(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Simulation Theory (Part 1)

Could our universe be nothing more than a high-tech simulation, akin to a massive multiplayer video game? Join Chris and Steve as they unravel the enthralling concept of simulation theory, a notion that has permeated mainstream consciousness thanks to iconic films like "The Matrix" and "Tron." Through the lens of video game advancements and immersive technologies, we explore how these developments make the idea of a simulated reality increasingly plausible. Our journey starts with a reflection on how pop culture has shaped our understanding and moves into the profound implications for our perceptions and interactions with the world.

We navigate the intriguing intersections between simulation theory, quantum physics, and ancient philosophical ideas like Plato's cave allegory. What if our roles in this simulated universe mirror player characters and NPCs in video games? From the societal and psychological impacts of preferring digital lives over physical reality to the intellectual discourse propelling simulation theory into mainstream conversation, we leave no stone unturned. We'll also touch on how technologies like virtual and augmented reality might transform our daily experiences, blurring the lines between the virtual and the real even further.

Our discussion wouldn’t be complete without drawing parallels between religious beliefs and life as a simulated game. You’ll hear thought-provoking comparisons between spiritual practices and progressing through game levels, offering a fresh perspective on age-old concepts. Finally, we delve into the mysteries of quantum physics, including the observer effect and retrocausality, laying the groundwork for our next episode where we'll examine phenomena like the Mandela effect that intriguingly support simulation theory. Join us as we question the very nature of existence and explore these captivating ideas.

Contact Us:

Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit

Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve

Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve

Email: [e-mail]

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking to talk about

(00:31):
some more deep shit.
How's it going, steve?

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Pretty good, chris, how you doing.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Not too bad at all.
We are on a roll here puttingepisodes out lately, aren't we?
I'm very proud of us.
Yes, we have been doing prettywell keeping the consistency up.
So if you're listening to this,you're probably listening to
this in July, and we have beenputting out episodes every other
week.
Yes, generally twice a month ishow it works out.
Yes, we're aiming forconsistency and we're getting it

(00:57):
.
Yes, so far, so good.
So that'll be the general plan.
Going forward is we will beputting out an episode about
every other week and then youand I may fill in some gaps with
our own, with our ownindividual stuff, as you know
bonus episodes as it comes andgoes, right.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah, I'm excited.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
Yeah, so that's so.
Things are going well on therecording front.
Yes, yes, so today's topictoday we dig into a fun one.
Recording front yes yes.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
So today's topic today we dig into a fun one,
don't we?
Yes, there's a lot to talkabout with the simulation theory
, and if you don't know what itis, Chris, why don't you tell us
a little bit about it?

Speaker 1 (01:40):
So the simulation theory is the idea that we are
in a simulated universe, almostlike a multiplayer video game,
online video game kind of idea,and that the world around us is,
is being presented to us butwe're almost like in an avatar,
kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
Right, right, and there's kind of different
versions of what it could be, Iguess.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
Right, different pop culture references, do you mean?

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Right and I?
And Do you mean Right and I andyou know?
I mean maybe not everyone, butsome people are familiar with
the matrix.
That might be one of the morepopular ones to think about.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
I think that's the one where the idea of simulation
theory really entered thepublic consciousness.
I think before that peopledidn't.
Most people didn't even thinkof that, which is why the matrix
was such a mind-blowing movieat the time Because you didn't
see that like, wow, that's aneat twist.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Right, right, and I think part of the reason why
it's so popular and it's so Idon't know it resonates with
people.
How's that?
It resonates, I think, becausethere's really no way of knowing
if it's real or not.
You know, when we sat talkingabout some of these versions of

(02:55):
the theory and different aspectsof it, how do you even know?

Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, that's true.
Well, it's interesting toobecause, like 30 years ago, you
wouldn't have been able to talkabout this because our framework
actually probably longer thanthat when.
I think 30 years ago.
I still think we're talkingabout like the 80s, 70s.
Yeah right, that's not trueanymore.
You know Pac-Man, pong, youknow it slowly evolved.

(03:24):
The thought of us being in avideo game wouldn't even enter
our mind because video gameswere so primitive.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
But even now, with our technology, they've become
so advanced that just theconcept that that's what we
could be looking at here makesmore and more sense from a
technological standpoint,because our own video games are
becoming that realistic, rightright and um, when you started
talking about going back a ways,I thought one of the first um
pop culture media references Iremember as a kid was Tron right

(04:02):
, oh, yes, yeah, and back then Ithink that might have come out
in 82, 83, tron Video games atthat point really weren't like
they, obviously weren't likethey are now right, and in that
movie they entered in knowing itwas a game and they kind of
played the game knowing right.
So it was a little differentthan the simulation theory that

(04:26):
you kind of don't know what'shappening to you, and I think
that, like you said, thatbecomes something that people
can contemplate more now becauseyou look at the video games.
Now sometimes it's not so easyto tell.
Sometimes I'll watch, becauseI'll actually have trailers for
video games on commercials,let's say, and I'll at the

(04:48):
beginning of one once in a whilesay, oh, what's this movie?
And then I realize it's a videogame.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Right, and everything you're looking at is CGI and
that, because we're so used toseeing CGI in movies, right,
that that sort of that same look, yeah, video games and movies
and actually the production ofvideo games now is like almost
like a movie, like the, theamount of production that they
put into it, where they actuallyhire actors to voice, the roles

(05:14):
and, uh, you know, flesh outeverything.
It's.
It's technologically, we'rethere.
I mean especially virtualreality.
That's almost like the lastlinchpin of getting us to that
point of being totally immersedin a game.
Right Before that you're stillcognizant that you're in a game,

(05:36):
like even the multiplayer games.
We know because we're lookingat a screen.
And if you're looking at ascreen, then you know where you
are.
It's the VR aspect of it whensuddenly, what is the screen?
There is no screen, there is nospoon.
It's that the screen is yourfield of vision and that's where
it's all going to, kind of.

