100% Proof? Scientists Find "Binary Code" in the Fabric of Reality

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Imagine for a second that you're stepping outside on a
perfectly clear, crisp night.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Oh I love those nights.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Right, just you're far away from the city lights, out
in the middle of nowhere. The air is cold, it's
biting at your cheeks, and you tilt your head back
to look up at the sky.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
No light pollution at all.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Exactly no light pollution. So the Milky Way is just
this river of light. It's like a blanket of absolute
diamond dust. Yeah, and you pick out a single bright star.
You squint, you focus all your attention on it, zeeming
in with your mind's eye. And as you focus, like
really strained to look at the edge of that star light,
something completely impossible happens.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
The edges start to look a bit wrong.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Yeah, the edges of the star aren't smooth, they're jagged,
they're stepped. You realize, with this sudden, icy drop in
your stomach that the star is actually slightly pixelated. Wow,
it's a glitch in the cosmos.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Welcome to Thrilling Threads. Today, we're taking you on a
journey that fundamentally shatters the bedrock of basically everything you
think you know.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
It really does. Our mission for this deep dive is well,
we are exploring a theory that has officially graduated from
those late night sci fi dorm room.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
Chats, you know the ones.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
Oh yeah, But now it's in the halls of mainstream academia.
It is actively debated by Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, and
you know, the Titans of Silicon Valley.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Because it's the ultimate existential question. Really, we are not
talking about a metaphor.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Today, right. This isn't poetry exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
We aren't using poetry to describe the human condition or
society's reliance on technology. We are examining the serious, mathematically backed,
scientific and philosophical hypothesis that our reality, I mean your
reality listening to this right now is a literal computer simulation.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
I feel like I need to ground this right away
because I want you the listener to truly feel the
weight of what we are actually proposing here.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
That's heavy, it is.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Think about your morning routine today. You woke up, maybe
you hit snooze couple of times, you dragged yourself to
the kitchen. You heard that familiar gurgle of the coffee.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
Maker, the best sound in the morning.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
Totally, and you felt the heat radiating off the ceramic
mug against your palms. You tasted that first bitter life
giving six right then you got in your car, you
got on the train, and you dealt with the physical
friction of your commute. You felt the steering wheel, you
felt annoyed by that driver in front of you. Yeah,
and it all feels so undeniably heavily real, the texture

(02:28):
of your clothes, the temperature of the room you're in
right now. But what if it's not.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
What if it's just code?

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Right? What if that entire sequence of events, that entire
rich tapestry of sensory experience is exactly like an incredibly
high resolution game of the Sims.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
Yeah, a really advanced version.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Are you the player in this scenario making conscious choices?
Or are you and the coffee and the traffic just
complex lines of code rendering a morning routine subroutine on
some unimaginably vast server.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
I mean that visceral rejection you're feeling right now, that's
completely natural. When anyone first encounters this hypothesis, the brain
immediately fights back.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
Oh, for sure, you want to deny it.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Because we rely entirely on our senses to dictate truth.
You think, while I can knock on this wooden desk,
I can feel the vibration of my knuckles. Therefore it
is solid matter. Therefore it is real.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
It hurts when I stub my toe, so it's real exactly.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
But the thinkers pushing this theory forward are demanding that
we look past those localized sensory inputs. The core of
our discussion today isn't just to write some spooky science
fiction narrative. We want to unpack why incredibly brilliant people,
the engineers who are building our future computing systems and
the physicists unraveling the fundamental laws of nature, why they

(03:47):
actually believe this might be the reality of our existence.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
It's not just a thought experiment for them.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
No, it's an argument rooted in statistics and physics that
forces us to question the very nature of what we
call base reality.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Base reality. I like that that's the original, unsimulated physical universe,
the ground floor of.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
Existence, exactly the lowest level.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
It sounds like we're just pitching a reboot of the matrix,
but we are looking at the actual math of the
matrix today. But before we start, you know, hunting for
glitches in your coffee cup or looking for pixels in
the night sky. We have to establish the cold hard numbers.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
We need the foundation, right, Like, why.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Would anyone mathematically assume we are already living inside a machine.
To do that, we have to talk about a very specific,
very famous tech billionaire. Oh yes, Back in twenty sixteen,
at this major tech conference, Elon Musk was asked point
blank about simulation theory during an interview. I remember this,
and he didn't just entertain the idea or brush it

(04:44):
off as a fun little thought experiment. He dropped an
absolute bombshell on the audience. He stated, with complete sincerity
that the odds we are currently living in base reality
are one in billions.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
One in billions.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
Let that sink in one in billions. I mean, how
does he even get to that number?

Speaker 2 (05:01):
Well, his logic, when you really break it down, it
relies entirely on observing our own human trajectory with technology.
He basically asked the audience to step back and look
at the evolution of video games. If we use our
own society as the baseline metric for what a civilization
can achieve, the timeline is just staggering.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
Let's trace that timeline actually because it really puts things
into perspective. Think about the year nineteen seventy two, we had.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Pong uh pong the class.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Well, for those who don't know, or maybe you only
know it from like retro arcades. Pong is literally two
white rectangles on either side of a screen and a
bouncing square dot moving back and forth across a black background.

Speaker 2 (05:41):
That was the peak of technology at the time.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
That was it, That was the absolute pinnacle of digital
interactive entertainment. Entire families would gather around a bulky cathode
ray tube television just to watch these white blocks move.
It's hard to even imagine now it is now fast
forward a mere fifty years in the grand scoop of
human history. Half a century is an absolute blink of
an eye.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
It's nothing, barely arounding air.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Yeah, and today we have photorealistic virtual reality. We have
headsets that track the micro movements of your pupils to
adjust lighting dynamically.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
We have haptic feedback suits, yes.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
Suits that let you physically feel the impact of a
digital object hitting your virtual avatar. We have artificial intelligence
algorithms that can generate entire cohesive, uniquely populated three D
landscapes in literal millisecond.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
And that's just in fifty years. So take that exponential
curve of technological advancement and carry it forward. Okay, so
looking ahead, we aren't talking about extrapolating fifty years into
the future or even one hundred. Imagine human civilization or
any intelligent civilization ten thousand years from now, oh wow,
or a million years from now. Assuming that a civilization

(06:52):
continues to advance without wiping itself out through nuclear war
or climate collapse. The simulations they will be capable of
programming be entirely indistinguishable from reality.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
So the computing power would be unfathomable by our current standards.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
Completely unfathomable. They could simulate entire universes down to the
quantum level. The characters within those simulations wouldn't be simple algorithms,
they would be fully conscious digital entities.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
So he's a tech ceo looking at hardware trends, but
he isn't the origin of this concept, right, not at all.
This wasn't just a Silton Valley Shower thought that he
decided to share on stage. He was actually echoing a
much deeper, much more rigorous academic argument.

