nick Bostrom. Doctor
Boston is a philosopher and former professor at Oxford University
(03:08):
who published the paper in the Philosophical Quarterly in two
thousand and three titled Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
In which he presented his argument that the most rational
thing for humans to do is to assume that we
are living in a simulation created by an advanced species
of humans or aliens. The argument is so persuasive that
(03:30):
it's been hotly debated for the last twenty years. Of
this argument, Neil Degrassi Tyson, the famous astrophysicist, said, quote,
I wish I had a good argument against that, but
I do not end quote, even he is partially convinced. Okay,
so what is this argument? To find out, I went
straight to the source and talked to doctor Nick Bostrom.
(03:54):
Thank you doctor Boston for joining us here today could
be with George. Can you please tell us who you
are and what do you do.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I'm a Nick Bostrom, I'm a philosopher. Have been thinking
for a long time about the future of technology AI
in particular, and the implications for the big picture situation
for humanity.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So for those of us that are not familiar, what
is the simulation?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well, in the context of the simulation argument, which I
published back in two thousand and one, a simulation refers
to a detailed computer simulation run by some technologically advanced civilization,
which includes brains, simulations of brains simulated at the sufficient
level of detail that these simulated brains are conscious and
(04:38):
have experiences similar to the experiences that we have. It's
a computer program, Yeah, an implementation of a computer program. Okay,
here's the scenario. Imagine a computer the size of a planet,
and this giant computer is running a computer program that's
simulating a virtual world in which you, you, me, and
(05:01):
everyone you know is not real, which is part of
the simulation. So you don't really have a brain. Your
brain is just code being simulated inside the program. And
this program is being run by a super advanced civilization,
which could be humans in the future, or it could
be aliens. Yes, it's a wild scenario. So what could
(05:24):
possibly make us think it's true? Now you've famously said
that there's an argument to be made that we are
currently living in a simulation. What is that argument? The
simulation argument argues that one of three possibilities is true.
The first possibility is that almost all civilizations at our
current stage of technological development go extinct before they reach
(05:49):
technological maturity. The second possibility is that out of all
civilizations throughout the universe or the multiverse that do reach
technolgical maturity, a strong convergence in that they all basically
all of them lose interest in creating ancestors simulations.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
All right, The argument for the idea that we're living
in a simulation comes down to three possibilities about the universe.
The first possibility is that most civilizations in the universe
snuff themselves out before they become the kind of super
advanced species that can create these massive simulations. This would
imply that there are no advanced civilizations in the universe
(06:31):
and there never will be, because none of them ever
make it that far. Maybe they wipe themselves out with
nuclear war or environmental disaster, or maybe they deplete all
their resources, or maybe bad luck just catches up to
them and an asteroid or a comet eventually kills them.
The second possibility is that there are civilizations that do
(06:53):
become super advanced, to the point where they have nearly
infinite resources, and they could make these massive planet sized similations,
but for some reason they don't. Maybe they'll think it's
a waste of time, or they find it morally objectionable
to create sentient beings. And then there's a third possibility.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And then the third remaining possibility is suppose it's not
the case that almost all civilizations fail to reach technolgical maturity,
so that means that like some significant fraction of them
get through. Then let's suppose that at least some non
trivial fraction of these civilizations that do become technolgically mature
are still interested in using some non negligible fraction of
(07:34):
the resources for this purpose of creating simulations. You can
then show that there would be many, many more people
like us living inside simulations than that would be people
like us living in the original history. Because even using
a small fraction of the resources of a technolically advanced civilization,
you could run millions and millions and millions simulations of
(07:55):
all of human history. Then it would be the case
that most people like us would be in simulations, the
overwhelming majority.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Okay, here's the core of the argument. It's basically a
betting argument. If the other two possibilities are not true,
meaning that there are advanced civilizations out there and at
least some of them think it's cool to create massive,
planet sized computer simulations, then the odds are that we
are in one of those simulations. That is because these
(08:24):
advance civilizations, doctor Boston argues wouldn't just create one simulation,
they would create millions of them.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Just like when.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Millions of kids here on Earth play say Minecraft, each
kid is creating a world with thousands or millions of
artificial beings in it, And so the argument goes, in
the whole universe there would be many more simulated beings
than real ones. So if you're a conscious being, meaning
some kind of entity that thinks they're real. Then the
(08:55):
odds that you are real are small.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
So what that that means is, if you're the first
two alternatives, you have to accept the third one. And
then I argue that conditional that we should think we
are probably one of the simulated ones rather than one
of the exceptional non simulated ones. That we are almost
certainly living inside a computer simulation created by some technolically
advanced civilization.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
So that is the main argument for the idea that
we're living in a simulation. It's a logical argument and
it's a betting argument. There are three possibilities. The first
two are not true, the third one must be true,
and that one says that there are advance civilizations out
there that are simulating millions and millions of virtual lives,
(09:42):
which means to us that you are one of them.
Is really high. Like if there are a million real
people out there, but there are trillions of simulated people
who think they are real, then the most likely thing
is that you are one of the simulated ones. Now,
as you can imagine, there are several big assumptions here.
The first one is that we could ever have the
(10:04):
technology to make these planet size relations of billions of brains.
And the second is that anyone would want to do this.