(05:56):
They're already talking aboutwhether or not this metaverse,
whether that concept notnecessarily the Facebook one,
but that concept, notnecessarily the, the um uh,
facebook one, but that conceptof a metaverse, but whether
people will retreat into it,whether, like the, with the,
digital life will be moreenticing than reality and will,

(06:20):
certain, will people kind ofretreat into that world and not,
you know, not interact withreality.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Oh right, yeah, I mean, if you think about the way
video games were 30, 40 yearsago and the way they are now and
how quickly that's happened, Imean, you know, to a person, 30
or 40 years is a long timebecause it's, you know, maybe
half or a third of your life,but in the grand scheme of the

(06:50):
world it's really nothing.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
Oh right, our technological advancement has
been like off the charts and thetotal time frame for that is
such a small percentage, likealmost like.
I think I heard it, somebody,somebody's, I don't even
remember where I heard this butbasically, like if the history
of the entire world were onecontinuous book, then, like

(07:13):
everything that we'veexperienced in our life with the
, you know from you go back tolike, say, the 60s and sort of
like the, that era of the moon,moon launches and things like
that, and up till now would belike the last paragraph of that
book.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, like that that it's just such a small time
frame in the big scheme ofthings right, right, and I do
appreciate, um, considering you,we like talking about
conspiracy theories, that you socalled it the moon launch, not
the landing, which opens us upto maybe talk about that at some
point.
Yeah, definitely, that's a fun.
That's a fun one.
Maybe talk about that at somepoint.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Yeah, definitely that's a fun one to talk about,
just because it's so puzzling insome cases.
But no, I meant just where weare from that whole thing.
I didn't just mean all ourspace launches.
So that was a way of saying it.
But people have gotten suckedinto video games.
Even before VR, Like World ofWarcraft, there were all sorts

(08:07):
of stories for a while.
You know, those who aren'tfamiliar I think most listening
are probably at least familiarhere, have heard of World of
Warcraft.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
I've heard of it.
I've never played it.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
It's basically just a multiplayer online game where
you log on and you're runningaround with your little
character and you know you'redoing stuff, okay.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Like a version of Dungeons and Dragons online.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
Yes, any of those games where you're at home on
your screen and somebody else isat home on their screen and
you're interacting together inthis shared virtual space.
And there's different ones thathave different genres.
World of Warcraft is veryfantasy, but that's not it.
There are space ones too.
There's even ones that aren'tspectacular, isn't it?
there was something calledsecond life, where it was just a
video game of life, like peoplewould log in and create a

(08:53):
character that was just in theregular world we're in now the
regular world and they would,you know, get go to, go to
quote-unquote school and get ajob and have a family and have a
home and, like people, wouldjust kind of like, live this
virtual life.
And again, people would getsucked into it and literally
spend most of their time doingit and they were aware it was

(09:17):
fake, you know.
So now take it to the pointwhere if, if people don't
realize it's fake or it's easierto forget that it's fake, Well,
how's this right?

Speaker 2 (09:26):
The characters in the video game they don't know
they're fake.
That's the whole point.
I think of that version of thesimulation theory, right?
Yes, those characters I knowit's kind of crazy to talk about
, right?
Because you know we don'treally there's no reason to
believe those characters in thatgame have their own conscience

(09:47):
right there's no reason tobelieve that and there's nothing
that says that.
But that's that's, I guess, thebeginning of how that version of
the simulation theory starts,because that's basically saying
we're those people, right?
Right, I guess.
No, that's one thing.
Some versions in some versions.
It depends whether you'retalking about a version where
simulation theory we're allplugged into a people, right,
right, I guess.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
No, that's one thing.
Some versions in some versions.
It depends whether you'retalking about a version where
simulation theory we're allplugged into a simulation that
we're all going through togetherand that while we're in it we
don't realize we're in it, butwhen we exit it, pass away, then
we exit the simulation and it'sonly then we realize that it
was a simulation and then wedebrief on how it went and then

(10:25):
go back into it.
It's kind of that idea thatwe're all doing that.
Now.
The other flip version of thatis that's true of some of us.
Oh, but there are some of us whoare just here that aren't real
wait a minute that are npcs,that that concept of a player
character and a non-playercharacter, have you heard?
I don't know what you mean.
So in video games that's a veryoh okay, so there's somebody

(10:49):
that's run by this computerprogram itself.
Yes, okay, what?
You'd interact with them in thevideo game and they would seem
to be real, but their existenceis really there for your benefit
.
The shopkeepers, let's just sayin a fantasy like World of
Warcraft, all the people who runthe shops.
They're not real people,they're NPCs, non-player

(11:11):
characters, and you interactwith them.
And in some iterations of videogames these non-player
characters can be prettyadvanced.
They can be very lifelike, butthey are, at their core, fake.
Actually, another great filmthat kind of references this
idea is Free Guy, which is aRyan Reynolds.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
I haven't seen that.
Look, I like him, but I haven'tseen it.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
That is a good movie.
It's that idea, Actually, thatone is kind of using a version
of Grand Theft Auto, you know,which is another multiplayer
game which is all about runningaround and shooting things up
and all sorts of crime spreesand stuff like that, and that
that movie handles it very, in avery entertaining way of the
idea of a character in that game, Like you said, like an NPC

(11:57):
realizing that that they're in afake reality.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
It's, it's, very, it's, it's a it's a.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
I don't want to give too much away.
It's a great movie, though it'sanother way of handling that
whole situation.

Speaker 2 (12:08):
Interesting, interesting, and the way you had
just described, where we don'trealize it's a simulation until
we're out of it, right that's.
You know, that's a lot in evenwritings from before Christ.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
And it's crazy to think about.
I came across that.
Did you come across that withPlato?
Yes, that's really what.
That's the whole thing, thecave thing.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
Right.
It's that twin track of ourtechnology is now getting to the
point where we can envisionsuch a thing, whereas before we
couldn't even envision what thatwould be like because we had no
frame of reference.
Go back to Victorian times andtry to explain this concept.
You couldn't use video games,obviously, as a way of

(12:58):
describing it, so there'snothing really to grapple on
with.
So now that we're at atechnological level where we
understand that concept,everyone listening kind of gets
that concept, even if they don'tplay those games, even if
they've never even been exposedto those games.
They've you've probably outthere been exposed to the
concept of them and you canunderstand that.

(13:18):
Or you log on to this game andyou play with other people who
are elsewhere.
Call of duty is another one.
You know there's tons of themnow, like a lot of them are just
, you know, multiplayer games.
Uh, what's the one?
Um?
Fortnight is another kind ofsimilar thing where it's a
shared reality.
But what's interesting aboutthat is it?

(13:41):
It's the appearance of a sharedreality, but it's really not,
because each person's frame,what they're seeing, isn't in a
location, it's on their screenand everybody's reality is being
generated on their individualscreen.

(14:01):
It just seems like we'resharing a space because on my
screen I look over and I see you.
On your screen you look overand see me, and we both could
look to our one of us to ourright, another one to our left
and see something which we bothsee and the same with any
direction we turn.
So there's the illusion thatwe're sharing a space, but in

(14:24):
computer, technical terms we'renot.
It's our.
Our field of vision is beingrendered on our individual
machine, right, so like conceptslike that.
But they start to line up withlike quantum physics kind of
principles and it becomes aneasier way to describe what's
happening with that.

(14:45):
Do you know?

Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah, no, absolutely.
What do you think is thedriving factor in why this is
becoming a topic that more theresearch I did, this is
something a lot of people aretalking about.
Do you think it's because thevideo games are getting so much
better?
Do you think it's because ofpeople that are kind of looked

(15:12):
at as intellectuals are talkingabout it?
What do you think is acombination of all of it?