Speaker 2 (07:33):
Yes, from a philosopher named Nick Bostrom.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
Right Bostrom, This brings him into the conversation. In two
thousand and three, Bostrom published a landmark paper out of
Oxford University that formally laid out what is now known
as the simulation argument.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
It's a brilliant paper.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
I've read through summaries of it, and it is deceptively simple.
It's built on logic that is incredibly hard to wriggle
out of. He proposed a trelemma three distinct options, yeah,
distinct options about the future of intelligent life, and he
argues that mathematically one of them absolutely must be true.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
Bostrom's logic is really the foundational pillar of modern simulation theory.
Let's walk through the treelemma step by step. Proposition one
states that the human species, or any species like ours,
is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post
human stage.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
A post human stage meaning like a civilization that has
essentially achieved technological godhood, like they have harnessed the energy
of entire stars and have the immense planetary scale computing
power required to run reality grade simulations. So proposition one says,
we blow ourselves up or a meteor hits us before
we ever get there. That's the great filter argument, right.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Yes, exactly. It suggests a ceiling to technological progress that
no one survives. If proposition one is true, then we
will never build these simulations, and obviously we're not in one.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
Now, okay, makes sense. What's the second option?

Speaker 2 (08:58):
But let's look at proposition two. Proposition two states that
any post human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a
significant number of simulations of their own evolutionary history.

Speaker 1 (09:08):
May hold on, why wouldn't they If you had the
power to simulate the Roman Empire or the year twenty
twenty six perfectly, why wouldn't you do it? Well?

Speaker 2 (09:17):
Boss From offers a few reasons. Perhaps the civilization advanced
enough to build such computers would find historical simulations completely
trivial or.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
Boring, like watching paint dry to them, right.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
Their interests would be incomprehensible to us. Alternatively, they might
consider it deeply unethical.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
Ah, that's interesting.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
Think about it. If the simulated beings are truly conscious
and capable of suffering, creating a universe filled with war, disease,
and heartbreak just for historical research, that might be universally
outlawed by an advanced species.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
Okay, so option one we all die before we can
make the matrix. Option two we survive, get super smart,
but decide making a matrix is boring or evil exactly.
But then there's proposition three, the trap.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
Proposition three is the inevitable mathematical conclusion if the first
two are false. If we assume civilizations do survive and
reach that technological peak, and we assume they do decide
to run these historical ancestor simulations, then what then we
are almost certainly living in a computer simulation right now.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
I want to make sure I completely understand the math here,
because this is where my brain starts to build. He
does that if a civilization reaches that god tier computing level,
they wouldn't just run one simulation. They wouldn't build a
massive planetary hard drive just to simulate one.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Alternate or No, why would they stop at one.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
They would run millions, maybe billions of them. They would
run simulations to see what would happen if the dinosaurs
didn't die. They would run simulations where different political leaders
won elections. They'd win infinite variations.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
That is the crux of the statistical argument. Yeah, they
would generate an unimaginably massive amount of simulated universes, each
containing billions of simulated conscious beings living out their lives
unaware of their digital nature.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
So if we look at the cosmic lottery, if there
is only one true physical base reality with one original Earth,
just one, but there are billions of simulated Earths running
concurrently on posthuman hard drives, trillions, even right trillions, what
are the statistical odds that you, the listener, the conscious
being experiencing this exact moment, happen to be the one

(11:24):
lucky soul sitting in the single original, biological based reality
versus being one of the trillions upon trillions of simulated beings.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
The odds approach to zero. Statistically, it is an absolute
rounding error. If you are a conscious entity randomly assigned
to a universe, you are almost certainly in a simulated one.
The simulated population dwarfs the real biological population by a
margin so vast the human brain physically struggles to comprehend it.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
It's like finding a single specific grain of sand on
all the beaches of the entire world, picking it up
and assuming that's the one original grain of sand that
birthed the universe.

Speaker 2 (12:04):
That's a great way to visualize it.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
It's mind bending. And I know some people might think
this is just philosopher's playing word games, but we have
to bring Neil de Grasse Tyson into this.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yes, his perspective is vital here.

Speaker 1 (12:14):
He is arguably one of the most famous grounded astrophysicists
alive today. At a public debate on this very topic,
he was asked where he stands, and he put the
odds fifty to fifty a coin flip. A coin flip.
For a hardcore physical scientist to give it a fifty
to fifty chance is staggering.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
Tyson's reasoning adds another layer to Bostrom's trilemma, one that
complicates the hierarchy of reality even further. Tyson argued that
if we in our current year are already approaching the
ability to simulate basic consciousness, and with the rise of
complex neural networks in AI we seem to be hurtling
down that path, then whoever created our simulation was probably

(12:54):
simulated themselves.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Okay, let's unpack this. It's a matriosh goadal of universes,
exactly those Russian nesting dolls. You open the big wooden doll,
there's a smaller one inside. You open that one, and
even smaller one is inside, and you keep going until
you find the tiny solid one at the core. Right
If we are in a simulation right now, and we
eventually build quantum computers powerful enough to simulate our own

(13:16):
tiny universe, and the digital people inside that simulation eventually
build their own computers to simulate.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
Another universe, it just keeps going.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
What layer of the computational stack are we actually on
right now? Are we one layer down from base reality?
Or are we ten million layers deep running on the
absolute dregs of some nested cosmic processor.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
In physician and philosophy, the phrase often used to this
infinite regression is turtles all the way down.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
Turtles all the way down. I love that.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
And this concept introduces perhaps the most frustrating reality for
empirical scientists. The simulation hypothesis is ultimately unfalsifiable.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
Unfalsifiable meaning we can never prove it false no matter
what we do.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
That is the trap. You can statistically or experimentally prove
that you aren't in the middle of that Matrioshka.

Speaker 1 (14:04):
Doll, because any test we do is also simulated.

Speaker 2 (14:07):
Precisely. Any scientific test you designed to prove you are
in base reality, any measurement of particles, any telescope you
point at the edge of the universe could simply be
a simulated test, yielding simulated.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
Results, designed by the system to comfort us.

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yes, designed to comfort the simulated inhabitant. The simulation would
just feed your instruments the exact data required to make
you think reality is real.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Okay, So the philosophy and the statistics paint a very
compelling picture that we are code. But math is abstract.
Philosophy is abstract. I am a tactile person.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
You want physical evidence, I do.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
If I want to know if my laptop on my
desk is running a program, I don't just sit there
and ponder the philosophical odds of software existing. I look
at the hardware limits.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
You check the specs.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
I look at the processor speed and gigahertz. I look
at the pixel resolution of the screen. I look at
the hard drive space. If the universe is a computer,
if everything around us is generated by a machine, shouldn't
our universe have hardware limits too?

Speaker 2 (15:03):
It absolutely must. And this is the threshold where simulation
theory moves from a fun philosophical probability into the serious
realm of theoretical physics.