Here's how doctor Boston talks about the first assumption.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
So a key premise here, which is that a technolgical
matricivilization would have enough computing power to run gazillions of
these simulations. Now, we currently don't have the ability to
create these simulations because we don't have that technological wherewithal yet,
but a technolgical mature civilization would have this capability. In fact,
you could say that even just using the resources of
(10:37):
a single planet, using only computational architectures that we already know,
would be possible. For one minute, they could run like
millions of simulations of all of the brains that have
existed throughout human history. If you can roughly estimate the
processing power of the human brain, you can count the
number of synopsies, the frequency with which they fire, et cetera,
and you still get the conclusion that, even if they
(10:59):
are only very slowly interested in this application, the number
of simulations one of these interested technologically matri civilization could
run over the course of its lifespan would be in
the trillions and trillions and trillions.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Okay, what doctor Boston is saying here is that if
a civilization is really advanced, and we're talking super futuristic
humans or aliens that have figured out things like fusion
energy and can build spaceships, mind asteroids, and conquer other planets,
then simulating a few billion or a few trillion human
brains would be easy for them. And you can sort
(11:34):
of see that even now, we have a huge amount
of computing power and we can simulate ais that can
solve most problems humans can.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
And in this argument, you don't need.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
All civilizations to reach this advanced point. If only a
few do, say one in one hundred or one in
a thousand, then that would be enough to simulate trillions
of fake people and outnumber the real ones. And the
second biggest emgine is why would anyone do this? Do
(12:05):
you see humanity making these simulations? Is there evidence right
now that we would make these if.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
We were given the ability right now? If somehow some
scientists figured out how to just create vastly more powerful computers,
and if we had the ability to program them appropriately,
a lot of people would do it for all kinds
of reasons, like historical researchers would find it interesting to
run counterfactual runs of history. Game developers might have a
game setting where there are like real historical people. You
(12:34):
might want to visit an earlier era. You can't build
a time machine, so the second best you could do
would be to create a detailed simulation of this epoch
in the past, and then you could sort of visited
as a as a tourist. That might be many other
reasons as well, or for no reason, just for you know,
for the heck of it. So right now, yeah, we
would be running a lot of simulations if it was
(12:55):
cheap enough to do it easily.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Doctor Boston's point is that there are lots of reasons
to create such a massive simulation. It could be like
a video game, for that advanced revilization, or for research
or curiosity. And you don't need all futuristic civilizations to
do it. You just need one or two.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Now, we don't know that much about technogically mature civilizations,
so maybe there is this strong convergence, like they all
realize that it's like morally bad to do this, and
they all converge on the right ethic. But this second alternative,
it's hard to rule it out completely. But even if
most civilizations, say would somehow converge that they would not
run any of these simulations, like wouldn't one in a thousand,
(13:37):
one in a million somewhere in the universe do it,
then that would be not to generate enough of these
simulations that most people like us would be in the
simulations now.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
In doctor Boston's original paper, he envisioned future humans running
a simulation of the past, meaning we think we're in
the year twenty twenty five right now, but really we're
in a computer running in the year ten thousand or
one hundred thousand that is built by one of our descendants.
But the argument in general also works with aliens.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yeah, you could mutter a technodically mature civilization. One type
of simulation they could do would be simulations of people
like their ancestors or variations thereof Maybe they would simulate
people like us. You could also run simulations of potential aliens. Right,
you don't only have to simulate people you thought inhabited
your planet before, but you could. So all of those
(14:32):
are possible, and there would be this population of different
simulations and simulated creatures of potentially many different kinds like
the idea of Earth could be simulated and fake. Yeah, yeah,
that could be the case.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah. Now what is your personal opinion? Do you think
that we are living in simulation? Or is your judge
just to think about these possibilities.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
So I tend to pond on I've often asked, what,
like the probability is. I tend to like refrain from
giving a precise num. I do think it's a serious hypothesis.
I would assign it significant credence, but I haven't given
a particular specific number. And the simulation argument in and
of itself doesn't tell us that. It only tells us
(15:13):
that at least one of these three alternatives is true.
So if you wanted to conclude that the third alternative
is true, that is that we are in a simulation,
you wouldn't have to bring in some additional evidence to
rule out the other two. All right.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
So that is the red pill, the argument that we
are living in a simulation, and it's compelling because it's
hard to rule out all other possibilities, or is it.
When we come back, we'll take the blue pill and
talk to a quantum scientist who's going to make the
case that we are not living in a simulation. And
(15:47):
then at the end, I'll offer you a third option
that gets even crazier. So stay with us. You're listening
to sign stuff. Welcome back the Bluepill. Here's the argument
for why we are probably not living inside a simulation.
(16:12):
If you skip ahead, here's the proposed scenario. You and
I and all eight billion people on the planet right
now are not real.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
We are all.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Simulated beings living inside a computer program running on a
planet sized computer built by a super advanced future human
or alien civilization. And believe it or not, there is
a very compelling argument that this is true. But to
give us the counter argument that we are not living
(16:42):
in a simulation, I reached out to a couple of
quantum scientists who wrote a paper titled Probability and Consequences
of Living Inside a Computer Simulation, in which they argue
that we are probably not simulated. The authors, Alexander Bibou
and Guiz brazaar we're working on quantum cryptography when they
(17:02):
realize that quantum mechanics pretty much throws a big French
into the whole simulation argument. So here's my conversation with
the main author of that paper, doctor Alexander Bibo. All right,
doctor Bibo, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The first thing I want to check is this is
you right, I'm talking to the real you, not a simulation.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
As far as I know.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Well, we're talking today about this question of whether we're
living in a simulation. This is a pretty wild idea,
because you know, I go through my everyday life and
feels like I'm in a real place. It feels like
I'm in actual reality. You wrote a paper arguing against
this idea. Yeah, now, please spend the next ten minutes
trying to convince me we are not in a simulation.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
The big thing that in Bostrom's paper and what people
have this argument discount is the fact that you don't
need to only simulate the brains of the people living
in the simulations, but you need to simulate their whole world.
For instance, this idea that you could build a bunch
of brains with just a small amount of matter optimize
according to all the laws of physics, the number of
(18:11):
brains that could simulate is really really high. That initially like,
it's very much in favor of their being more simulated beings. Okay,
but building all this world around these simulated beings will
require that same level of power, and physics can get
very complicated, especially quantum physics can be very complicated to simulate.
So it ends up canceling out, and it ends up
(18:31):
not being such an argument in favor of there being
so many more simulated beings. Mathematically speaking, okay, the first
argument against the idea that we're living in a simulation
is the fact that it's really hard to make a
simulation of reality. According to doctor Bibo, you not only.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Have to simulate a human brain, which is the most
complex arrangement of matter we know about, but you also
have to simulate the physical world around that brain, and
it's especially hard if you make your simulation accurate to
the level of quantum physics. So whereas before you might
say that it would be very easy for an advanced
alien or humans flization to simulate trillions of sentient beings.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
And therefore make it more likely that we are.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Simulated beings, doctor People argues, it's not that easy.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It's very hard computationally speaking, to simulate whole worlds, okay,
especially cold worlds in which there is quantum physics. Okay,
because quantum computations are inefficient.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Like if someone were to make a video game and
we're in that video game, most of their computer, most
of their PlayStation thirteen would have to be spent running
quantum physics on.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
It, exactly, exactly, especially if inside the video game they
don't know they're in a video game and they're starting
to be curious about their world and they're trying to
perform like quantum physics experiments, like these scientists are at
work trying to verify that quantum mechanics is being respected
as some of our quantum scientists are. It would require
all the computing power of their advanced PlayStation and the
game would slow down to a crawl. This is the argument.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
So that's one of the arguments against the idea that
we are living in a simulation. It's very hard to
simulate quantum physics. You either need a quantum computer, which
are really hard to make, or you end up spending
most of your computing power calculating all of the different
probabilities that happen all at once in quantum systems. And
(20:23):
if you want to know more about this, check out
our episode on quantum computers. Now some people have argued,
including doctor Bostram himself that a simulated reality doesn't need
to simulate quantum physics, at least not all the time.