Speaker 1 (15:17):
Probably a combination and it starts to
explain.
What I find fascinating is thatwhen you start looking at
simulation theory, all thedifferent aspects of it and how
it starts to explain things, orat least gives a framework to
possibly explain things thatpreviously were hard to explain,
like a lot of the quantumphysics principles, deeper and

(15:40):
deeper in things, what they'refinding is more and more blank
space, more and more emptiness,more and more the concept of
everything that we look at,everything that we interact with
exists is like data Our sensesare taking in and kind of making
it into reality.
So, like I pick up this pen,this pen is physically here.

(16:03):
Both you and I are looking atit, but like quantum physics,
like as they dig deeper anddeeper, there is no pen.
It's just most of what this isis blank space.
It's very little, it's weird,it's almost like everything
comes down to information, rightWaves that our senses are
taking in and kind of convertingto the physical world Right,

(16:27):
which makes no sense when youhear it, like earlier on.
But then if you kind of putthat to a computer game, then
you go oh, it makes sense.
It's kind of similar to, youknow, when we're in World of
Warcraft and I take my sword andI hand it to you and I give it
to you.
Your character now has thesword that I had.
It would seem that I gave you aphysical object and you now

(16:50):
have that physical object.
But you and I both know,because we're aware that we're
in a video game, that thatobject is not real, it's just
code.
But in the context of the gamethat item is real.
So it's understandable to usnow how that can possibly be.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
And I wonder how we as humans would change or will
change.
How's this?
Because eventually you hear therumors about Apple or maybe
other providers with.
Have you heard about thecontacts?

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Oh, yeah, that they is it real?

Speaker 2 (17:30):
I don't know, but they talk about this as
something that might be comingin the future, where you're
looking at the computer game oryou're looking up information
right on context, right.
So, uh, it sounds great to lookup quick information, I guess.
But if you're playing a videogame, right, um, and all you can

(17:56):
see everywhere you look is thegame, that's total, I guess.
Total, you're getting intototal immersion.
Uh, I don't know about whatyou're touching with your hands,
but let's say I don't knowabout the connection between
what you're seeing and howyou're reacting to it, because I
think there is a lot ofevidence to say that if you

(18:17):
think it's happening, then yourbody to your body, it's the same
as it actually happening.
You'll react, people will sweat, things will happen, even
though it's not really happening, because your perception says
it is.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
And perception is reality.
Right, If you perceivesomething, then it is for all
intents and purposes Well, whatyou're talking about.
There is the difference betweenvirtual reality and then that
is augmented reality.
So, virtual reality is that ideaof you're totally immersed and
then that is augmented reality.
So virtual reality is that ideaof you're totally immersed,
You're in the game.
Augmented reality is where it'slike an overlay of fake on top

(18:52):
of the real.
And when they talk about thosegoggles or contact, I mean
eventually that you'll be ableto see and in your frame of
vision data can come up.
You're seeing that data butobviously everyone around you
you, they don't see it becausethat's only in your reality.
So it's augmenting regularreality with this additional
information.
And, yeah, you can already seepeople.
I actually had my firstencounter seeing somebody

(19:14):
sitting on a plane with thosethe apple um goggles where I
can't remember what they'recalled the new vr goggles oh,
you mean the ones you that kindof just cover your whole eye oh
yeah like, just like a biggoggle set that covers the whole
.
Yeah, and they're just there andthey're, like you know,
touching their hand in the skyand basically interacting with
screens that only they can see.
And you know, I hear aboutpeople now.

(19:35):
You know I've heard aboutpeople doing that and I saw that
on a plane and, like this Ithink it was this guy had these
on the whole plane.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
So if you, just say to yourself quickly, so you can
put it this way If everyone onthat plane was had the headset
on and everyone on that planewas in the same game, or
whatever is happening, rightthat's reality.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
That's right your senses.
If that's all that you see,that's your reality.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
And what do you do if ?
What happens if we get to apoint where that's what you do
for 12 hours a day, or maybe 24hours a day, I don't know, it's
not that hard to say.
If we're doing that for a longperiod of time, then that's
reality, right.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
Right.
You could see a world too where, as the what I'm going to quote
real world gets less enjoyablein various ways.
Let's just say you know, thingsdon't go great, but there's
this outlet that's suddenlyavailable to people where they
can like put on this, you know,goggles or headset or whatever,

(20:40):
and escape to a virtual placewhere that's better.
You could easily see a worldwhere people do that.
Like I said, you already seethat and we're not even like
World of Warcraft is good, butit's certainly not like totally
immersive, and you already seethat.
I mean, there have beenhorrible stories where people
like neglect their childrenbecause they're both addicted to

(21:01):
parents, you know, are playingthe World of Warcraft, and I
think there was some case wherea child actually passed away
because the parents yeah, and Imean this was somewhere I can't
remember where some othercountry, but it was basically
the parents were so addicted toand I think it was World of
Warcraft that they literallycould not tear themselves away
from it.
Yeah, and it soundsincomprehensible to us, but I

(21:24):
mean, we know these thingshappen out there, all sorts of
things you know, like that.
So it's very easy to believethat if virtual reality, if that
world got too good and theoutside world wasn't great, that
people would escape into it.
And then, of course, oh,another movie I think that
actually handles that in someways, like Ready Player One.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
Yes, I saw that.
Right.
So it's another idea of mostpeople are spending Exactly
because the reality kind ofstunk, yeah, right, and people
would escape, right.
But that world actually hadsome bearing.
It was kind of interesting,right?

Speaker 1 (22:00):
No, but you can see how, to a smaller degree, that's
already kind of happened, withpeople being like lost in social
media forever.
I mean, it's not the same thing, but Well, it's not that
different.
It's not that different, right,because it's a virtual world
that doesn't really exist.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Right, we try to say social media is a reflection of
the real world.
It kind of isn't.
It's a reflection.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
I think of the worst parts.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
Right or or the best parts.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
Some people think it's the best parts it does.
It's right.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
But it's Two pronged, it's very, it's At its best,
it's augmented reality, right?
Because I mean, you know, weall know, once in a while I'll
put, I'll put a Thing out, justfor laughs, you know Whatever as

(22:46):
much.
But uh, and it says somethinglike around halloween time.
It says for halloween we allshould dress up as the people we
pretend to be on social media.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
You know, because you know.
You know, I always say that onsocial media.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
You know if, if I was to believe everything on social
media, I would believe nobodyever has a problem in their life
, right?
Oh, except for some people whoyou believe all they talk about,
who?