Speaker 1 (15:13):
Okay, let's get into the physics.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
Every computational system ever built, or that ever will be built,
no matter how impossibly advanced, relies on finite physical resources.
It must have a maximum processing speed, it must have
a minimum unit of display, and it must have a
maximum memory capacity.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
Right, A computer can't do infinity exactly.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
If we look closely the fundamental laws of physics in
our universe, we find exact mathematical equivalents to all three
of these digital hardware constraints.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
I am so ready for this. Let's start with the
speed limit.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
The speed of light the ultimate universal constant.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
Roughly one hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second
or three hundred thousand kilometers per second. It is the absolute,
unbreakable speed limit of our universe. Nothing can go.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Faster, nothing with mass.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
Yes, if you even try to go the speed of life,
physics starts doing weird things to you. We're taught in
middle school science class that this is just a fundamental
lot of nature. It just is what it is.

Speaker 2 (16:08):
We just accept it.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
But why why is there a speed limit at all?
Why couldn't things just travel at infinite speed if they
had enough energy.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
In the context of simulation theory, the speed of light
isn't an arbitrary physical law. It actually represents a rendering limit.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
A rendering limit.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
Yes, it is the maximum clock speed of the universe's processor.
Think about the mechanics of loading a highly detailed digital
environment in real time.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Okay, let me try to translate this into something I've experienced.
Anyone who has ever played a massive open world video
game like Grand Theft, Auto or maybe Skyrim knows exactly
what happens when you push a game engine too hard.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
Oh, definitely.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
If you get in the fastest car in the game,
or you use a cheat code to make your character
run at superspeed, suddenly the game console can't keep up.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
It starts dropping frames.

Speaker 1 (16:57):
You hit an invisible wall, the textures on the buildings
look like muddy blurs. Entire mountains or trees suddenly pop
into existence out of thin air right in front of you.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
The pop in effect.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, the game's engine is essentially screaming slow down. I
can't draw the world fast enough. I don't have the
processing power to render this new street. Is the speed
of light just the ultimate cosmic lag.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
That is an incredibly apt analogy. If you, as an
object in this universal simulation, try to move from point
A to point B too fast, you would outrun the
system's ability to calculate and load the new environments.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
That makes so much sense.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
The system has to calculate the physics, the light reflection,
the interactions of every single subatomic particle you are about
to encounter. The universe has to enforce a hard speed
limit to prevent the rendering engine from crashing.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
It's a safety feature.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Exactly the speed of light is the universe saying this
is how fast I can process information. You cannot exceed
my clock speed.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
Well wait, let me push back on this video game
analogy for a second, because if I lag in a
video game, my character stutters, I rubber band back and forth,
the game freezes. Right, But that's not what happens when
you approach the speed of light in real life. According
to Einstein's theory of relativity, if I travel really fast
close to the speed of light, time actually slows down
for me relative to everyone else. My clock ticks slower.

(18:16):
Time dilation, Yeah, time dilation. A video game lagging doesn't
warp the flow of time. How does simulation theory account
for time dilation?

Speaker 2 (18:25):
That is the brilliance of viewing it through a computational lens.
It explains time dilation perfectly. Really, how imagine the computer
running our universe has a finite amount of processing power
allocated to your specific character. Okay, when you are sitting still,
all of that processing power is used to move you
through time. Your clock ticks normally. But when you start

(18:48):
moving at incredible speeds, the system has to divert massive
amounts of your allocated processing power to calculate your spatial
movement and render the oncoming environment.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
Oh, I see where you're going with this.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
Because so much computing power is being used to calculate
your speed, there are fewer processor cycles left to calculate
your passage through time. Therefore, your localized time slows down
to conserve the system's resources.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
My mind is officially reeling time slows down because the
computer doesn't have enough ram to calculate my speed and
my clock at the same time. It's resource management that
is terrifyingly logical. Okay, so the speed of light is
our processor limit? What about pixels? If I lean in
really close to my television screen or my phone, the smooth,
beautiful image breaks down into tiny individual squares of red, green.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
And blue, the fundamental units of the display.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Right, does our physical universe have a pixel? Is there
a minimum size to reality?

Speaker 2 (19:42):
There is. In quantum physics, it is known as the
plank length. The plank length, Yes, it is an incomprehensibly
small measurement. It is approximately one point six times ten
to the power of negative thirty five meters.

Speaker 1 (19:55):
I can't even begin to picture that.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
To try and give you a scenth of that scale,
if a single atom was blown up to be the
size of the entire visible universe, the plank length would
be the size of a regular atom within that universe.
That is absurdly tiny, is beyond human visualization. But the
size isn't the most important part. What is crucial is
that below this specific scale, our current laws of physics

(20:21):
simply break down. Space ceases to make sense.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
What do you mean it breaks down? Why can't I
just take a plank length and cut it in half?
If I have a ruler, I can always divide the
measurement by two infinitely.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
In pure mathematics, yes, you can divide infinitely but in
the physical universe, you cannot think of Zeno's paradox, where
you constantly have the distance to a wall and theoretically
never reach it.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
Oh yeah, because there's always half a distance left right.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
The plank length is the universe's solution to that paradox.
You're the absolute smallest possible unit of length. Below that distance,
the concepts of space, distance, and gravity become mathematically meaningless.
You cannot have half a plank length because space itself
is quantized.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
It's a pixel, it really is. It is the fundamental
resolution of reality, just like a digital photograph becomes a
meaningless blur of color codes if you try to zoom
in past its base resolution. Reality has a hard physical stop.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
The universe isn't a perfectly smooth, continuous painting where you
can zoom in forever. It's a mosaic made of ultra tiny,
discrete tiles. If the universe were a true, infinite, organic
physical reality, why would space have a minimum unit. Why
would there be a bottom floor to size?

Speaker 2 (21:34):
That's the question.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
But if it's a simulation a computer program, it absolutely
must have a minimum unit. A computer cannot program infinity.
It has to round off Eventually.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
You have hit the nail on the head. You have
to quantize space to compute it. A continuous infinite spectrum
requires infinite memory, which is impossible for any machine.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
So it chunks things up to save memory.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yes, and we see this quantization not just in physical space,
but in information density. This brings us to the third
massive hardware constraint, the Beckenstein bound.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
The Beckenstein bound that sounds like a sci fi thriller novel.
I've never heard of it. What is it?

Speaker 2 (22:09):
It was formulated by theoretical physicist Jacob Beeckenstein. It represents
the absolute maximum amount of information that can be contained
within a given finite region of space.

Speaker 1 (22:21):
Let me stop you there, because when physicists use the
word information, they don't mean like a Wikipedia article, Right,
what does physical information actually mean?

Speaker 2 (22:30):
Excellent clarification. In physics, information refers to the exact quantum
states of the matter in a space. It's the specific
arrangement of atoms, the spin of the electrons, the energy levels.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
All the data points of the matter.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Right. It takes computational bits to describe all of those states.
The Beeckenstein bound proves that there is a strict, mathematically
calculated limit to the data density of the universe. If
you try to pack too much physical information, too much
matter and energy into too small of a spatial vbev.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Let me guess the universe throws an error code.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
It does something far more dramatic. The fabric of space
time in that localized area breaks and it collapses into
a black hole.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
Wow. Wait, let me process this.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
Take your time to a big concept.