They could use something called procedural generation. Here's how doctor
Bostrom describes it.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
In these simulations, you would need a simulation of the
environment to generate the experiences that these simulated brains have,
but you wouldn't have to simulate the environment in perfect detail.
You would only need to simulate the aspects of the
environment that the simulated brains person eve at a given
point in time. So it's not the case that every
single atom in the desk in front of you would
(21:06):
be simulated continuously, let alone the quarks and stuff. Right.
I think that that would add massive demands on how
much computing power it would take, and it would soon
become infeasible even with like really advanced technology. But all
that would be required is that the surface appearances of
your desk are simulated sufficiently that it looks to you
fully realistic.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
And then let's say some physicists in a lab like
took an electron microscope and looked at a piece of
your desk, right that they could see potentially individual molecules, right,
than atoms. So at that point more detail would have
to be filled in in the simulation, but only in
the particular piece that they were looking at, so it
would be sort of procedurally generated.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
This is what's done in a lot of video games today,
like Minecraft or the Legend of Zelda, where a character
is free to walk around a huge virtual environment. The
computer doesn't need to simulate the entire world, just the
parts that the character sees, and just at the level
that matters to them. So if a mountain is far away,
(22:07):
you don't need to simulate every atom or quantum particle
of that mountain. You can just simulate it as a
big block or even the table in front of you
to tap it or put your hand on it. You
don't actually have to simulate it at the atomic level.
This would make it easier to simulate a whole reality,
and therefore make it more likely we are in a simulation,
(22:30):
But as doctor Bibaut counter argues, it has its limits, and.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
The people who argue for this high probability that we
are in a simulation, we don't need such higher rate
of input in order for it to feel real. You know,
you can play a video game which is fully immersive
with not much better technology than what we have now.
You could have like a screen which shows you something
which to your eyes is indistinguishable for reality. This is true,
but in order for that world to be coherent and
for it to like show no inconsistencies in the laws
(22:58):
of physics everywhere, it has a very very high cost.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Like right now in our reality. In our world, there
are physicists running the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. They
have atomic microscopes looking down at Adams. If someone is
simulating our reality, they would also have to simulate like
every physicist poking around at the atomic level.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Yeah, exactly, all this stuff in a completely coherent way,
in a way that no one would find contradictions in
and all that stuff. Yeah, that would be crazy to do.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying maybe one
day we will do this, but we will not be
able to do it on such a scale that we're
able to drive the number of simulated consciousness higher than
what there is in reality as far as I can talk.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Okay, Now, the second argument against the idea we're in
a simulation is that while a futuristic civilization might be
interested in simulating reality. They may not be that interested.
It might not be that much fun for anyone.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
When you have advanced computer the second factor that remains
is how much of it do you spend on these
simulations versus on other things?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
What do you mean?
Speaker 3 (24:05):
What I mean is that even if you have these
advanced computers and someone somewhere like is running all that stuff,
you need to run other things too, presumably right, and
you're not just using your computers for simulating brains right now?
What proportion of all the computing power in the world
is used to simulate brains? A very small amount. Everything
else is used to show ads again whatever, for like blockchain,
(24:27):
or for for a bunch of other purposes. We use
computing power for everything else. What proportion of all the
computing power that you do have in your real civilization
do you use to simulate a world which is indistinguishable
from reality. So let's say even if your simulation was
perfectly efficient, then it only used one quantum bit in
the simulation, which is impossible. But let's say you could
(24:47):
you spend more computing power on other things, more computing
power on cryptography than on simulations, for instance. Okay, you
would still have fewer simulated people than real people.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
So if it was easy and everybody was trying to
play God in their home computers, then the number of
simulated realities is huge. Yeah, and we're very likely to
live in a simulation. But you're saying no, it's a
really hard and b from what we know over the
world around us, not everyone is playing PlayStation at the
same time.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
And sometimes even if we had a very advanced civilization,
you would not necessarily play games in which the other
characters are conscious. And see a world that looks like this,
you might still prefer to play like Super Mario two,
you know, which, like the Little Turtle guys are clearly
not conscious.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
The aliens prefer retro games. Maybe all right, that was
the blue pill. When we come back, we're going to
ask our two experts how we might settle this debate.
Could we ever tell if we are living in a simulation?
And then at the end, I'm going to offer you
a purple pill, which I have to warn you might
(25:53):
blow your mind, whether it's simulated or not.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
So stay with us. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
And we're back, all right, Whether you took the red
pill or the blue pill, or maybe both. You might
be wondering if we could ever tell that we are
living in a simulation, How can we know if we're
living in the matrix. I asked both our experts this question,
and this is what they said, Could we ever tell
(26:28):
if we were one of those simulated consciousness?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
So that would depend on the simulation. So if the
simulators wanted to reveal this curtly to do that, you
could imagine like a window popping up in front of
your visual field saying here, you're in a simulation. Click
here for more information. Right, that would be a pretty
conclusive proof. Short of that, I think there are indicators
that the closer we get to technological maturity, the less
(26:52):
likely the first alternative becomes. Right, Like, if we look
like we're almost there, then it doesn't seem the case
that almost all civilizations that our current level will go
extinct before reaching technogical maturity. I see, And if we
at that point remain interested in creating ancestors simulations ourselves,
just like we right now run a lot of computer
(27:13):
grames and three D virtual realities and scientific simulations for
all kinds of purposes. Right, if that remains the case
as we get really close to being able to do
this ourselves. That would really start to roll out the
first two alternatives, and it would then force us to
infer that we are almost certainly simulated ourselves.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Let's say we were looking for evidence that we are
not or that we are living in simulations. What are
some of the things we could be looking out for.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
One of the things I do mention in the paper
is that if you're looking for violations of these laws
of physics, they could be very subtle. They could just
be errors in quantum correlations. So some of the experiments
we perform to understand how quantum mechanics work, they could
have noise that we're not able to explain. And same
thing when we're doing quantum cryptography. In quantum cryptography, your
piece to p people at the end, they're exchanging information
(28:01):
on something which is a quantum channel. And if there
is noise in this experiment in this communication, usually you say, oh,
the noise is there because someone is puying on the information.