Speaker 1 (23:03):
just have nothing but problems.
But yeah, it's very true,everybody's kid is an angel.
It's a fake version.
It's the version, the socialmedia version of most people is
the version of them that theywould like to be.
Right, so that, yes, socialmedia is sort of like the, the

(23:29):
fake fish.
Again, you can kind of see theseeds of it already, that the,
when the technology is there,when the technology is that good
, when you can put on like a youknow headset or goggles and
totally your senses, and youdon't even know, like you're not
even sure we're real reality.
I mean, because what are the uh, what are some of the stumbling
blocks right now for that sortof thing?
Right, you put on that headset,great, you see the reality,

(23:49):
right.
But if you try to move too much, I don't know if you've seen
any of those videos with peopletrying VR out for the first time
.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
No, oh, they fall down.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
They'll run forward into a wall or they'll swing and
knock the TV over or somethinglike that.
Because the the in the virtualworld is so at odds with the
reality actual reality that ifyou make moves like you would in
the virtual world, in this wideopen space, but in the real
world you're knocking over, youknow, a vase or something like

(24:17):
that right and you're talkingabout somebody that's been doing
that game for maybe half anhour or an hour I mean you can
get lost.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
What happens to you if you're doing that for a week.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
Right, you can literally lose your sense of
reality and not no.
Now the next, you know, nextstage of it and I know this has
already been done is some ofthese places where the VR and
they set it up so you can do it.
You're on a multi-directionaltreadmill so you can move in any
direction, but you're actuallystaying, staying put.
You know, you could imagine asituation where you could be in

(24:50):
a virtual thing but you're insuch a little bubble that
nothing you do in the virtualworld, nothing you do in the
virtual world is, you know,detrimental to the real world.
Whatever that is because you'rekind of sequestered Right.
You're in a thing where youcan't damage anything.
So that's even more adds to theillusion.

(25:11):
The longer you're in that you'dlose track of it completely,
because now there's not evenknocking over something in the
real world to bring you backRight.
It's almost like there's noreason to come back.

Speaker 2 (25:23):
Right but Right.
There's no reason to come back.
Right but Right, and that'skind of like the storyline of
the Matrix, true, right.
I mean, those people were kindof like held, I don't know, yeah
, were they prisoners or I don'tknow exactly.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
Yeah, they were being harnessed for energy.
That's what it was Right, and alittle twist of us being used
as batteries for the machineswhich doesn't really make a lot
of sense when you really diginto it, but in the framework of
the movie, fine, I'll accept it.
Right, I'll take it.

Speaker 2 (25:59):
Yeah, and there's a lot of different origins of
where this came from, orapplications.
There's a religious implication, there's a whole bunch of
different, you know, things thatare happening with the
simulation theory.
When I was doing more and morelookup of it, which, wow it it's
, it branches off so many ways.

(26:20):
And when I I'll be honest, whenI first had, when someone first
brought this up to me, I waslike what is this, what kind of
baloney is this?
And after going through it, Isaid, hmm, I'm not somebody that
says, oh yeah, this issomething that's happening.
I'm sure of it because I don'tthink nobody is, but there's

(26:42):
enough there.
That is fuel for some prettyinteresting conversations.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
Yeah Well, you wouldn't know it until you
exited it.
Right, and that's the wholeidea of it is.
You wouldn't know that you'rein a virtual simulation If the
simulation is uninterrupted.
You know, like you know, youput on a pair of VR goggles and,
you know, you stumble around alittle bit and then you take
them off.
It's very easy to say, okay,this is fake because you're

(27:09):
going back and forth between itand the real world.
But once you're in it for awhile, the only way you would
ever really know that you werein a simulation was when you
exited it and went, oh okay,that was all fake was when you
exited it and went, oh okay,that was all fake, and you're
right, religious.
You know the simulation theoryis presented like a

(27:31):
technological thing, right?
Hey, we're all in this virtualworld together.
Okay, sounds ridiculous, youknow, technological, but, like
you said, religions have thesame thing.

Speaker 2 (27:42):
The world is an illusion, like most of the major
religions kind of come down tothat precept of, like, the
physical world is an illusion,it's a, it's a well, and I think
that, well, there's a lot ofreligions that say that.
I mean, there's some that don'tright, but there's a lot of
religions that say that, um,some of the religions that

(28:04):
basically say, hey, there's justone, you know, because there's
been religions through thehistory of time, right, a lot of
the major religions now seem tobe the ones where it's pretty
much one God that's all powerful.
If you really think about it,there's one God, all powerful,
knows everything.
Right, but it's really whatmost major religions say.

(28:28):
I guess, I guess from Buddhismthat's the only one that doesn't
really say that, right, butthey still have to say there's a
God, but that God doesn'treally have power over
everything.
Right, but you think about it,how is that?
A lot very different fromsomebody that may have come up
with a computer program.
I mean, I'm not trying to makeeverybody angry, angry, but if

(28:54):
you get down to the basics of it, that's, there's one person.
Let's say you go with thechristian religion, right, um,
muslims the same, a lot of themthe same.
There's one entity, I'm notgoing to say a person, one
entity that's decided one daythat there's going to be a
universe.

Speaker 1 (29:07):
It's going to be a thing and you're going to get to
be in that thing.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
Before that I didn't really want a universe, but I
was just chilling here doingwhat I don't know.
Right, I made a universe andyou know it's for you guys.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
Well, in all of religions kind of have that idea
of when you leave the game oflife.
You're kind of let's just saykind of the score is tabulated
and you're in a differentreality, right?
But like, your score in thegame is now tabulated, you sort
of you know, and depending onyour score in religion, you get

(29:41):
to go, you get one of a handfulof prizes.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
Pretty much.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
yes, you score really well, you get this particular
prize.
If you score poorly, well, thenyou get this that you know.
The other one, the fiery one,but it's like that same concept
it's.
If you think of it.
What is that saying?
It's like you're in a fakereality where, when you come out
of that reality, what you didin that reality is kind of shown

(30:07):
to you and said okay, this iswhat you did.
And the only way that would workis for you not to be cognizant
of the game, because if you were, you'd act differently.
Right, like, if you entered amultiplayer game and you knew
you were going to be dinged fora certain action in the game,
then you'd do everything youcould to avoid that action.

(30:28):
And if other actions in thegame were preferred, more points
, then you'd try to make thoseactions.
So it would influence yourbehavior.
So, in order for the experimentto be sound, you can't know
that you're in the simulation,which is kind of what religions
say.
Is that like, when you comehere, you're you.