Speaker 1 (23:13):
If I try to open three thousand tabs on my
internet browser right now, my computer runs out of RAM.
The memory gets overloaded, and the computer crashes, the screen freezes,
or the program force quits. Yes, are you saying a
black hole is essentially the universe crashing from a memory
overload in a specific spatial sector.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
It is a profound and highly accurate parallel. The simulation
has a strict memory limit for every coordinate in three
D space. That is wild. When a massive star collapses,
it is packing an incredible amount of quantum information into
a tiny point. It exceeds the local memory limit.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
And the system just can't handle it.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Exceed that limit, and the system literally collapses that sector
to prevent a wider system failure. The laws of physics
therefore might not be these majestic, divine, untethered rules of nature.
They might simply be an elegant, brutal system of computational
resource management.

Speaker 1 (24:08):
Physics is just the universe conserving computing power to keep
the servers running. If the macro hardware limits, the speed
limit the pixels, the memory crashes. If they all point
so cleanly to a simulation. What happens when we pop
the hood and look at the software itself? If physical
limits are hardware constraints, does the bizarre world of microscopic

(24:28):
quantum mechanics look like software?

Speaker 2 (24:31):
Quantum mechanics is exactly where the intuitive physical reality we
experience every day breaks down completely.

Speaker 1 (24:38):
The weird stuff.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
It is the realm where the rules of reality seem
completely illogical to human observation. And the most famous example
of this software like behavior is the double Slit experiment.
It is the absolute bedrock of quantum weirdness.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
I've heard of the double slid experiment, but I need
you to walk me through the actual mechanics of it.
Assume I know nothing. Set up the experiment for me
in the list.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
Okay, imagine a microscopic cannon firing individual particles like electrons
or photons of light at a solid barrier. In the
middle of this barrier are two tiny vertical parallel.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Slits, So two holes in a wall.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Right behind that barrier is a blank wall, a detector
screen that records exactly where each particle hits.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
Okay, so I'm firing tiny bullets at a wall with
two vertical cuts in it. If they act like physical bullets,
little solid objects, I'd expect them to either bounce off
the barrier or pass through one of the two slits.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
That's logical.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
So on the back wall, I should see two distinct
vertical bands of hits right directly behind the two slits.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
That is exactly what common sense and classical physics would
tell you. But that's not what happens. What happens when
scientists fire these individual particles over time, they don't form
two bands. They create an interference pattern on the back wall.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
An interference pattern a pattern.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Of many alternating light and dark vertical bands spread out
across this sky.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
But wait, an interference pattern is what waves make, like
ripples in a pond, intersecting and creating new peaks and troughs.
How can a single solid bullet create a wave pattern.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
This implies the single particle is acting like a wave.
It is somehow going through both slits at the exact
same time, splitting and interfering with itself before hitting the
back wall.

Speaker 1 (26:20):
That makes no sense.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
It exists in a state of superposition, a cloud of
mathematical probability, occupying multiple potential paths simultaneously.

Speaker 1 (26:30):
Okay, that is weird, but maybe particles are just wavy.
But here's the part that gives the literal chills every
time I think about it.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
The observation effect.

Speaker 1 (26:38):
Yes, what happens when scientists tried to cheat? What happens
when they put a tiny camera or a detector right
next to the slits to observe exactly which slit the
individual particle actually goes through.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
This is the crazy part. When a detector is placed
to observe the particle's path, the wave behavior vanishes instantly, Instantly,
the particle suddenly exactly like a solid bullet. Again, it
passes through one slit or the other, and you only
get two bands on the back wall. The mere act
of looking at it, of extracting the information of its location,
changes how it physically behaves.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
The universe realizes it is being watched and changes its
behavior it's spooky. And this is exactly, I mean exactly
how video game developers optimize modern games. It's a technique
called occlusion culling.

Speaker 2 (27:23):
Explain how that worked in graphics processing for those who
don't gain.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
Yeah, So, if you are playing a first person shooter
and your character is looking north, the game engine is
actively rendering the mountains, the trees, the lighting, and the
enemies to the north. It draws them so you can
interact with them. Makes sense, But what's happening directly behind
your character to the south? In early games, the computer
rendered the whole map all the time, which caused massive lag.

(27:50):
In modern games, from a computational standpoint, it would be
an immense waste of processing power to render a perfectly
detailed forest behind you. If if your camera isn't looking
at it, so what does it too? So the system
simply drops it out of existence. It keeps a vague
mathematical probability of what's behind you in its memory, but
it doesn't render it into a definite three D state

(28:12):
until you turn the character's camera around.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Is a stunning comparison. The universe operates on the exact
same logic. Do not waste computational resources. Rendering a definite
state for a particle if nobody's looking.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
At it, leave it as a math equation, exactly.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
Leave it as a mathematical probability wave. To save processing power,
only render it as a solid, definite particle when a
conscious observer or a measuring device forces the system to
lock in its position.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
I am looking around the room I'm sitting in right now,
the walls, the microphone, my notes. If I close my
eyes right now, is the room behind me just dissolving
into a mathematical wave of probability to save ram Probably,
is the universe only rendering the screen of your phone
or the dashboard of your car right now because you
are actively observing it.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
It's a haunting thought, but it's mathematically consistent with quantum theory,
and the deeper physicists dig into this quantum layer, the
more explicit the code becomes.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
It's not just metaphors anymore.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
No, it stops being metaphorical. Take the groundbreaking work of
theoretical physicist James Gates. He was working on the fundamental
equations of string theory, trying to understand the deepest fabric
of reality.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
String theory. That's the idea that if you zoom in
past atoms, past protons, and quirks, the absolute smallest building
blocks of the universe are vibrating one dimensional strings of energy.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Correct and within the extremely complex mathematics of supersymmetry. In
string theory, Gates and his team discovered something deeply unsettling.

Speaker 1 (29:40):
Unsettling how woven.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Into the equations that describe the fundamental interactions of the universe.
He found block linear error correcting codes.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
Wait slow down error correcting codes like the kind software
engineers use. I'm struggling to wrap my head around this.
What does that mean in a physical context?

Speaker 2 (30:00):
Define it in computer science. When you transmit digital data
from one place to another, say sending an image over
the Internet, interference can corrupt the data. A one flips
to a zero and the file.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
Breaks right beta coruption.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Software engineers use mathematical formulas called error correcting codes to
automatically detect those glitches and fix them on the fly.
Gates discovered a specific class of these codes called a
dincress a dinkres. Yes, these are the exact same mathematical
sequences using computer science to prevent data corruption. It is
the same type of code embedded in the web browser
you might be using right now to ensure it when

(30:34):
a web page loads, errors are found and fixed automatically.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
Why in the world would a natural, biological, organic, physical
universe have digital debugging code built into its fundamental equations.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
It's very good question.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
That feels like cracking open a rock, looking at it
under an electron microscope and finding a tiny intel inside
copyright symbol stamped on the molecules.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Gates himself admitted that finding the codes, which are intimately
and explicitly related to modern computing, woven into the fabric
of the universe was profoundly disturbing.