Someone is trying to intercept part of these photons to
get information out of them. If this was happening, if
you do see noise and no one can explain away,
this could be an indication, for instance, that we are
in a simulation and that these correlations in physics are
(28:24):
violated because there is either a bug in the simulation
or they're using part of this information to look into
what's happening in our world.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
I see, like, if we test the lots of physics
and we find errors or weird things happening, then that
might be a clue.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That we're in a simulation.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Yeah, I believe so.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
But do they have to be at the quantum level?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
This is probably where they would happen, because it's much
harder to get quantum computations correctly without noise than it
is that anything else to happen. You cannot observe it
without disturbing it. In that sense, if the laws of
physics are truly quantum, and we have good reason to
believe that they are, then even from outside the simulation,
trying to observe them in that way could disturb them
(29:02):
in a way which we could measure.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Okay, So to tell if we are in a simulation,
you can do one of two things. You can look
at the world around us and see how it affects
the philosophical argument. For example, if it looks like our
civilization is about to crash and burn, then maybe that's
common and there aren't any advanced civilizations out there. Or
if we find that playing video games or running realistic
(29:28):
simulations is not a high priority for us, then maybe
it's not for any civilizations out there either. The other
thing you can do to tell if we're in a
simulation is you can look for glitches in the matrix.
If you run quantum experiments and find that things don't
quite add up, then that may be a sign that
we are simulated. Or as doctor Bobo said, you could
(29:51):
try to break the simulation. You could overtax it, maybe
by doing a lot of quantum experiments or running your
own simulations within the simulation, although that could be dangerous.
So poking at the loss of physics is one way
to test whether we're in a box or not.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
There are other ways, which could be trying to make
our own simulation, so trying to keep acquiring technology and
increasing our computational power and trying to make our own
simulated worlds. If we use too much, I mean, we
could be slowing down their simulation and they could be
tempted to turn it off or to do something about it.
Which maybe is not so smart if we think we
(30:31):
are in a simulation.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
So yeah, if we are in a simulation, maybe we
don't want to do anything that might make whoever is
running the simulation stop because it may not matter. Here's
the last question I asked, doctor Buster. Do you think
there's a difference between a simulated reality and a real reality?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, that depends that on the simulation. I think that
could be very close. If the simulators wanted to make
it as accurate as possible, I think that could make
it pretty accurate. And if ever there were like some
glitch or some anomaly, then they could sort of edit
the memories of whoever detected that or sort of patch
things up. You imagine these simulators as being super intolent.
One of the things that could do with our advanced
(31:13):
technology would be to make themselves smarter.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, I really appreciate your time here, and it's been
a real experience to talk with you, hopefully not a
simulated one.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
The experience is real now, the implementation of it is
more hidden in a shroud of uncertainty.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
I guess all right. The last thing I'm going to
do is offer you a purple pill. This is an
idea that might be even crazier than the idea that
we're all living in a simulation put on by some
alien civilization out there in space, an idea that came
up when I was talking to doctor Bubo about how
(31:49):
he got interested in the idea of a simulated universe.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
So basically I was working on seeing physics as a
potentially computation no thing, saying like, okay, like could physics
at its most base level be a computation?
Speaker 2 (32:06):
What do you mean physics being a computation?
Speaker 3 (32:09):
So saying that if you're trying to understand the laws
of physics, a good way to understand it is from
the perspective of what is the informational content of physics
and what we perceive as time evolution of systems. How
could this represent a type of computation? You would say
that at some point this would mean that on the
most microscopic level, space and time are discrete.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
And I think you're saying that maybe the laws of
physics are just a program.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Yeah, any physical system, because it's state changes with time,
and it's taking like an input state, doing something and
getting an output state at the end, it's performing a computation.
So in some sense, the laws of physics as a
whole could also do that.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Maybe, like the laws of physics were a program, but
they weren't running in a computer. They were just running
on the.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Universe exactly exactly. The universe is kind of like a
natural computer that just happens to be there.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
In other words, the real actual universe itself could be
a simulation, which means the answer to the question are
we living in a simulation could be yes, but it's
a simulation that is being run by no one. As
Neo famously said in The Matrix WHOA. Thanks for joining us,
(33:23):
see you next Wednesday. You've been listening to Science Stuff
production of iHeartRadio, written and produced by me or Hm,
candited by Rose Seguda, executive producer Jerry Rowland, and audio
engineer and mixer Kasey Pegram. And you can follow me
on social media to search for PhD comics and the
(33:44):
name of your favorite platform. Be sure to subscribe to
Sign Stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you get your podcasts, and please tell your friends We'll
be back next Wednesday with another episode.
Hi, Welcome to Science Stuff, a production of iHeartRadio. My
name is Jorge cham and today we're asking the question
are we living in a simulation? Are you and I
real people? Or are we characters in a fake video
game put on by an advanced alien civilization. Believe it
or not, this is a possibility that is actually being
(00:22):
considered and discussed by really smart philosophers and scientists. We're
going to talk to the man who first proposed this
philosophical argument, and we'll talk to a quantum information scientist
who thinks he knows how to tell if we're living
in a computer or not. So whether you're simulated or real,
join us as we break the code and answer the
question are we living in a simulation?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Hi?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Everyone, Okay, we're going to do something different today, and
that is we're going to give you a choice. In
this episode, there's an argument that none of this and
none of us us are real. But as Morphius said
in the Matrix movies, not everyone is ready to hear
the truth. So we're going to offer you a red
pill and a blue pill. If you take the red pill,
(01:12):
you will hear the argument for the idea that we're
living in a simulation, and if you're convinced, as many
smart people are, it's going to turn your world upside down.