(30:51):
When you leave here, it's likethen you get to look back and go
oh okay, I did this, that andthe other.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
Thing but they do kind of give you a guidepost.
If that you know, if you followalong with that, the religions
kind of tell you hey, these arethe things supposed to be right.
This is what you're supposed todo the manual, the manual, kind
of a manual the manual for thegame.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Right, it's.
It's that it's always beenthere.
It's that, like I said, wedidn't have video games as a
reference point up until veryrecently, and certainly not
video games that could beimmersive.
Right, like that concept.
You go back some number ofyears ago, that concept, you
know you go back early computing.
It was theorized and dreamedabout, I mean, even in the, you

(31:32):
know, early 80s.
I can remember them talkingabout, you know, the idea of
virtual reality.
So we, we understood that.
But you go back to like the1800s and you know, maybe you
could explain basic computing,maybe, but you certainly
couldn't easily get across theidea of like vr goggles right,
but how could you get acrossthat whole notion doing your

(31:56):
thing and then you'll be judgedwhen you leave?
You know it's that it's thesame concepts, it's just the
language of spirituality andreligion as opposed to the
language of technology.
So it's really fascinating as,like you said, as as I looked
into this too, my first thoughtupon hearing it was like oh that
that's kind of stupid.
That can't be true.
But then the more you look intoit, you go huh, I don't know

(32:17):
that.
I'm convinced it is true, but Icould certainly see a world
where it was.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
Right and you look at the buddhist religion, they
pretty much say there's a pathto enlightenment, right, and um
it's to.
You know they have their ownthoughts on what it's supposed
to be, um, but a lot of it ispretty much, you know, being
good to other people, um, if youachieve that right, which is

(32:45):
very difficult, I guess, but ifyou achieve it, then you go to
nirvana, right, which is, youknow, their version of heaven,
or however you want to phrase it, right.
If you don't achieve it, youhead back in right for another
go and, depending on how wellyou did the, the, the most
recent uh iteration of you, Iguess, according to the but

(33:07):
that's how the religion is thatthat iteration, how well you did
um, uh, in terms of getting toenlightenment, um, dictates
where you start, or you know thekind of life you have on the
next next round, right, right.
so you can kind of say, oh, I'mbuilding my way up or I keep

(33:28):
screwing up or whatever.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
Right, like a video game, like like in a video game.
You start a character and youplay the video game and if you
beat the game in a certain way,then the next time you play the
game you can unlock certainthings.
Video games have this now.
They call it.
Oh, there's a term they use forit.
I can't remember what the termthey use for it, but basically
it's the idea that if you finishthe game this is like in a lot

(33:51):
of the single player games,where you start the game and you
play through, and when youfinish the game, have completed
the game, you can play it again,make different choices, but
because you finished the game,you start off with a little
extra boost, maybe in-gamecurrency, extra currency or
in-game skills and abilities.

(34:12):
So it's that same concept oflike oh, you did well on this
run-through, so you got to do itagain.
You got to do anotherrun-through.
But because you did well onyour last run-through, here are
some additional bonuses for you.
Consequently, you could havehey, you didn't do great on that
last run-through, so you get toplay again.
We're going to penalize youthis time by giving you this,

(34:33):
that or the other thing.
So the concepts are there, andwhen you translate them into
video game terms, it just atleast for me, it really makes
sense.
Was it Arthur C Clarke that saidany advanced form of technology
is going to beindistinguishable from magic?
Was it him who said that?
I think it was.
I think that was a quote fromhim.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
I don't know if it was him that said that, but I
know about that.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
So because you think about it when technology is so
good, right, and you can'tdecipher from that, from reality
, then you have nothing toexplain it, but magic, like if
you, if you went back to likeyou know, victorian times and
somebody was like flying throughthe air on a jet pack, I guess,

(35:17):
if you understood technology,if you understood the potential
for technology, so maybe 1800sis a wrong, wrong way, because
at least the potential was there.
But go back even further.
Let's go back to like, go backto BC or like early AD, like a
thousand years ago or whatever.
You showed up on a backpack,technology not even being a

(35:37):
concept, they would have no wayto jetpack flying around.
They'd have no other way toexplain it, but by magic it
could just be.
What we're in is like anadvanced.
Now the question would be well,okay, if we're in a simulated
reality.
One is why, what's the purposeof it?
Um, who created?

(35:58):
Obviously is the next questionUm, is there just one, you know,
I mean, is it one reality Cause, if you think about it, let's
take another video game example,right, world of Warcraft.
There are millions of people whoplay World of Warcraft.
When they're all logged on,they're not all together.
Not all those millions ofpeople are playing on the same

(36:20):
server.
There's different servers.
The servers can hold this manypeople, this many players, but
there's millions of people whoplay it.
So there's lots of differentservers and you can play a game
on one and then for your nextrun through it could possibly be
on another server.
If you take into that, thingsthat happen in that game affect

(36:44):
the game world, because that'sthe next part of video games.
Video games have always beenrather static.
The world was the world andnothing you did as a player had
any long-term effects of theworld.
The most video games right, youlog out, you log back in, the
game is fresh again.
Right, but they're starting toadd that into video games is
these shared events wheresomething happens in the video

(37:06):
game that has a permanent changeof the world.
Like in World of Warcraft,there have been several in-game
events that actually changed thelandscape of that world forever
in some way.
So if you had that, but thenyou move to another server where
that didn't happen or thosethings didn't play out, it kind
of explains, like it.
It makes sense from thatpurpose of like is it just a

(37:29):
bunch of different simulatedrealities and and every time you
come back as something else,are you in the same world that
you were?
the first time right, becausethere could be, they could be
limitless right, it could be somany.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
And the way you described the questions about
simulation theory are not thatdifferent from the questions
people have been askingthemselves since the beginning
of time about why we're here,why does the universe exist.
People have been asking thesame questions about the

(38:02):
physical world we live in aspeople are now asking about why
would the simulation?
If there's a simulation, whywould it exist?
Well, why does anything exist?
Nobody really knows the answerto any of that.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
But there has to be a purpose, and I think that I
mean there has to be a reason Ithink we've been.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
humans have been searching for that since the
beginning of time, since theycould start contemplating those
things.

Speaker 1 (38:30):
And it's funny because I think we used to, we
as a species, just contemplateit more.
I feel like ancientcivilizations like the Egyptians
were obsessed with the idea ofwhat, the afterlife, what
happens, like the purpose ofthings, like that was a focus,
like a big focus, whereas Ithink in today's world, being
very materialistic, yes, there'sa spiritual component to us,

(38:53):
but it's limited.
I mean, let's face it, for themajority of people out there,
the spiritual component islimited to that one day a week
when they possibly go to somehouse of worship.

Speaker 2 (39:04):
Like for a lot of people, it's not some.
This is not something thatgenerally in my day-to-day life
anyone talks to me about.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
Yes, that's not something.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
And it's kind of funny because I think maybe if
you went back a hundred years,it is something people talked
about.
Yeah, actually, you know, ifyou go back to the 1920s it
probably I don't know, not allthe time but it probably came up
more than it does now.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
Well, and I think a big part of that is that there
was less.
There were less distractionsback then and more time for
pondering.
But you know, back to some ofthe scientific, just the quantum
physics, because I find that Iam not in any way, shape or form
any kind of expert or evennovice at quantum physics.