Speaker 1 (31:07):
That would be terrified.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
It's just an abstraction layer. When we look closely enough
with our most advanced mathematics and microscopes, the illusion of
the physical world thins out and we start to see
the raw underlying structural code keeps reality from crashing.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
If the universe operates on code. Let's talk about another
software illusion, randomness. I think the universe has random events,
a roll the dice, a coin flip, the weather, radioactive decay.
But in computer science, true randomness is actually incredibly hard,
if not impossible, to achieve right.

Speaker 2 (31:39):
It is practically impossible for a machine. Computers operate strictly
on logic, algorithms and inputs. They cannot be truly spontaneous.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
So how do they do random numbers? In games?

Speaker 2 (31:51):
When you ask a computer or a video game to
generate a random number, it has to use as pseudorandom
number generator. It takes a seed value, maybe the exact
millisecond on the computer's internal clock or the temperature of
the processor, and runs it through an incredibly complex mathematical
formula to spit out a number.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Oh so it's calculated.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Yes, it looks completely random to the human eye, but
it is entirely deterministic. If you know the seed value
in the algorithm, you can predict the random number every
single time. It is a script.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
So how does that apply to reality? Because quantum physics
is supposed to be the ultimate casino, Things like when
a specific atom will undergo radioactive decay are supposed to
be purely, fundamentally random.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
That has been the standard model of quantum mechanics for decades,
pure randomness. But there's a growing robust debate among physicists.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
What are they saying?

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Some argue that beneath this apparent quantum randomness, there lies
a deeper, undiscovered deterministic layer. This is often called hidden.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
Variable theory hidden variables.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
If that turns out to be true, it means our
universe's randomness is just pseudorandom code. The die roll the
radio act to decay the flip of the coin. It's
already decided by an unimaginably complex algorithm before the coin
even stops spinning. We just can't see the algorithm.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
Okay, my mind is thoroughly blown by the microscopic code.
We've talked about plank lengths, double slits, and aer correcting strings.
But let's bring it up to the human scale.

Speaker 2 (33:18):
Macro level.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
Yeah, what about glitches we experience in our everyday lives,
the macro glitches. If this is a software system, it
has to have bugs that affect the user interface, right,
meaning human experience.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
We certainly experience psychological and physical phenomena that beautifully parallel
software errors. Let's look at a near universal human experience
that science struggles to fully explain. Deja vu.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Oh, absolutely, everyone listening knows that exact feeling.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
It's unmistakable.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
You walk into a room where someone says a specific phrase,
or you look at a specific arrangement of objects on
a table, and time just freezes for a second. You
get this overwhelming, dizzying, visceral certainty that you have lived
this exact moment.

Speaker 2 (33:58):
Before, like you've already played this level exactly.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
You feel like you know exactly what the person is
going to say next. Statistics say something like seventy percent
of people experience this. Neurologists usually wave it away as
a brain hiccup, a misfiring synapse, or an issue with
the optic nerve processing speed.

Speaker 2 (34:16):
But let's reframe heja vu through the lens of simulation
theory and computer architecture. In computing systems use.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
Caching cashing like clearing your browser cache right.

Speaker 2 (34:27):
Cashing is the process of storing data in a temporary
memory buffer so it can be accessed extremely quickly, rather
than fetching it from the main hard drive every time.
Human brains operate similarly, sorting incoming experiences into short term
working memory and long term permanent storage. Okay, what if
deja vu isn't a biological misfire, but a literal memory

(34:47):
caching error within the simulations server.

Speaker 1 (34:50):
A caching error, so the incoming data the present moment
you are experiencing. The room you are walking into is
accidentally being written to the short term buffer, and the
long term memory memory drives simultaneously by the.

Speaker 2 (35:01):
System, precisely the mechanism I am suggesting. Because the data
of the present moment is instantly written into your long
term memory sector, your simulated consciousness accesses it and flags
it as a historical past event.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
So it feels like a memory exactly.

Speaker 2 (35:18):
You aren't actually remembering the past, and you aren't seeing
the future. You are experiencing a glitch in how the
server is saving your real time data stream. Your brain
is glitching because the simulation's memory management system is lagging.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
That is terrifying, but it makes so much mechanical sense.
But what about when a whole group of people glitch
at the exact.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Same time a group glitches.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
Let's talk about the Mandela effect. This is one of
my favorite Internet rabbit holes, and it ties into this perfectly.
For those we aren't familiar, it's the phenomenon where a
massive group of people, completely unconnected to each other, collectively
remember a fact, a brand name, or an event entirely
differently from how history officially records it.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
The examples are culturally and surprisingly stubborn. The Berenstein Bears
children's books spelled with an A are vividly remembered by
millions of adults as the Behrenstein Bears with an e yes.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
Or the most famous movie quote of all time. Ask
anyone on the street to quote Darth Vager and Star Wars,
and they will say, Luke, I am your father.

Speaker 2 (36:20):
But he doesn't say that.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
He doesn't. If you go watch the original cut of
the Empire strikes back right now, Darth Vader actually says, no,
I am your father.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
It's jarring when you hear it.

Speaker 1 (36:29):
Or the namesake of the effect itself. Countless people clearly
remembering news broadcasts of Nelson Mandela dying in prison in
the nineteen eighties, complete with memories of his widow's speech,
despite the factual historical record that he was released, became
President of South Africa, and died in twenty thirteen.

Speaker 2 (36:45):
It's a very strong collective memory.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
I have had fierce table pounding debates with friends over
a Mandela effect memory. It feels so real, and I
have to ask, is it more likely that millions of
complex human brains all miss remembered a specific vowel in
a children's book in the exact same way, due to
some psychological quirk, or that a celestial programmer push a

(37:09):
messy software update on a Tuesday.

Speaker 2 (37:11):
It's an amusing thought experiment, but it carries a vital
philosophical weight. If you view the universe as an updateable
software system, it provides a very clean logical solution to
collective false memories.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Because software gets patched all the time exactly.

Speaker 2 (37:25):
Developers fix bugs, tweak storylines, update assets. What if our
historical timeline was actively edited. A patch was applied to
reality to change Berenstein to Berenstein for some unknown programmatic reason.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
But they messed up the rollout right, just like in our.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
Own human software development. The patch wasn't perfectly clean. It
didn't successfully overwrite the cased local memory of every single user.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
The programmers were lazy, or they were facing a Friday
afternoon deadline and just pushed the update to the live
production server without clearing the global cache.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
It happens.

Speaker 1 (37:57):
So those collective false memories aren't failing brains. They are
literally residual data from a previous version of the simulation.
The inconsistencies are just bugs in the cosmic update process.