But if you take the blue pill, then you'll hear
the argument against the idea we're all living in a simulation,
and you can go back to the life you've been living,
even if it's all a lie. And then later on
(01:35):
we're going to offer you a third pill, a purple pill,
but that's going to come later. So here's your choice
for now. To take the red pill, skip to the
next chapter and hopefully your podcast player recognizes chapter markers,
or just keep listening and you'll hear why some scholars
think we're living inside a computer. Or to take the
(01:56):
blue pill and be reassured you're a real person. Kip
ahead two chapters. We go to after the first ad
break at about the middle of the episode, and you'll
jump straight to the argument against the idea we're living
in a simulation. All right, pause the episode if you
have to. I'll give you a second to make your choice,
And here we go the red pill, Why we are
(02:23):
probably living in a simulation. One of the first mentions
of this idea is in a nineteen sixty four science
fiction novel called Simulacron three. In the book, a man
named Douglas Hall helps create a computer simulation of a
city filled with simulated people who think they are real
people as a platform to do marketing research. But when
(02:45):
strange events happen to him and his coworkers, he starts
to realize that he is living in a computer simulation.
He's a computer program and the simulation he was working
on is a simulation inside of another simulation. But the
reason this idea has been so talked about in recent
years is due to a man named Nick Bostrom. Doctor
Boston is a philosopher and former professor at Oxford University
(03:08):
who published the paper in the Philosophical Quarterly in two
thousand and three titled Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
In which he presented his argument that the most rational
thing for humans to do is to assume that we
are living in a simulation created by an advanced species
of humans or aliens. The argument is so persuasive that
(03:30):
it's been hotly debated for the last twenty years. Of
this argument, Neil Degrassi Tyson, the famous astrophysicist, said, quote,
I wish I had a good argument against that, but
I do not end quote, even he is partially convinced. Okay,
so what is this argument? To find out, I went
straight to the source and talked to doctor Nick Bostrom.
(03:54):
Thank you doctor Boston for joining us here today could
be with George. Can you please tell us who you
are and what do you do.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I'm a Nick Bostrom, I'm a philosopher. Have been thinking
for a long time about the future of technology AI
in particular, and the implications for the big picture situation
for humanity.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So for those of us that are not familiar, what
is the simulation?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well, in the context of the simulation argument, which I
published back in two thousand and one, a simulation refers
to a detailed computer simulation run by some technologically advanced civilization,
which includes brains, simulations of brains simulated at the sufficient
level of detail that these simulated brains are conscious and
(04:38):
have experiences similar to the experiences that we have. It's
a computer program, Yeah, an implementation of a computer program. Okay,
here's the scenario. Imagine a computer the size of a planet,
and this giant computer is running a computer program that's
simulating a virtual world in which you, you, me, and
(05:01):
everyone you know is not real, which is part of
the simulation. So you don't really have a brain. Your
brain is just code being simulated inside the program. And
this program is being run by a super advanced civilization,
which could be humans in the future, or it could
be aliens. Yes, it's a wild scenario. So what could
(05:24):
possibly make us think it's true? Now you've famously said
that there's an argument to be made that we are
currently living in a simulation. What is that argument? The
simulation argument argues that one of three possibilities is true.
The first possibility is that almost all civilizations at our
current stage of technological development go extinct before they reach
(05:49):
technological maturity. The second possibility is that out of all
civilizations throughout the universe or the multiverse that do reach
technolgical maturity, a strong convergence in that they all basically
all of them lose interest in creating ancestors simulations.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
All right, The argument for the idea that we're living
in a simulation comes down to three possibilities about the universe.
The first possibility is that most civilizations in the universe
snuff themselves out before they become the kind of super
advanced species that can create these massive simulations. This would
imply that there are no advanced civilizations in the universe
(06:31):
and there never will be, because none of them ever
make it that far. Maybe they wipe themselves out with
nuclear war or environmental disaster, or maybe they deplete all
their resources, or maybe bad luck just catches up to
them and an asteroid or a comet eventually kills them.
The second possibility is that there are civilizations that do
(06:53):
become super advanced, to the point where they have nearly
infinite resources, and they could make these massive planet sized similations,
but for some reason they don't. Maybe they'll think it's
a waste of time, or they find it morally objectionable
to create sentient beings. And then there's a third possibility.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And then the third remaining possibility is suppose it's not
the case that almost all civilizations fail to reach technolgical maturity,
so that means that like some significant fraction of them
get through. Then let's suppose that at least some non
trivial fraction of these civilizations that do become technolgically mature
are still interested in using some non negligible fraction of
(07:34):
the resources for this purpose of creating simulations. You can
then show that there would be many, many more people
like us living inside simulations than that would be people
like us living in the original history. Because even using
a small fraction of the resources of a technolically advanced civilization,
you could run millions and millions and millions simulations of
(07:55):
all of human history. Then it would be the case
that most people like us would be in simulations, the
overwhelming majority.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Okay, here's the core of the argument. It's basically a
betting argument. If the other two possibilities are not true,
meaning that there are advanced civilizations out there and at
least some of them think it's cool to create massive,
planet sized computer simulations, then the odds are that we
are in one of those simulations. That is because these
(08:24):
advance civilizations, doctor Boston argues wouldn't just create one simulation,
they would create millions of them.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Just like when.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Millions of kids here on Earth play say Minecraft, each
kid is creating a world with thousands or millions of
artificial beings in it, And so the argument goes, in
the whole universe there would be many more simulated beings
than real ones. So if you're a conscious being, meaning
some kind of entity that thinks they're real. Then the
(08:55):
odds that you are real are small.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
So what that that means is, if you're the first
two alternatives, you have to accept the third one. And
then I argue that conditional that we should think we
are probably one of the simulated ones rather than one
of the exceptional non simulated ones. That we are almost
certainly living inside a computer simulation created by some technolically
advanced civilization.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
So that is the main argument for the idea that
we're living in a simulation. It's a logical argument and
it's a betting argument. There are three possibilities. The first
two are not true, the third one must be true,
and that one says that there are advance civilizations out
there that are simulating millions and millions of virtual lives,
(09:42):
which means to us that you are one of them.
Is really high. Like if there are a million real
people out there, but there are trillions of simulated people
who think they are real, then the most likely thing
is that you are one of the simulated ones. Now,
as you can imagine, there are several big assumptions here.
The first one is that we could ever have the
(10:04):
technology to make these planet size relations of billions of brains.
And the second is that anyone would want to do this.
