118. Why You’re Probably NOT in a Simulation (New Research) - Transcripts
Welcome to the Alfalfa podcast 🌾
🏷 Check out Eight Sleep: https://bit.ly/eightsleepalfalfa
👉 Use code ALFALFA at checkout for a special discount.
🏷 Check out Dry Farm Wines: https://bit.ly/dfwalfalfa
👉 Use our link for an extra bottle for one penny!
🔗 Use our link for a 5% discount on trading fees on DYDX
🔗 Use our link for a 5% discount on trading fees on GMX
Follow the podcast:
- Our website with all links
- Our Discord community
- Transcripts of all episodes
Follow the hosts:
- Arman Assadi
- Eric Johanson
- Nick Urbani
- Stephen Cesaro
Music by: Allie Gross x KOCH
Disclaimer: This is not Financial Advice. All opinions expressed by the podcast are intended for informational or entertainment purposes only and should not be treated as investment or financial advice of any kind. Alfalfa and its representatives are not liable to the listener/viewer or any other party, for the listener/viewer’s use of, or reliance on, any information received, directly or indirectly, from this media. The listener/viewer should always do their own research. Any views or opinions represented on this show are personal and belong solely to the show.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/alfalfa/message
Cheers you went to spritz day cheers. You went sprint stay I went spritz last week as well. Oh i've been wanting to spritz but like
You have to pop an entire bottle. Say, are you demolishing a whole bottle of champagne? I'm drinking
I'm drinking the sodeco from last week. Oh Yeah, wait, how do you preserve that? I put a cork in it and put it in the fridge. I'll allow it. I'll allow it. I think that's I think it's
Oh yeah. Wait how do you preserve that? I'll allow it. I think that's, I think it's fine.
Flat as hell. I've done worse. I've done worse. But there's club soda in it. Brings it back to life. In Italy they make the spritz with like a non-bubbly wine. Like they
make it with like a white wine I think. So white wine I think. So do you drink the spritz because
of your Italian heritage or in spite of? Yeah it's just mostly spite.
But you just really love it. I know your rule. No you just really love it. I know your rule. I do. It's a great, it's a great day drink, it's a great hot day drink. But I was gonna say it has to be kind of warm. Yeah. It was hailing on my way over here. That's, that's a myth. Like you've never had like a holiday spritz? Hales are...
It's spices in it or something, like there's
variation on it that are nice and comforting even in the cold. I haven't. But I was going to say it has to be kind of warm. Yeah, it was hailing on my way over here.
Tails of Miss spices in it or tails of miss variations. I never judge a man's drink. So yeah, no, enjoy the red wine. I feel like we just knock me out. Yeah, like in the middle of the show. Yeah. Yeah. No, I definitely start slurring by a minute 27. So yeah, every time. Um, well, speaking of so a little bit of like an update on this experiment we call the alfalfa podcast. So today's episode. We're going to be discussing the nature of reality, um, which is a big topic.
And we're going to be starting with some new research to share on simulation hypothesis simulation theory, um, research that was really interesting and fascinating to me, which I'll reserve, but first we're going to be going into like the life version as we discussed of the alfalfa around so to the audience we're changing the structure a little bit, and we're trying to create some consistency from episode to episode. Now this episode that we do that we record on Wednesdays that you hear on Fridays is our life episode. It's what used to be our politics and our culture slash life episode all combined into one and in the life episode we're talking about technology, science, philosophy, productivity, whatever it may be really that is the sort of intersection and mind space of us four outside of money and the money episodes we're going to get a little bit more broad outside of just crypto which we've done before. We've talked about real estate, we've talked about business, we've talked about all those things we're going to start to introduce the alfalfa around more intentionally in that episode as well and start to bring our backgrounds more into it for example Nick's background in E-commerce, Eric's as a CFA, mine as an entrepreneur in the startup world and AI world and of course Steven's as a professional trader. So we're getting better and better and we hope you enjoy it. So for the life alfalfa around We're pretty much bringing any discovery or anything interesting from the week, which means we're going to get some really fun little potpourri of variety. So let's dig into it.
And we haven't talked about it. Every time.
Yeah. Let's dig into it. And we haven't talked about these beforehand. These are all supposed to be surprises to everybody.
So next week I'm going to go over, I should have full body MRI results and discussions with the doctor. So I was talking to some people in the discord, had some questions about it. So I'm going to get some questions answered, but next week. I'll be teasing us again.