Speaker 2 (38:10):
While it's crucial to acknowledge the unreliability, the highly suggestible nature,
and the psychological fallibility of human memory, treating the universe
as a dynamic, patchable system perfectly solves some of the
most profound paradoxes in science, such as well it brings
us back to the macro scale. We talked about black
holes earlier as memory overflow limits, but black holes also

(38:32):
present a massive universe breaking problem regarding data deletion.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Right, I want to bring up Stephen Hawking here, specifically
Hawking's famous information paradox. Can you explain why this was
such a crisis for physics.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
A fundamental, unbreakable rule of quantum mechanics is that physical
information cannot be destroyed.

Speaker 1 (38:49):
Ever, hold on, why is that a problem? If I
write a secret down in a book and then I
throw that book into a fire and burn it to ashes,
the book is gone. The information is destroyed to human.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
Eyes, yes, but not to a physicist.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Okay, explain that to me.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
To a theoretical physicist, the information of that book, the
exact quantum state of every carbon atom, the arrangement of
the ink molecules is technically preserved in the smoke the heat,
radiation and the ashes. Really, yes, it's wildly scrambled and
completely unreadable to us, but fundamentally, the data still exists

(39:24):
in the universe. If you had a godlike supercomputer, you
could theoretically track every single molecule of smoke, reverse the
chemical reaction of the fire, and reconstruct the text of
the book perfectly. Information is conserved.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
Okay, that's wild, But what about the black holes?

Speaker 2 (39:39):
However, Stephen Hawking threw a wrench into this. He mathematically
proved that black holes emit radiation now called Hawking radiation,
and over trillions of years, they slowly evaporate into nothing.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Okay, I see where this is going. If the black
hole eventually evaporates and disappears completely, where does all the
information of the stuff that fell into it go? The stars,
the planets, the burn books that got sucked in exactly.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Hawking's math suggested that when the black hole evaporates, the
information is permanently, irrevocably deleted from the.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Universe, which breaks the rule.

Speaker 2 (40:12):
This violates the core laws of quantum physics. It was
a massive crisis. Stephen Hawkings spent decades agonizing over this paradox,
trying to find a mathematical workaround.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
But if we apply our lens today, if we are
in a simulation, the solution is almost embarrassingly simple, isn't it?
What happens to deleted files on a computer?

Speaker 2 (40:32):
In any complex computer system, you constantly generate massive amounts
of temporary, useless data over time. This bloats the system
and makes it run slow. To keep the server running
smoothly and prevented from crashing, you need garbage collection algorithms.
These are automated processes that run quietly in the background.
They sweep up outdated, corrupted, or unnecessary data files, compress them,

(40:53):
and permanently delete them to free up hard dry space and.

Speaker 1 (40:56):
Ram black holes are the cosmic recycle bin. Essentially, yes,
they aren't these terrifying, mysterious destroyers of physical law. They
are just routine server maintenance. They are sweeping up excess code,
old stars, and complex matter to prevent the universe from lagging.

Speaker 2 (41:13):
It fits perfectly.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
It perfectly solves the paradox that plagued Hawking for his
entire career. The information is deleted, it violates physics because
physics isn't the highest law. The system administrator is deliberately
deleting the files to save space.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
It provides a perfectly functional explanation, which naturally leads us
to the next profound phase of this discussion. If we
assume there is a system administrator and the system is
actively running, managing memory, patching bugs, and deleting garbage.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
How did it start the moment it turned on?

Speaker 2 (41:45):
What did the moment of creation look like when someone
reached out and bit the power button?

Speaker 1 (41:49):
The boot up sequence. In science, we call it the
Big Bang. About thirteen point eight billion years ago, the
universe exploded into existence from an infinitely dense singularity. But
the weird thing about the Big Bang isn't just that
it happened, it's how it happened. It relates to the
concept of entropy. Right, Can you break down entropy for me?

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics. It is essentially
a measure of disorder, randomness, or chaos within a closed system.
The second law of thermodynamics dictates an absolute rule entropy
always increases over time.

Speaker 1 (42:22):
So things naturally move from order to chaos.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
Yes, if you drop an egg on the floor, it
breaks into a chaotic mess. It will never naturally unbreak
and reassemble itself into a perfect egg. A hot cup
of coffee will always cool down and dissipate its heat
into the room. The room will never naturally concentrate heat
back into the coffee systems degrade.

Speaker 1 (42:40):
So if we run the cosmic clock backwards thirteen point
eight billion years to the very beginning, the start of
the universe should have been incredibly perfectly ordered.

Speaker 2 (42:49):
Exactly the universe began was remarkably low entropy. It was
in an incredibly almost impossibly ordered and uniform state.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Why is that strange?

Speaker 2 (42:57):
From a purely statistical and physical standpoint, a natural random
explosion of infinite energy should be chaotic, messy, and highly entropic.
The statistical odds of a universe naturally starting in such
a highly structured, perfectly low entropy state are absurdly small.
How small Penrose calculated it to be one in ten

(43:17):
to the power of ten to the power of one
undred and twenty three. It's a number so close to
zero it might as well be zero.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
But think about a computer. If you are initializing a
complex computer program, if you are booting up a brand
new operating system on a fresh hard drive, or starting
a brand new fresh save file in a game that
the sims. The system doesn't start in chaos.

Speaker 2 (43:37):
No, it starts clean.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
It starts perfectly ordered. Every single variable is set to
its exact default value. Every file is perfectly placed in
its correct directory. The impossibly low entropy Big Bang looks
exactly like a deliberate coded system startup. The universe was
switched on with default settings, and.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
Those default settings were dialed in with a precision that
defies belief. This introduces what physicists called the fine tuning problem.
Fine the fundamental constants of our universe the exact strength
of gravity, the mass of an electron, the precise strength
of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force.
They are all set to specific, exact, seemingly arbitrary numbers.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
And if you tweak those numbers even a tiny bit,
the whole thing falls apart. Right like what happens if
I go into the universe as settings menu and just
nudge the gravity slider up a tiny fraction.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
The consequences would be catastrophic. If gravity were infinitesimally stronger,
stars would burn out too quickly for life to evolve,
or the universe would have collapsed back in on itself
instantly after the Big Bang.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Oh wow.

Speaker 2 (44:39):
If the electromagnetic force were slightly different, atoms literally couldn't
form bonds, stars couldn't ignite to forge heavier elements carbon,
the fundamental basis for all known organic life couldn't exist.
The parameters of our universe are balanced on an impossibly
sharp razor's edge.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
It's like walking into a massive galactic control room and
seeing thousands of dials and every single one is turned
to the exact fractional millimeter required to allow planets to
form and humans to exist.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
That's very suspicious.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
To a classical physicist, that is a deeply frustrating mystery.
It implies a miracle. But to a simulation theorist, it's
just good game design. You set the initial parameters to
create an interesting, dynamic universe. The dials returned perfectly because
a programmer deliberately turned them to see what would happen
if they balanced it just right.