Here's how doctor Boston talks about the first assumption.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
So a key premise here, which is that a technolgical
matricivilization would have enough computing power to run gazillions of
these simulations. Now, we currently don't have the ability to
create these simulations because we don't have that technological wherewithal yet,
but a technolgical mature civilization would have this capability. In fact,
you could say that even just using the resources of
(10:37):
a single planet, using only computational architectures that we already know,
would be possible. For one minute, they could run like
millions of simulations of all of the brains that have
existed throughout human history. If you can roughly estimate the
processing power of the human brain, you can count the
number of synopsies, the frequency with which they fire, et cetera,
and you still get the conclusion that, even if they
(10:59):
are only very slowly interested in this application, the number
of simulations one of these interested technologically matri civilization could
run over the course of its lifespan would be in
the trillions and trillions and trillions.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Okay, what doctor Boston is saying here is that if
a civilization is really advanced, and we're talking super futuristic
humans or aliens that have figured out things like fusion
energy and can build spaceships, mind asteroids, and conquer other planets,
then simulating a few billion or a few trillion human
brains would be easy for them. And you can sort
(11:34):
of see that even now, we have a huge amount
of computing power and we can simulate ais that can
solve most problems humans can.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
And in this argument, you don't need.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
All civilizations to reach this advanced point. If only a
few do, say one in one hundred or one in
a thousand, then that would be enough to simulate trillions
of fake people and outnumber the real ones. And the
second biggest emgine is why would anyone do this? Do
(12:05):
you see humanity making these simulations? Is there evidence right
now that we would make these if.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
We were given the ability right now? If somehow some
scientists figured out how to just create vastly more powerful computers,
and if we had the ability to program them appropriately,
a lot of people would do it for all kinds
of reasons, like historical researchers would find it interesting to
run counterfactual runs of history. Game developers might have a
game setting where there are like real historical people. You
(12:34):
might want to visit an earlier era. You can't build
a time machine, so the second best you could do
would be to create a detailed simulation of this epoch
in the past, and then you could sort of visited
as a as a tourist. That might be many other
reasons as well, or for no reason, just for you know,
for the heck of it. So right now, yeah, we
would be running a lot of simulations if it was
(12:55):
cheap enough to do it easily.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Doctor Boston's point is that there are lots of reasons
to create such a massive simulation. It could be like
a video game, for that advanced revilization, or for research
or curiosity. And you don't need all futuristic civilizations to
do it. You just need one or two.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Now, we don't know that much about technogically mature civilizations,
so maybe there is this strong convergence, like they all
realize that it's like morally bad to do this, and
they all converge on the right ethic. But this second alternative,
it's hard to rule it out completely. But even if
most civilizations, say would somehow converge that they would not
run any of these simulations, like wouldn't one in a thousand,
(13:37):
one in a million somewhere in the universe do it,
then that would be not to generate enough of these
simulations that most people like us would be in the
simulations now.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
In doctor Boston's original paper, he envisioned future humans running
a simulation of the past, meaning we think we're in
the year twenty twenty five right now, but really we're
in a computer running in the year ten thousand or
one hundred thousand that is built by one of our descendants.
But the argument in general also works with aliens.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yeah, you could mutter a technodically mature civilization. One type
of simulation they could do would be simulations of people
like their ancestors or variations thereof Maybe they would simulate
people like us. You could also run simulations of potential aliens. Right,
you don't only have to simulate people you thought inhabited
your planet before, but you could. So all of those
(14:32):
are possible, and there would be this population of different
simulations and simulated creatures of potentially many different kinds like
the idea of Earth could be simulated and fake. Yeah, yeah,
that could be the case.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah. Now what is your personal opinion? Do you think
that we are living in simulation? Or is your judge
just to think about these possibilities.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
So I tend to pond on I've often asked, what,
like the probability is. I tend to like refrain from
giving a precise num. I do think it's a serious hypothesis.
I would assign it significant credence, but I haven't given
a particular specific number. And the simulation argument in and
of itself doesn't tell us that. It only tells us
(15:13):
that at least one of these three alternatives is true.
So if you wanted to conclude that the third alternative
is true, that is that we are in a simulation,
you wouldn't have to bring in some additional evidence to
rule out the other two. All right.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
So that is the red pill, the argument that we
are living in a simulation, and it's compelling because it's
hard to rule out all other possibilities, or is it.
When we come back, we'll take the blue pill and
talk to a quantum scientist who's going to make the
case that we are not living in a simulation. And
(15:47):
then at the end, I'll offer you a third option
that gets even crazier. So stay with us. You're listening
to sign stuff. Welcome back the Bluepill. Here's the argument
for why we are probably not living inside a simulation.
(16:12):
If you skip ahead, here's the proposed scenario. You and
I and all eight billion people on the planet right
now are not real.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
We are all.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Simulated beings living inside a computer program running on a
planet sized computer built by a super advanced future human
or alien civilization. And believe it or not, there is
a very compelling argument that this is true. But to
give us the counter argument that we are not living
(16:42):
in a simulation, I reached out to a couple of
quantum scientists who wrote a paper titled Probability and Consequences
of Living Inside a Computer Simulation, in which they argue
that we are probably not simulated. The authors, Alexander Bibou
and Guiz brazaar we're working on quantum cryptography when they
(17:02):
realize that quantum mechanics pretty much throws a big French
into the whole simulation argument. So here's my conversation with
the main author of that paper, doctor Alexander Bibo. All right,
doctor Bibo, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The first thing I want to check is this is
you right, I'm talking to the real you, not a simulation.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
As far as I know.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Well, we're talking today about this question of whether we're
living in a simulation. This is a pretty wild idea,
because you know, I go through my everyday life and
feels like I'm in a real place. It feels like
I'm in actual reality. You wrote a paper arguing against
this idea. Yeah, now, please spend the next ten minutes
trying to convince me we are not in a simulation.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
The big thing that in Bostrom's paper and what people
have this argument discount is the fact that you don't
need to only simulate the brains of the people living
in the simulations, but you need to simulate their whole world.
For instance, this idea that you could build a bunch
of brains with just a small amount of matter optimize
according to all the laws of physics, the number of
(18:11):
brains that could simulate is really really high. That initially like,
it's very much in favor of their being more simulated beings. Okay,
but building all this world around these simulated beings will
require that same level of power, and physics can get
very complicated, especially quantum physics can be very complicated to simulate.