Open looping you, motherfucker. Third straight up. I know, I know.
I know, I know. Now, I guess I'll ask you. You know some of your results. You're waiting for more. In general, what's your takeaway? Like, is this something you're like, I'm working this into my life protocol. I'm doing this every this many years.
I thought it was like a once a year thing. This might be like a once every three years thing. And then maybe when you hit over the age of like 55, you just hit it every year. Something like that, but you have to pair it with other tests that I'm now realizing and I think that's what we'll talk about next
Week, I can't wait. I can't wait to dive in on that one. I have so many questions
Can't wait to show you guys I still have more can't wait to show you guys a picture of my prostate But I have for this alfalfa round I wanted to bring up a anniversary it's the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Oh Oh, congratulations. Thank you. Cheers So, I just want to talk about it for a bit like it feels like it's a it's a key moment in time I don't know if we have time to talk about for a full episode But you know we chat about it for a bit like we're at this weird stalemate I think like I've kind of gotten like a to use your word potpourri of sources to see where we're at and it seems like most people agree that we're in the stalemate leading up to like spring summertime when things will maybe Take a more deciding point one way or the other. So Russia is like gearing up with hundreds of thousands of more men and Ukraine is gearing up with a lot more Armament and trained troops. So there's been troops that have been training with NATO countries and there's a lot more weapons coming So they're all gonna kind of show up in May June time. And so obviously Russia is gonna have the like pure force You know superiority, but they're all in Ukraine is gonna have some brand new toys to play with as well So I don't know I kind of still see this as like three potential outcomes like we have this protracted long war like the stalemate just Continues for years and years and we're all used to that with Iraq and Afghanistan and you can go back as far as Vietnam Second is nuclear war or three is like some kind of compromise Peace treaty. Okay, one of those is bad. Yeah, one of those is bad But if you look at those three like okay, never ending war nuclear war or compromise Like which one should we be aiming for and like since the start the United States has never really made an effort to Say like well, let's let's set expectations for Ukrainian leadership Properly and say hey, here's our kind of parameters in which we'll still play within but you need to reach a Some kind of like compromise at some point at some point and I don't know I kind of I find it really frustrating Have you guys ever seen them Charlie Wilson's war? Yeah, right. It was about the understand yeah, it was about like the United States arming the Mujahideen to to kill Russians and And once this started going you know the the money just started flowing and flowing and flowing because there's around like We're killing Russians and there's no United States military members on the ground This is amazing and I kind of think that's where the goals are for the United States Like I think the stated goal is like well, there's this humanitarian thing that we're trying to protect We're trying to protect, you know, democracy in Ukraine. We're trying to defend the Ukrainian people But I also think there's this real darker, you know goal of like Like, you know, we're just trying to kill Russians at a good rate in the hopes that we like hopefully, you know, disarm a potential military opponent in the future.
And you know, I'd say for now, we're probably doing a decent job at it. So I was doing some rough numbers. It looks like in terms of US taxpayer dollars, we're currently at a $1.8 million per dead
Russian soldier and 500K if you count the injured Russian soldiers.
Oh, no, no, no. Oh, congratulations.
Yeah. One of those is the United.
Yeah. I have not heard that before.
Yeah. You just, I just took like the number amount of a total approved dollars. I don't know if those dollars have been like put to work yet and divide into like how many are estimations of like how many Russian soldiers have died call like 60,000, maybe 100,000 total dead and injured. You're looking at like, you know, half a million to injure someone and 1.8 million to, to kill a Russian soldier. And maybe that's what, you know, the powers that be are, are, are seeing this. And, and you look at Joe Biden, Joe Biden was around when we were funding the Mujahideen and probably like, wow, we just send money and Russians die. This is, you know, this is great for our like strategic goals. And so this game is not necessarily new to him. Like I think they're, they know this game and it's, it's useful to them, but I still haven't found an argument that's a good for me as an, as an American citizen. Like why should this be the most important thing going on in the world right now? And we've maybe talked about maybe off the pod, but like, why aren't certain things get hitting the news and, and, and this war in Ukraine is, is, is top of mind. And how does that relate to me as a citizen?