Speaker 2 (45:28):
It implies deliberate programmatic intent. But there is a darker,
more deeply unsettling philosophical concept related to the system's.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
Timeline, darker than what we've already discussed.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
Yes, if the universe is a simulation, we logically, assume
that started thirteen point eight billion years ago with the
simulated Big Bang. But why must that be true? In
a simulation you have ultimate control over time. You can
set the system clock to whatever you want when you
initialize the program. Okay, this brings us to a concept
known as last thursdayism.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
Oh this is absolute philosophical nightmare fuel. I love it
and hate it at the same time. Last Thursday ism
is the concept that the entire universe, including you, me,
the Earth, the stars, and everyone listening, was actually created
last Thursday. And the terrifying part is you cannot prove
it wasn't because if the universe was booted up last Thursday,
the programmer would have created it with all the physical

(46:21):
evidence of being ancient. The dinosaur fossils would have been
pre rendered and placed in the ground, the light from
distant galaxies would be programmed to already be halfway here
hitting our telescopes today.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
And crucially, it applies to human memory. Oh no, if
the simulation started recently, whether it was last Thursday or
ten seconds ago, when this deep dive started, your memories
were created with it, Your cherished childhood memories, your first kiss,
the memory what you had for breakfast yesterday, the trauma
you carried, the love you feel, All of it could
simply be loading.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
Screen content, loading screen content.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
It is backstory pre installed into your consciousness data file
to give your careacter or context and motivation. Subjectively, you
couldn't tell the difference between a real, lived memory and
a downloaded data packet inserted into your brain a millisecond ago.

Speaker 1 (47:09):
It is utterly terrifying. I'm imagining the listener right now,
driving their car or walking the dog, thinking about a
vacation they took five years ago, remembering the smell of
the ocean, and realizing that vacation might.

Speaker 2 (47:21):
Never have happened just data.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
It might just be a compressed ZIP file of data
dropped into their neural architecture a millisecond before they woke
up today. But let me pivot here, because if the
programmer went to all the trouble of faking billions of
years of history, rating rich backstories for eight billion people,
and building this massive, beautiful and possibly huge universe, why
is it so lonely?

Speaker 2 (47:44):
Ah, you're referring to the Fermi paradox, the great silence
of the cosmos. Exactly, we look up at the nice sky.
We know there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions
of stars and presumably trillions of habitable planets. The universe
is incredibly.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Vast old, So where is everyone?

Speaker 2 (48:02):
By all statistical logic and probability formulas like the Drake equation,
the universe should be teeming with alien life. We should
have detected radio signals, or seen megastructures blotting out stars,
or been visited. Yet there is nothing, just dead silence.
Where is everybody?

Speaker 1 (48:18):
I always try to imagine being the software developer of
this universe. Put yourself in the shoes of a programmer.
If you're booting up Earth Simulator one point zero and
your entire research goal is to watch how humans develop,
how they build cities, fight wars, and invent podcasts. Why
would you waste precious server space, memory and processing power
rendering a highly complex biological alien civilization three million light

(48:42):
years away in the Andromeda galaxy.

Speaker 2 (48:44):
You wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
We can barely see those distant galaxies through our absolute
best telescopes. We'd just see smudges of light. Is the
night sky just a high res skybox? Like a static
wallpaper pasted on the edge of the video game map
just to keep us entertained and feeling small.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
It perfectly answers humanities, the oldest, most haunting existential question,
Are we alone in the universe? With a terrifyingly practical,
bureaucratic computing answer, yes, you are alone. Because rendering cosmic
neighbors was over the project budget.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Wow, over budget.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
If the simulation is specifically designed to test Earth, or
perhaps specifically to test human consciousness under certain conditions, rendering
fully interactive conscious aliens is an immense waste of computational resources,
so they just didn't bother. The simulation only needs to
be a highly detailed right here where we can actively

(49:37):
interact with it. The rest of the universe is just
a low resolution backdrop, a matte painting to make the
terrarium look bigger than it is.

Speaker 1 (49:44):
Okay, let's zoom all the way back in. Let's pull
back from the edge of the universe, away from the
fake galaxies, right back to the listener sitting right here,
right now, listening to the cadence of our voices. Let's
talk about the mind.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
The consciousness aspect.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
Yeah, because we've talked about the hardware of space, the
code of physics, the glitches, in time, But what exactly
are we in this machine?

Speaker 2 (50:05):
This brings us to the ultimate frontier, the hard problem
of consciousness. It is perhaps the single greatest unsolved mystery
in all of science and philosophy.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
It really is.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
We can map the physical brain. We know the anatomy.
We know exactly how neurons fire, how action potentials travel
down axos, how neurotransmitters bind to chemical receptors. We understand
the mechanical hardware of the biological brain perfectly well.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
But we don't know how it makes a mind right.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
We have absolutely no idea, not even a working, testable
scientific theory, on how that physical, wet gray matter in
your skull actually creates subjective experience.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
It's the feeling of being alive. Science can explain the
mechanics of vision. It can track the photon bouncing off
a red rose entering my eye, hitting the retina, and
sending an electrical signal down the optic nerve to the
visual cortex.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
It's just physical processes.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
That science absolutely cannot explain the experience of reda It
can't explain the specific subjective sting of a paper cut,
or the emotional weight of a sad song. It can
map the electricity, but it can't explain the inner movie
theater of the mind. How does meat become aware of itself?

Speaker 2 (51:13):
Exactly? Why does a complex arrangement of carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen atoms suddenly wake up and start asking philosophical questions
about its own existence. The simulation theory offers a very elegant,
if radical solution to the heart problem, which is what
consciousness doesn't emerge from physical matter at all. The brain
is not generating the mind.

Speaker 1 (51:34):
It's not a hardware feature. It's software.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
Yes, your consciousness, your very soul, could be directly programmed
independent software. The physical brain in your simulated body is
merely an interface, a VR headset, a terminal that the
software uses to interact with the simulated physical world.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
So the brain is just the antenna exactly.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
This perfectly explains why consciousness seems so totally detached from
the physical processes of the body. Your experience of being aware,
your inner monologue, is not biological magic. It is a
feature of the code executing on a higher dimensional server.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
But if consciousness is just software, if my mind is
just a program running on a server that opens up
a deeply, deeply uncomfortable door.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
Let's talk about players versus NPCs, non player characters, ah.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
The selepsism problem. In any video game, you have the
main character, the avatar, controlled by a conscious human sitting
in the real world. And then you have the NPCs,
the townspeople, the shopkeepers, the crowds walking down the street.
They look real enough, they look real, they have dialogue,
they react if you bump into them. But there is
no interlight, there is no one driving them. They are

(52:41):
just algorithms running basic scripts to populate the world.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
It is a profoundly disturbing philosophical possibility known as solepsism
translated into the digital age. If this universe is a simulation,
we must ask the fundamental question who is the simulation
running for?

Speaker 1 (52:59):
Is it for all of us?

Speaker 2 (53:01):
It could be a multiplayer simulation running for eight billion
distinct conscious players, But it is equally mathematically possible that
computational resources are scarce. The simulation might only be running
to test one single conscious being.