So it ends up canceling out, and it ends up
(18:31):
not being such an argument in favor of there being
so many more simulated beings. Mathematically speaking, okay, the first
argument against the idea that we're living in a simulation
is the fact that it's really hard to make a
simulation of reality. According to doctor Bibo, you not only.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Have to simulate a human brain, which is the most
complex arrangement of matter we know about, but you also
have to simulate the physical world around that brain, and
it's especially hard if you make your simulation accurate to
the level of quantum physics. So whereas before you might
say that it would be very easy for an advanced
alien or humans flization to simulate trillions of sentient beings.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
And therefore make it more likely that we are.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Simulated beings, doctor People argues, it's not that easy.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It's very hard computationally speaking, to simulate whole worlds, okay,
especially cold worlds in which there is quantum physics. Okay,
because quantum computations are inefficient.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Like if someone were to make a video game and
we're in that video game, most of their computer, most
of their PlayStation thirteen would have to be spent running
quantum physics on.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
It, exactly, exactly, especially if inside the video game they
don't know they're in a video game and they're starting
to be curious about their world and they're trying to
perform like quantum physics experiments, like these scientists are at
work trying to verify that quantum mechanics is being respected
as some of our quantum scientists are. It would require
all the computing power of their advanced PlayStation and the
game would slow down to a crawl. This is the argument.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
So that's one of the arguments against the idea that
we are living in a simulation. It's very hard to
simulate quantum physics. You either need a quantum computer, which
are really hard to make, or you end up spending
most of your computing power calculating all of the different
probabilities that happen all at once in quantum systems. And
(20:23):
if you want to know more about this, check out
our episode on quantum computers. Now some people have argued,
including doctor Bostram himself that a simulated reality doesn't need
to simulate quantum physics, at least not all the time.
They could use something called procedural generation. Here's how doctor
Bostrom describes it.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
In these simulations, you would need a simulation of the
environment to generate the experiences that these simulated brains have,
but you wouldn't have to simulate the environment in perfect detail.
You would only need to simulate the aspects of the
environment that the simulated brains person eve at a given
point in time. So it's not the case that every
single atom in the desk in front of you would
(21:06):
be simulated continuously, let alone the quarks and stuff. Right.
I think that that would add massive demands on how
much computing power it would take, and it would soon
become infeasible even with like really advanced technology. But all
that would be required is that the surface appearances of
your desk are simulated sufficiently that it looks to you
fully realistic.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
And then let's say some physicists in a lab like
took an electron microscope and looked at a piece of
your desk, right that they could see potentially individual molecules, right,
than atoms. So at that point more detail would have
to be filled in in the simulation, but only in
the particular piece that they were looking at, so it
would be sort of procedurally generated.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
This is what's done in a lot of video games today,
like Minecraft or the Legend of Zelda, where a character
is free to walk around a huge virtual environment. The
computer doesn't need to simulate the entire world, just the
parts that the character sees, and just at the level
that matters to them. So if a mountain is far away,
(22:07):
you don't need to simulate every atom or quantum particle
of that mountain. You can just simulate it as a
big block or even the table in front of you
to tap it or put your hand on it. You
don't actually have to simulate it at the atomic level.
This would make it easier to simulate a whole reality,
and therefore make it more likely we are in a simulation,
(22:30):
But as doctor Bibaut counter argues, it has its limits, and.
Speaker 3 (22:36):
The people who argue for this high probability that we
are in a simulation, we don't need such higher rate
of input in order for it to feel real. You know,
you can play a video game which is fully immersive
with not much better technology than what we have now.
You could have like a screen which shows you something
which to your eyes is indistinguishable for reality. This is true,
but in order for that world to be coherent and
for it to like show no inconsistencies in the laws
(22:58):
of physics everywhere, it has a very very high cost.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Like right now in our reality. In our world, there
are physicists running the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. They
have atomic microscopes looking down at Adams. If someone is
simulating our reality, they would also have to simulate like
every physicist poking around at the atomic level.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Yeah, exactly, all this stuff in a completely coherent way,
in a way that no one would find contradictions in
and all that stuff. Yeah, that would be crazy to do.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying maybe one
day we will do this, but we will not be
able to do it on such a scale that we're
able to drive the number of simulated consciousness higher than
what there is in reality as far as I can talk.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Okay, Now, the second argument against the idea we're in
a simulation is that while a futuristic civilization might be
interested in simulating reality. They may not be that interested.
It might not be that much fun for anyone.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
When you have advanced computer the second factor that remains
is how much of it do you spend on these
simulations versus on other things?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
What do you mean?
Speaker 3 (24:05):
What I mean is that even if you have these
advanced computers and someone somewhere like is running all that stuff,
you need to run other things too, presumably right, and
you're not just using your computers for simulating brains right now?
What proportion of all the computing power in the world
is used to simulate brains? A very small amount. Everything
else is used to show ads again whatever, for like blockchain,
(24:27):
or for for a bunch of other purposes. We use
computing power for everything else. What proportion of all the
computing power that you do have in your real civilization
do you use to simulate a world which is indistinguishable
from reality. So let's say even if your simulation was
perfectly efficient, then it only used one quantum bit in
the simulation, which is impossible. But let's say you could
(24:47):
you spend more computing power on other things, more computing
power on cryptography than on simulations, for instance. Okay, you
would still have fewer simulated people than real people.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
So if it was easy and everybody was trying to
play God in their home computers, then the number of
simulated realities is huge. Yeah, and we're very likely to
live in a simulation. But you're saying no, it's a
really hard and b from what we know over the
world around us, not everyone is playing PlayStation at the
same time.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
And sometimes even if we had a very advanced civilization,
you would not necessarily play games in which the other
characters are conscious. And see a world that looks like this,
you might still prefer to play like Super Mario two,
you know, which, like the Little Turtle guys are clearly
not conscious.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
The aliens prefer retro games. Maybe all right, that was
the blue pill. When we come back, we're going to
ask our two experts how we might settle this debate.
Could we ever tell if we are living in a simulation?
And then at the end, I'm going to offer you
a purple pill, which I have to warn you might
(25:53):
blow your mind, whether it's simulated or not.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
So stay with us. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
And we're back, all right, Whether you took the red
pill or the blue pill, or maybe both. You might
be wondering if we could ever tell that we are
living in a simulation, How can we know if we're
living in the matrix. I asked both our experts this question,
and this is what they said, Could we ever tell
(26:28):
if we were one of those simulated consciousness?