And I've never really heard a good argument. And what we're talking about going back to those three outcomes is like, okay, we are playing, let's be honest, we're playing this game where we're trying to like really hurt the Russian, Russian military establishment, taking away their machines, taking away their people so that they can't, you know, go after or make future aggressions. But like you're assuming that we are going to be on that path. We are going to eventually like go head to head with them. And if, if you're making that assumption, is, is it worth a 3% probability of nuclear war? An increase of 3% of probability, nuclear war? In my mind, like as an American citizen, I don't, I don't know if I have that case and like I've always been a, we have to pay, we have to pay.
And we're paying for subsidizing, to pay what we're paying for subsidizing it for an increased
probability of nuclear war?
Right. I mean, you guys are only looking at one end of the decision tree here. Like, Oh, if we go to war, then the probability of nuclear war, if we do this, the probability of nuclear war increases. I could make an argument that the probability of nuclear war also increases on the other end of the decision tree Which is like say you just let Putin roll into Eastern Europe and keep doing that
Maybe like does he stop at Ukraine, right?
Worst situation like okay. I'm gonna be crash here, right? worst situation like Okay, I'm gonna be crashed here but like let him roll through Ukraine. Let him roll through Moldova We already have this thing called NATO It has a set map and there are countries where we said if you attack we drew the line We're going head-to-head and that that that is very clear But then when you start like, you know going beyond that agreement beyond our commitments, you know Are you the aggressor at that point? You know and that's you're the one stepping out of your boundary right exactly and like we've you know We've already moved in neutral territory. Yeah, we've already moved the NATO lines like towards Russia towards Russia's borders You know against kind of granted these are like previous previous administration promises and we've done a host of other things to like provoke and You know make Russia fearful that we're constantly progressing toward towards this end But yeah, I don't I don't know I'm just having a tough time with it right now like understanding Why are we doing this and I thought the the one-year anniversary was a good time to? Feel that gripe and this is coming from a person who's like pro NATO
Like I like these I like these systems of alliances that are in place gonna be crash here for us here
But going beyond well, here's something I want to talk about because I've read the headlines monthly where we're like Donating billions of dollars to Ukraine, right? And then like in you when you do a little bit of a deeper dive You realize that we're not actually giving them cash. We're giving them weaponry, right? And that and that feels a little better because you're like, oh wait Like that money actually flows back into our system because it goes through the defense contractors, which
Opens we're not even using in a lot of cases. Well, well that I think that's starting to change Like I think some of the newer systems that we're you know
Either loaning them or granting them and we talk about that. I guess we talk about that I guess that's that's where I wanted to go with it was like is this ultimately all all subsidized by the US taxpayer at the end of the day or does this money like maybe if it is does that money at least trickle back down through our economy because these You know like US contractors like they get the income and then they like they use it here
I mean if you look at last last day or maybe I mean if you look at last last year defense stocks were bullish
You know almost just as bullish as like really helps Joe six-pack out a lot. Yeah, Lockheed Martin goes to the moon
Yeah, yeah, the defense industry is so unique because like they call it a military industrial complex for a reason. They've like You know like spread their little
Roots to like all parts of the United States like meaning that you can't but there is a portion that I don't understand yet That doesn't flow through US corporations. It's called the foreign military financing program and that's essentially when we say Oh, we're giving weapons to Israel for example, which we do every year It's actually on loan and they have to pay us back and they have paid us back They've always paid us back you look at other countries like Egypt They maybe they've you know Maybe been a little slow on their loans at times Jordan is another country that we have gone through this program And I'm not sure that money Necessarily, I don't know how it works, but it may not necessarily go through US corporations. It may just be like Treasury loan or treasury money back. Yeah. Yeah
Yeah, anyway, I think overall like I don't have a strong opinion on this like even over the last year It's taught me to be humble in a lot of ways I had a lot of strong opinions coming into it, and I think they were proven wrong and I I remember listening to Peter Zion talking about how Russia was gonna like basically roll over them in like two weeks And that did not at all play out So I think there's a lesson in there lesson in making predictions about the future about the complexity of What happens at a global scale with this stuff And yeah I think there's a lot of messy grey with this thing and we're not gonna be humble in a lot of ways
It's like they had all the capabilities and we're not gonna figure out if it's a good or bad
It's probably both good and bad and something. I think it's all bad. I think it's all bad shit. Yeah