Speaker 1 (53:15):
So I want the listener to really internalize this. Look
at your hands, look at the person sitting next to
you on the train, or the barista who made your
coffee today, or your spouse. Are they actually experiencing the world.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
Are they real?

Speaker 1 (53:26):
Do they have an inner movie theater? Or are they
a philosophical zombie? Are they a highly sophisticated AI mimic,
a complex neural network designed solely to generate dialogue and
reactions to make your simulation more realistic? For that matter,
am I the host of this show just a dynamically
generated audio file an AI scripts specifically designed to keep

(53:48):
you entertained and complacent on your commute today.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
The chilling part of the solapsistic trap is that you
would never ever know if you were the sole conscious player.
Everything would feel perfectly real to you. PCs would pass
the Turing test flawlessly.

Speaker 1 (54:02):
And what if I'm the MPC.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
Conversely, if you're an MPC programmed with a complex algorithm
that simulates the illusion of consciousness and self awareness, it'd
also feel completely real to yourself. You could both be
NPCs interacting right now, and the real player is some
teenager and a higher dimension who just paused the universe
to go eat dinner.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Okay, that brings us to the ultimate state change of
the human experience, the end of life death. What is
death in a simulation? Because if my consciousness is just
software running on a server, and my body is just
a temporary hardware avatar, then my mind isn't permanently tied
to the biology of my body.

Speaker 2 (54:38):
Failing reconceptualizing death is one of the most profound and
perhaps comforting impacts of simulation theory. If the physical biological
body is just an avatar, a temporary vessel fear data,
then biological death, a heart attack, old age, an accident
is not the end of the consciousness software.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
It's just a transition.

Speaker 2 (54:57):
It is simply a programmed state chain.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
It's log off or transferring to a new server.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Exactly when an avatar in a video game dies, The
software underlying the game doesn't cease to exist. The code
doesn't die. The simulation might simply reload your consciousness data elsewhere,
like a respond right, It could run your program again
from a previous safepoint to see if you make different choices,
or perhaps upon avatar death, it transfers your data file

(55:24):
to an entirely different simulation, a higher level server with
different physics, different rules, and different dimensions.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
Think about how much this aligns with thousands of years
of human religious, and spiritual thought across cultures. We have
concepts of the afterlife, of reincarnation, of resurrection.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
They're very similar.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
Translated into simulation theory. They all sound remarkably like software
backups and data migrations. Heaven or Hell could just be
different server environments where you are sorted based on your
moral analytics during the Earth simulation.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
Reincarnation is just the system booting up a new biological
avatar and white being your local memory drive, but keeping
the core code intact. What we mourn is death might
just be a transition built in by the original programmers.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
I actually kind of like that.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
I actually find a strange modern comfort in this perspective too.
For a long time, modern humanity has been poorn between
two extremes. On one side, cold materialistic biological atheism, where
death is absolute nothingness the screen goes black forever right
on the other side, spiritual belief systems that require immense

(56:30):
faith in the supernatural and the unprovable. Simulation theory bridges
that gap beautifully.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
It really does.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
It provides a highly technological, mathematically, and scientifically plausible framework
for an afterlife. It suggests that our data, our essence,
our learned experiences are valuable to the system and are
preserved it's comforting.

Speaker 1 (56:49):
Sure, it makes you feel like you're part of a
grander design, unless you consider the dark alternative, the sudden end.
The sudden end, because while a simulation might have backups
in new servers, we also know a fundamental, inescapable truth
about every single computer system ever built in the history
of technology.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
They get turned off.

Speaker 1 (57:07):
Every single simulation, no matter how vast or important. Eventually ends.
Servers are decommissioned to make room for new hardware. The
grant money for the cosmic research project runs out. The
power grid in the higher dimension.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Fails, or the player just quits, or maybe.

Speaker 1 (57:24):
The higher dimensional being playing the game just gets bored
of the Earth's storyline and reaches down to unplug the console.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
And this is the ultimated chilling fact of our existence.
If this theory holds true, if we're in a simulation,
there is absolutely nothing preventing our creators, the system administrators,
from pulling the plug, and we wouldn't see it coming.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
There'd be no apocalyptic warning in the sky, no gradual
fading of the stars, no dramatic music playing one moment.
Everything is completely normal. You're driving to work, drinking your coffee,
listening to our voices, and the next microsecond, nothing, just nothing.
The universe simply stops being computed. You wouldn't know what happened,
because the very software that processes the concept of knowing

(58:04):
and experiencing would be suspended mid cycle, game over, end
of program.

Speaker 2 (58:08):
And we inevitably return to the unfalsifiable trap we discussed
at the beginning, the fish and water concept. Right, A
fish cannot comprehend the concept of wetness because water is
the only environment it is ever known. It certainly cannot
conceive of a dry desert or a mountain. We are
so deeply intrinsically embedded inside the rules, the physics, and

(58:30):
the logic of this specific simulation that we physically and
mentally cannot conceive of what the outside base reality would
even look like.

Speaker 1 (58:38):
We're stuck inside.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
We are trapped in the code, using code's logic to
try and understand the code.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
It is the most beautiful, terrifying, and awe inspiring thought
experiment that might actually be the literal physical truth of
our existence. From Elon Musk's statistical probability of billions of
fake worlds to the mind bending, occlusion culling of quantum mechanics,
where reality vans. When we close our eyes, it covers
so much ground, from black holes acting as cosmic trash

(59:05):
cans clearing out server space, to the haunting reality that
our deepest memories and our very consciousness might just be
lines of script running on an unimaginably vast server in
a universe we will never see. Yeah, we have truly
peeled back the layers of the matrix today.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
We have looked at the hardware limits of space and time,
the software glitches of the human brain, and the profound
philosophical implications of a programmed existence. And whether you walk
away from this discussion believing you are a biological organism
on a sloating rock and a cold universe, or a
complex algorithm in a highly curated digital terrarium, the sheer

(59:41):
fact that we possess the consciousness to even ask the
question is a marvel in itself.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
It absolutely is the fact that the code is trying
to understand itself is a beautiful thing. And so we
leave you with this final thought to ponder as you
go about your brilliantly rendered high resolution day. I want
you to imagine this scenario if you definitively found out
to beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were
indeed living in a simulation, and through some glitch or reward,

(01:00:07):
you are magically granted one single conversation with the programmer
the system administrator. What is the very first question you
would ask them? Would you demand to be let out
into the real base reality, whatever terrifying place that might be,
or would you just ask them for the cheat codes
to make the simulation a little easier. Let us know
what you think. Leave a comment with your answer and

(01:00:28):
tell us where you stand on the true nature of reality.
Until next time, keep questioning the code

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}100% Proof? Scientists Find "Binary Code" in the Fabric of Reality

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Weekly

All Episodes

100% Proof? Scientists Find "Binary Code" in the Fabric of Reality

Stuff You Should Know