(39:49):
Quite frankly, most of it is wayover my head, but the parts
that I understand are sofascinating.
The idea of the Schrodinger'scat.
You know that experiment.
Have you heard that one?
That's the… Maybe I have, ifyou explain it.
It's the way they explain theidea in quantum physics that

(40:09):
things change depending on theobserver.
It's such a strange notion.
But the Schrodinger's catbasically is there's a cat in a
box and the box has some poisonthat's going to hausseize a
50-50 chance of killing the cat,okay, poison that's going to
haas as a 50 50 chance ofkilling the cat, okay.
And so when you, before you,open that box, there's a

(40:31):
possibility that that cat isdead and there's a possibility
that that cat is alive.
I've heard this before, but youdon't know until you open it.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
You don't know you find you, but furthermore, it's
not real until you open it is.
Is that kind of?

Speaker 1 (40:44):
It is the choice is not made until it is observed.
Until it is observed, it's in astate of probability, like a
probability wave, where eitherpossibility is.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
Because people have I as well.
I am a person uh have a hardtime wrapping their heads around
that.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
So it's almost saying well, it's exactly saying that
in another application what'sbehind the door of your office
or your bedroom isn't real untilyou observe it, right basically
it's very similar to the, theold saying that I used to hear
about if a tree falls in theforest and no one's around to
hear it, does it make a noise?

(41:30):
Right, and you know, back whenthat question.
Now in early school days, whenI'd hit that question, it would
just be like, well, yeah,obviously that's the stupid,
that's a stupid, stupid question.
But now, quantum physics iskind of like shining.
Does it make a noise If no oneis there to observe it?
Does it even happen?

(41:50):
Because in a video game, let'ssay in a video game, in the
programming of this video game,you pass by a forest.
Later on you come back to thatforest and that forest has been
cut down.
In the context of the videogame, that forest didn't get cut
down.
When you saw it the first time,it was up.

(42:11):
When you saw it the second time, the trees were leveled.
There was no point in the videogame where those trees went
physically, unless a playercharacter were in the vicinity.
But if no player character werethere to witness the event but
the event was scheduled tohappen at that certain time then
all the players, when they cameback to that forest, would find

(42:32):
all the trees down.
But there was never a pointwhere they went down.
They went from a state of beingup to being knocked down, right
, you know?

Speaker 2 (42:43):
our linear minds right, which I again, I am a
person.
I have a linear mind, we all doso.
I, you know.
Honestly, I can't get my headaround it when someone says that
right, because you say, well,something had to have happened
for that to happen, and you knowwhat I'm going to do and this
is what we all do and I don't.

(43:04):
You know, sometimes you don'tthink about it, but we all do it
.
When you notice something likethat, on a large or small scale,
your brain tells you what hadto have happened, fills in the
gap.
It fills the gap and we do itall the time.
Most of the time we don't knowit.
That's how we understand theworld.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Right, there's so much information for our brains
to process that it cannotprocess it all at once.
It's too much, it's overload.
So one of the brilliant thingsthat our brain does is it almost
like, distills the world aroundus down to what we need to
observe, right, because we can'thandle it all.

(43:43):
You know another concept ofquantum physics, that is, that
retro causality, which I find tobe such a fascinating.
All right.
So taking the principle thatsomething doesn't happen until
it's observed, okay, like, takethat further, all right, that
something doesn't happen untilit's observed.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
Okay, like take that further, all right.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
And I heard this on that episode of Joe Rogan with
the.
What's his name?
Rizwan Virk.
I find him fascinating.
Rizwan Virk, I find himfascinating, but he talked about
it.
Basically, it's the idea ofretrocausality, so things that
happen in the future caninfluence the past.

(44:20):
So, because of quantum physics,because of picture light
traveling through space, rightand 10, let's just say, a
million, a million light yearsfrom here, right, this light is
traveling 10 million light yearsaway, so it takes 10 million
years to get to us right?
Yes, but 1,000 years out, 1,000light years out, there's an
object that the light has toeither go left or go right.

(44:40):
It's got to go one way to getaround it.
It can't go both, it can't gothrough it, so it has to go one
direction, right.
Then, a thousand years later,the light reaches us.
We observe that light.
The choice of whether it wentleft or right, from our
perspective, would have had tohave happened a thousand years
ago when that light hit thatpoint.

(45:02):
Right.
But quantum physics is showingus that that decision isn't made
until we observe it.
Yes, because if nobody wasthere to observe that light,
going left or right, it doesn'tmatter.
It's only when we observe itthat it becomes relevant.
And again, I use this as avideo game referencing what is

(45:24):
the um, the application of that?
it's.
You know, that's a good, that'sa good question.
The application of that it's aprinciple.
I mean so much.
This quantum physics is just somind-blowing that, like you
said, it doesn't sound like it'dbe, and obviously in the
schrodinger's cat there is noreal cat.
It's just a concept of a way ofunderstanding the principle

(45:45):
well, there's the, there's the,um, there is this.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
This blew my mind, right, the, the one with the
electrons.
That blew my mind, because thisis what we're talking about,
this, this theoretical cat,right?
So we're talking theories, andso if you're listening to this,
you say well, what is that?
It's just some theory.
We all know.

(46:11):
You know, the cat is eitheralive or dead, because when you
open it and it's alive or dead,then it had to have been like
that before you opened it.
And it's alive or dead, then ithad to have been like that
before you opened it.
That's how we all think, right?
Right, then I was looking intothis, uh, observed, called the
observer theory, observationtheory, um, and they did this

(46:31):
experiment with electronsshooting it, I guess it's like a
called a particle collider,right, and um, they put up these
, this metal piece with slits init, right, this is mind-blowing
, right.
So I don't know if anyone elsehas heard of this, but I'll
explain it.
They, they have a way ofshooting the electrons at this

(46:52):
piece of metal, right, and onthe other side, that piece of
metal is, is a solid object,call it a wall, right, those
electrons will go through those,that, those slits, and if it's
being observed, those electronswill hit the wall in the same
pattern of the slits it wentthrough.

(47:12):
Right, which it?
That follows all the principlesof physics that we know.
Right, everything does that.
Everything we do.
You put water through, anythingthrough, it's going to do that.
Right, if you're not watchingit, the electrons go through
those slits and then hit thewall in a random nature.