I think it's all bad. I think it's all bad and I'll leave all of you guys with just you know It's all but in the last 48 hours think about crying hours. Think about what's transpired. Like Biden went went to Ukraine and basically like drew a red line and was like Ukraine will will not lose and then we're talking about them committing like human rights or I forget what the phrase was, it was a very specific phrase that doesn't get used often but as soon as you label a country that that commits like human atrocities you basically say like we're cutting you off and then now the world is slowly turning into teams like Iran has already been supplying Russia. China is now, Xi's gonna go to Russia on a peacekeeping mission. No, right yeah right they're gonna talk about like well what weapons can we sell you and so the teams are forming and I know this sounds like alarmist and it probably is a little bit but like I think the alfalfa is like, I don't know this is one perspective you can use it to you know inform your perspective or maybe you know take another take but I get a little worried that like these things are starting to form and you look back a World War I and it had a trigger right like things were set tinderbox was set yeah and then a trigger takes place and so I feel like the tinderbox
is set and that's what makes me a little nervous. They're assuming their position. You think it's all bad. In the last 48. They're assuming their positions in a way. Yeah like the positions are set. I've rarely seen you like this strong on something which I love. Not a baby. Take a big dance. More of this all day but also this
concerned and I think that that says a lot. Yeah like the positions are set. Not a baby. Take a big dance. And we'll talk about it as we get into like election season. Yeah. Which candidates like Nikki Haley enter the race she's like we should be giving them more. We should have been giving them more sooner. I'm
like well fuck like who am I gonna choose now. Fuck like who am I gonna
choose now. Your next step is you start to drag people like Steven publicly on Twitter. Oh that's that's my next step in there. Publicly on Twitter. Oh that's that's my next step in my persona. Yeah okay. Anyway I'm done. That's my
in my persona. Yeah okay. Anyway I'm done. That's my longer discussion for another time. Absolutely. I'm not so sure I agree with you but we can we can postpone that. All right. We postpone it to later. I have a totally different. Do we want to just pivot to completely. Okay. So I have this thing that that like grinds my gears.
Tell me Peter. Absolutely. All right. We postpone it to later. I have a totally completely. Okay. So really grinds my gears. So I was in yoga with my girlfriend the other day and she was proudly displaying her new like Stanley Cup which is apparently very popular on TikTok and I guess yeah. Yeah. Yeah I don't know the girls are admiring this cut. It looked to me just like you know standard thermos cup with like a straw but she's
very happy about it. So you know I was happy for her. I guess yeah. Yeah I don't know. Yeah I don't know the
girls. I have a thermos. I mean a Stanley. Does that mean I'm a black and
Decker black and Decker. Your TikTok sensation. Anyway she starts talking about how she likes it encourages you to drink all this water and this conversation about drinking a bunch of water and it like triggered something like I've always been bothered by like people who just force feed themselves like a gallon of water a day because it's never made any sense to me. I'm just like the human body has this thing where it gets thirsty and tells you that it's thirsty like why are you just guzzling gallons of water and peeing every 15 minutes. It doesn't make any sense to me at all and then I was browsing Twitter the other day and Armand's guy carnivore Aurelius had a tweet came up in my feed drinking eight glasses of water a day came from a recommendation in 1945 with zero medical basis. You don't need to force yourself to drink water. Your body tightly regulates needs for thirst chugging more water than you need will deplete
electrolytes making you more dehydrated. So then what happened to the whole you know golden rule of not even the golden rule but like this little almost common
knowledge at this point where if you're thirsty you're dehydrated. So I did some digging and apparently that's not a thing really. I do know that you can
over hydrate. Yes you can also cure yourself with water which is really
interesting. Well if you drink too much you dilute the sort of sodium content right. Sodium is critical for like your neurons to operate so people can die drinking too much water. Yeah because you're like just diluting that very critical function that's happening in your body. Yeah I did some digging into this and there was a study or something that came out in 1945 which seems to be the origin of the eight glasses a day thing and it's interesting because if you read it there's a sentence in it at the end that says most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods. So the study was basically like yeah you need two and a half liters of water a day. By the way there's water in everything you eat food there's water in coffee there's water like all everything you consume kind of has water. So this got taken and run with to a crazy level. Yeah there's some stuff in the University of Michigan website that seemed to convey everywhere I looked on the internet with like actual like medical studies was sort of like yeah there's not really any basis to this claim at at all. But it's like one of the things that just put out there in your face constantly. Drink water, drink water.
You found him. Drink more water. So,
yeah. Yeah. It's the most basic function target rich. Yeah.
So target rich.
Like do hold on.
I want to, I just want to like, hold on. I want to, I just want to say this just so you can dunk on me. I drink three gallons a day, three gallons. No yes I have a gallon.