Speaker 2 (26:31):
So that would depend on the simulation. So if the
simulators wanted to reveal this curtly to do that, you
could imagine like a window popping up in front of
your visual field saying here, you're in a simulation. Click
here for more information. Right, that would be a pretty
conclusive proof. Short of that, I think there are indicators
that the closer we get to technological maturity, the less
(26:52):
likely the first alternative becomes. Right, Like, if we look
like we're almost there, then it doesn't seem the case
that almost all civilizations that our current level will go
extinct before reaching technogical maturity. I see, And if we
at that point remain interested in creating ancestors simulations ourselves,
just like we right now run a lot of computer
(27:13):
grames and three D virtual realities and scientific simulations for
all kinds of purposes. Right, if that remains the case
as we get really close to being able to do
this ourselves. That would really start to roll out the
first two alternatives, and it would then force us to
infer that we are almost certainly simulated ourselves.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Let's say we were looking for evidence that we are
not or that we are living in simulations. What are
some of the things we could be looking out for.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
One of the things I do mention in the paper
is that if you're looking for violations of these laws
of physics, they could be very subtle. They could just
be errors in quantum correlations. So some of the experiments
we perform to understand how quantum mechanics work, they could
have noise that we're not able to explain. And same
thing when we're doing quantum cryptography. In quantum cryptography, your
piece to p people at the end, they're exchanging information
(28:01):
on something which is a quantum channel. And if there
is noise in this experiment in this communication, usually you say, oh,
the noise is there because someone is puying on the information.
Someone is trying to intercept part of these photons to
get information out of them. If this was happening, if
you do see noise and no one can explain away,
this could be an indication, for instance, that we are
in a simulation and that these correlations in physics are
(28:24):
violated because there is either a bug in the simulation
or they're using part of this information to look into
what's happening in our world.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
I see, like, if we test the lots of physics
and we find errors or weird things happening, then that
might be a clue.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That we're in a simulation.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Yeah, I believe so.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
But do they have to be at the quantum level?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
This is probably where they would happen, because it's much
harder to get quantum computations correctly without noise than it
is that anything else to happen. You cannot observe it
without disturbing it. In that sense, if the laws of
physics are truly quantum, and we have good reason to
believe that they are, then even from outside the simulation,
trying to observe them in that way could disturb them
(29:02):
in a way which we could measure.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Okay, So to tell if we are in a simulation,
you can do one of two things. You can look
at the world around us and see how it affects
the philosophical argument. For example, if it looks like our
civilization is about to crash and burn, then maybe that's
common and there aren't any advanced civilizations out there. Or
if we find that playing video games or running realistic
(29:28):
simulations is not a high priority for us, then maybe
it's not for any civilizations out there either. The other
thing you can do to tell if we're in a
simulation is you can look for glitches in the matrix.
If you run quantum experiments and find that things don't
quite add up, then that may be a sign that
we are simulated. Or as doctor Bobo said, you could
(29:51):
try to break the simulation. You could overtax it, maybe
by doing a lot of quantum experiments or running your
own simulations within the simulation, although that could be dangerous.
So poking at the loss of physics is one way
to test whether we're in a box or not.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
There are other ways, which could be trying to make
our own simulation, so trying to keep acquiring technology and
increasing our computational power and trying to make our own
simulated worlds. If we use too much, I mean, we
could be slowing down their simulation and they could be
tempted to turn it off or to do something about it.
Which maybe is not so smart if we think we
(30:31):
are in a simulation.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
So yeah, if we are in a simulation, maybe we
don't want to do anything that might make whoever is
running the simulation stop because it may not matter. Here's
the last question I asked, doctor Buster. Do you think
there's a difference between a simulated reality and a real reality?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
Well, that depends that on the simulation. I think that
could be very close. If the simulators wanted to make
it as accurate as possible, I think that could make
it pretty accurate. And if ever there were like some
glitch or some anomaly, then they could sort of edit
the memories of whoever detected that or sort of patch
things up. You imagine these simulators as being super intolent.
One of the things that could do with our advanced
(31:13):
technology would be to make themselves smarter.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, I really appreciate your time here, and it's been
a real experience to talk with you, hopefully not a
simulated one.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
The experience is real now, the implementation of it is
more hidden in a shroud of uncertainty.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
I guess all right. The last thing I'm going to
do is offer you a purple pill. This is an
idea that might be even crazier than the idea that
we're all living in a simulation put on by some
alien civilization out there in space, an idea that came
up when I was talking to doctor Bubo about how
(31:49):
he got interested in the idea of a simulated universe.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
So basically I was working on seeing physics as a
potentially computation no thing, saying like, okay, like could physics
at its most base level be a computation?
Speaker 2 (32:06):
What do you mean physics being a computation?
Speaker 3 (32:09):
So saying that if you're trying to understand the laws
of physics, a good way to understand it is from
the perspective of what is the informational content of physics
and what we perceive as time evolution of systems. How
could this represent a type of computation? You would say
that at some point this would mean that on the
most microscopic level, space and time are discrete.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
And I think you're saying that maybe the laws of
physics are just a program.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Yeah, any physical system, because it's state changes with time,
and it's taking like an input state, doing something and
getting an output state at the end, it's performing a computation.
So in some sense, the laws of physics as a
whole could also do that.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Maybe, like the laws of physics were a program, but
they weren't running in a computer. They were just running
on the.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Universe exactly exactly. The universe is kind of like a
natural computer that just happens to be there.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
In other words, the real actual universe itself could be
a simulation, which means the answer to the question are
we living in a simulation could be yes, but it's
a simulation that is being run by no one. As
Neo famously said in The Matrix WHOA. Thanks for joining us,
(33:23):
see you next Wednesday. You've been listening to Science Stuff
production of iHeartRadio, written and produced by me or Hm,
candited by Rose Seguda, executive producer Jerry Rowland, and audio
engineer and mixer Kasey Pegram. And you can follow me
on social media to search for PhD comics and the
(33:44):
name of your favorite platform. Be sure to subscribe to
Sign Stuff on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you get your podcasts, and please tell your friends We'll
be back next Wednesday with another episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com