(47:33):
Right, right, and there is noexplanation for it.
There are theories for it.
There is no explanation for it.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
It's the idea that that electrons can be either
particles or waves, depending onwhether they're observed or not
.
That it's not a principle inand of itself, it's.
It's the observer has powerover the experiment.
Yeah, and it's such amind-blowing thing.
But when you think of it, like,let's translate it to video

(48:03):
game terms, right, world ofwarcraft, because it's very easy
to understand, right, I'm on myscreen, you're on your screen,
and we're seeing the sharedreality, right, and we come to a
place where something hadhappened, something, there was
something, but it's randomlydetermined because it's, you
know, a lot, of a lot of thesevideo games, in order to keep
the content fresh, it randomlygenerates certain aspects of the

(48:27):
game.
Has to be random, otherwise itwould get boring, right?
And so let's say, we come to acertain point and it's going to
randomly generate, I don't know,let's.
I'm just trying to think of agood example of, you know, a
body on the ground that we findthat we're supposed to do
something with.
And you know this, the way theblood comes out of, the way that
it's distributed, is going tobe determined by the video game

(48:50):
when we come across the scene,that's when it's determining
this, because until then itdoesn't matter, right, the
concept of there's a dead,because until then it doesn't
matter the concept of there's adead body over there.
But does it really matterexactly what it looks like, how
the murder scene is laid out?
It doesn't matter, it's just aconcept.
But when you and I, our players, get there and you're looking
at your screen and I'm lookingat my screen and so we think

(49:13):
we're seeing the same thing, butreally what we're seeing is
just something that's beingrendered on each of our screens
separately.
But when we come across it,that's when the computer will
determine what we see.
Because up until that pointit's kind of irrelevant, it
doesn't matter.
But if that body had been therefor, say, in-game we're talking
in-game some number of days,then there you go, it's the same

(49:34):
thing.
That body would have had to toexisted there for some number of
days.
But the details are not reallyworked out until we come along.
And if you and I, as players,never encounter this, if we go a
different direction and we justdon't we don't ever interact
with this part of the game.
You know, we jump a differentquest and we just never follow
this one up right, then maybethat decision, that decision is

(49:57):
really never made in our screensLike it's, but somebody else,
another player, comes across itand that decision is made for
them.
But again, that decision isrelevant to us.
So it's that idea that thedecision is made at a point but
it would have to influencesomething that would have had to
have happened before, butbecause nobody was there to

(50:18):
observe it, it's just sort of onhold until observed.
And it's such a mind-blowingconcept.
But when you translate it tovideo game terms it starts to
kind of like ah, that's kind oftrue, that's how it works in
video games.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
And that's where it becomes for me, a little.
I don't want to say creepy, butit gets a little.
Hmm, you know, and we justtalked about the electrons.
The part about electrons thathas always fascinated me is
nobody really knows why theyeven exist.
It's the building block ofeverything Electrons right,

(50:54):
that's the base of an atom,right, where do they come from?
Oh well, um, they say, yeah, wethink they got formed during
the big bang.
Okay, um, but do you know we,that's that.
It's.
Nobody can, nobody knows right,where the heck electrons came
from.
Right, it's a theory.

(51:15):
So you think about the how acomputer program was made, how
the universe was made.
Where did the universe comefrom?
Oh, um, it was a small spec andyou know, it blew up and here
we have it, here we haveeverything right.
So can, and I'm not gonna, I'mnot denouncing science okay, I'm
just saying it's a.
it's very convenient to, whenyou get to a point and you can't

(51:38):
figure it out, to just say ohwell, this is just what happened
.
It just blew up and it made allthese planets.
It made everything you can seearound you, including the
building blocks of everything.
Well, how did that happen?
Well, I mean, you know, allgases came together.
That's basically what they say,and that's just how it happened
.
Well, is there any evidencethat's just how it happened?
Well, is there any evidencethat that's how it happened?

(52:00):
Well, no, there really isn't.
There really isn't evidencethat that's how it happened.
There's evidence that somethingdramatic happened.
There isn't evidence that ithappened that way.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
That's a theory.
Exactly.
Well, that's true in mostscience.
Right, they have a theory andthey find evidence to support
the theory.
When there's enough evidence tosupport the theory, then the
theory is.
You know, that is right.
But if you're missing evidenceif there's pieces of information
that has not been discovered,which has happened numerous
times through our history a keypiece of information comes along

(52:34):
.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
Well, when they know it's a fact, when they get
enough facts, it's called aprinciple right.
When it?
When they know it's a fact,when they get enough facts, it's
called a principle right.
When it's not, it's a theory.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
But even like the big bang, is this I'm not saying
it's been denounced, but the webtelescope, certain findings are
calling into question certainelements of the big bang theory.
Right, the, the theory itself,not, not the tv show, right,
that that like, and it we're notat a point yet where the big
bang theory has been up, youknow, uprooted and basically,

(53:02):
you know debunked, but they're,you know, the hub, the, the web
telescope is detecting thingsthat don't make sense in that
framework.
It's new information which isputting into question that.
And so if you're in the videogame, in world of warcraft, and
let's say you're lost in thegame, you're, you're in the game
in the sense that you don't,you don't perceive of the real

(53:25):
world.
Then you'd come up with verycomplicated ways to explain how
the hills and the trees and theforest got there.
Right, oh, this is, this iswhat happened.
But if you knew the game, ifyou were outside the game, then
you know that was programmed andcreated by someone, right, like
you know that the forest cameabout because you know, chuck in

(53:46):
programming, really, you know,saw a forest once that stuck
with him and he's like I, heinteracted so, but in the game
you could never come up withthat right, like you don't have
the framework, and I thinkthat's very interesting is that
in the simulation theory,because we're in it, it's
impossible for us to grasp itbecause we lack certain pieces

(54:08):
of information that we wouldonly have when we exit
simulation.
When we exit simulation, whenyou leave, assuming in this, you
know, in this example, when youlog into world of Warcraft,
that you're the real, you islost and you're in the world of
Warcraft.
You know Rothgar, the barbarianor whatever, running around
doing stuff.
In that context you could neverexplain these things.

(54:30):
So it's just it's.
It's an interesting kind of wayto approach it, like it starts
to, it starts this, thescientific, the quantum physics
stuff at least supports thisthought.
I'm not saying it proves it,it's just it.
It adds to it and go, ah,that's how it works.
You know, um, the observereffect, like we're talking about
and you know that that really,at its core, everything is just

(54:53):
information.
Everything is just waves andparticles that our brains are
interpreting as solid objectsand that's taken as sort of
granted right.
That's kind of what they say.
You know, our brains are, youknow.
So does that mean all thesethings don't really exist?
I guess that's kind of whatyou're saying.
You're saying that these thingsaren't real, that our brains

(55:14):
they're only real because ourbrains are interpreting them as
real.
These things aren't real, butour brains they're only real
because our brains areinterpreting them as real.
So if our brains weren't hereto interpret it as real, what
reason does it have to exist Ina computer game?
Computer games have limitedspace, limited render capability
.
They only ever render what is inthe field of view for the
player Once it's out of thefield of view, even if it's just

(55:37):
a little further off to theleft or right or behind you.
For the player, once it's outof the field of view, even if
it's just a little further offto the left or right or behind
you, for the purposes of thegame it's there intellectually
but it's not really therebecause the computer is not
going to spend any energy makingit real, because there's no
reason to, because nobody'slooking at it and it's like it's
such a video game thing.
But then with the quantumphysics it's kind of the same

(55:58):
idea the observer is needed forthe thing If nobody's there to
observe it.
If the tree falls in the forestand nobody's there to hear it,
it doesn't do anything.
It didn't even really fall.
You went by it once and it wasup and you came by it again and
it's down.

(56:19):
You assume there was a momentwhere it fell and it probably
was you know, and again any way.
That you would know that it didwould mean you're observing it.
If you had a camera there, thenyou're observing.
It obviously did.
But if nothing was around toobserve it, logic would tell us
it had to have a fall.
It had to get in that statesomehow.
It's just quantum physicsdoesn't seem to support that.

(56:41):
It seems to say it didn't.
Until you observed it, thattree was in a state of being up
and being down.
It could have been either andit wasn't.
Until you came along where itwas sort of determined.
The probability field broke andat that point it was determined
it fell.
That's just such a strange.

(57:02):
It's mind blowing it is.
It's so mind blowing thatthat's what caused a lot of
people to just turn this theoryoff.
Ah, that's crazy.
But once you start to learnmore the existence of these
things in quantum physics in inquantum physics, it's wow.
It starts to explain some of it.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Yeah, yeah.
And it's interesting that thereare some people that you know
not as open-minded thinkingabout some of these theories or
however you want to postulatethese things, right, and a lot
of people will say, well, youknow, the science doesn't
support that.
Well, the science generallykind of doesn't support a lot of

(57:44):
things, right, and what wethink science supports today in
100 years could be somethingtotally different.
Of course, right Happens allthe time.
It happens all the time right.
It happens all the time right.
And we're kind of stuck latelyin a mindset that well, the
science today says this, sothat's it and let's move on.

(58:06):
Right, instead of questioningit.
Right, we don't question a lotnow, right, and if you question
it a lot now, you're kind oflooked at as a person.
You know maybe you're not allthere or what's going on with
you, but you should be able toquestion things.
And if you don't have a goodanswer for the question, well,

(58:29):
maybe that's an indication thatwhatever you're trying to
support needs more support,instead of just telling somebody
you know you shouldn't answerthat I asked that question.
I mean, no, you know what dothey say?
The truth can be questioned, ofcourse, Right, and if it can't
be questioned.
It's propaganda.
It's not the truth.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
I would say that the I'm not calling this stuff
propaganda, I'm just sayingthat's something people say and
and I and I understand there'sthe other flip side of the coin
is that, built into thatassumption, it has to be
questioning from a point ofknowledge and not a questioning
from a point of ignorance,because I always, you know, say

(59:10):
when, like, just becausesomebody doesn't know something
doesn't mean it's not true, youknow it's, there are.
There are facts independent ofpeople's, you know.
So you know, I run into this alot in the in the uh, talking
about ufos with people, becauseI'll bring up things that
happened whether you know ingovernment or events that

(59:31):
happened this, that or the otherthing, and oftentimes, if the
person I'm talking to wasn'taware of them, they have almost
instant doubt that it happened.
So subsequently, let's go backto the idea of questioning
science.
Knowledgeable, good-natured,honest questioning is good.
When you're questioning from aplace of ignorance and not

(59:54):
accepting answers because theydon't fit in with your theory
that I can see people goingagainst and saying oh yeah.
But that's the thing is.
How do you human beings,generally speaking, like things
black and white, on or off, yesor no?
We're binary creatures.
That's just how we're wiredright, so nuances are often very

(01:00:17):
hard for us to grasp.
But that's the thing is.
When you question, when youstart to question some
scientific precepts, everyoneautomatically goes to the well,
you're just being difficult andinstead of being honest and
saying, okay, do you have goodquestions?
All right, are there questionsthat can be answered?

(01:00:37):
Do you understand goodquestions?
All right, are they questionsthat can be answered?
Do you understand the answer?
Can the answer be verified byother data?
And at that point, but you'reright, science is about
questioning what we know.
Because if you were to go backsome amount of time, people were
convinced that the earth, thateverything, revolved around the
earth.

Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
Well, you heard about the doctor with um, with hand
washing.
Yeah, right, right, that guy,you know he was pretty much
driven out of medicine I talkedabout that in my um the, the
solo episode.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
I did a little bit back about considering versus
believing the idea of like that.
So he said that was only about150 years ago.
Maybe we should wash our handsand everybody's like what are
you an you know?

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
what you don't belong in medicine.

Speaker 1 (01:01:19):
Okay, this guy was working with, I think, maternity
Right, right, 150 years ago,not really that long ago, Not as
long ago as you would havethought if you said hey, there
was a point where everybody wasnot trusting that you should
wash your hands.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
There was a guy 150 years ago.
He was a doctor and you know, Ijust let you know he thought
everyone should wash their handsprior to touching patients
Right.
And he thought that could helpnot spread illness, because he
thought illness was spreadthrough these small germs, right
.
That's crazy and the rest ofthe medical community said
you're a whack job.

Speaker 1 (01:01:54):
Right, right.
Because we have not seen these,because we don't know about
these germs you speak of wehaven't seen them.
What is it?
Therefore?
They don't exist.
Therefore, you're making stuffup, exactly right, right, and no
matter how many times we'reshown the limits of our
knowledge, we come back with thesure you know, as sure as shit
that our knowledge is.
What's is we know everythingnow, right, come on, we're that.

(01:02:17):
I mean, that was 100 years ago.
Come on, we were prettyprimitive 100 years ago.
Now, now we know everything.
We wouldn't do that.
We know every and now we'rereally good at when a piece of a
fact comes along that disruptsour, our our view of things.
The easier course of action isjust suppressing the fact rather
than reevaluating our positionson things right and telling and
telling anyone who brings upsaid fact that you're crazy,

(01:02:38):
right.
But in the context of you know,going back to if you're in the
simulation, does it reallymatter, like in the context of
World of Warcraft?
If you're a character in Worldof Warcraft and your job is the
shopkeeper and you get up everyday and you go to your shop and
you sell swords and weapons andthings like that to various

(01:02:59):
adventurers who come runningthrough and that's your
existence, then the reason whyit's all there, the ability to
be able to sit back and thinkabout, ponder things like that
is kind of a.
It's kind of a, is like aprivileged situation, because if
you're, you know, if you'rejust trying to get by, then the
reason for all of this existingis meaningless to you.

(01:03:21):
You just got to get by todayand get you know.
So that's the when you're inthe simulation.
Maybe the reasons why thesimulation is running or who
created it aren't as important.

Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
If you're really mired in.

Speaker 1 (01:03:32):
It's only when you have time to sit back and go.
All right, I'm in this thing.
I wonder why it's here, Iwonder who created it, I wonder
how it works and things likethat, so I don't know.
It's certainly interesting.
Well, you know what?
This is a good place, I think,to wrap up part one Okay, and
we'll come back in part two,because I really want to dig in
on the weirdness of, like, theMandela effect and all those

(01:03:53):
weirdnesses, yes, things thatthey talk about and how they
kind of, in a weird way, supportsimulation dairy all right all
right, so we're gonna be comingback soon, uh, to talk about
that, but uh, until we're backnext time.
This is I'm chris and I'm steve,and this has been some deep
shit.
We'll be you next time.