I know. I know you're one of the guys he's referring to because you literally carry around the gallon, but I also drink a fuckton of water for me, tons.
Like for me, tons, like, I'm thirsty.
Yeah, same. Yeah.
Same. I just drink it. If you are thirsty and you are drinking, I would say that's fine. think like the body like is thirsty so you drink water. Right. Yeah. And a lot of people who are thirsty already dehydrated but why the f*** would you evolve that way. Like that
doesn't make any sense. Oh by the way oh you're dead so.
Why the f*** was… There are a lot of people that don't drink a lot of water like all they drink is like soda and coffee and garbage and the first time they decide like I should probably start drinking water they start feeling thirsty for the first time as a result too which is
like a weird sort of counter to be honest, I thought this was like the one thing that like keeps me going. Like I got some bad habits. I was like, at least I'm drinking water. No, funny thing.
At least no funny thing. We're obsessed with and I was thinking about like, why did this happen? And then I realized like, all the economic incentives are on the side of you pounding water, people want to sell you water. They want to sell you water. Vegas people, like there's people selling you like a Netflix thing. There's no economic incentive to not drink water. Like, what are
people going to sell you? Okay, that's water. People want to sell you water. They want to sell you water because of
I'm here. You're here. This is going to spark a great discussion in the discord. I'm sure some people will go dig deeper on this and or have already
gone deep on this I'm very curious to learn don't even drink bottled water, like I drink like
water from the city, drinking water, drinking water, drinking water. Okay, drinking water,
i just went up to dinner last night with a couple who gets spring water imported to a
tank beneath their house. That water has never touched plastic. It's only touch copper euros.
I like that. I don't drink tap water anymore, never felt better. I don't drink tap water
anymore. Three gallons. You feel pretty good. Okay. All right. Keep you guys on your toes. I didn't see that coming.
All right, what's going on in your mind?
I didn't see that coming, I like that one. I like to keep you guys on your toes. Yeah.
I didn't see that coming, what's going on in your mind? So, life alfalfa for me is, my life has been in dire straits, shambles, since our dopamine detox. Oh shit. Wow. Still. I feel partly responsible. This is the worst thing ever, for me. Oh man. And like, I'm sorry, dude.
The crux of it for me is that, like, you, for me. Oh man. I know this.
I'm sorry, dude. Intentionally remove all your habits. And that's for good and bad. But like, there are good habits that you have. Productivity habits, and whatever, when you like, remove all of your habits, it's like dropping a nuke on it. And to me, like, it's been hard to build back. Like, good habits? Yeah, like the habits that I had that were actually positive. Wait, which positive habits did you stop? I stopped doing everything.
Wait, which positive habits? I feel like this is like a instructions not clear.
I did nothing for 12 days. Literally nothing.
I love this. This is back up.
I love this pure resentment being voiced by Steven. This was the worst experience of my life. Oh my gosh. Just been being voiced by Steven. And I don't mean in terms of, it was hard. I mean, in terms of this did not benefit me at all. Like, even the fact that I don't use Twitter anymore, I look at that as a negative.
Like, I don't use Twitter at all anymore.
Like, I don't use Twitter at all anymore. You said this to me the other day.
Yeah this is a problem. I was like, great, bro. You're like, no, man. It's like naturally addictive.
So, justBOA elect. I didn't have a problem with Twitter before.
Now I just don't use it at all. Now I just don't use it at all. Dude, how fucking hard is it to just use Twitter.
How fucking hard is it to build back habits?
like this like it didn't need to destroy it. Dude, you're truly a monk now. Like you have you have
nothing. Exactly. Yeah, nothing. Apparently, we've discovered that you have no ability to build and regulate habits. So maybe we can look at this as an opportunity to develop that. Here's here's how
here's here's how I was talking to our buddy, Kun, all about he's like, so how'd that go? I was like, like, imagine that you have a car that's working, and then you just totally disassemble it. And then you're like, okay, cool. Now I'm like, how you put this car back together now it's like, why
did I do this? Yeah, disassembly and then you're like, how do you put the scar on the side?
Why did I do this? Yeah. Wow. That's a good analogy. No, it's not. It's a no, it's not.
It's a grant analogy. I mean, it's been an analogy for him and she like, my analogy was operating. It was, it was good, like, it's not what we went through
Like my analogy was operating it was it was good. Like it's not what we went through
We said Eric maybe you should try 87 octane to see if your car works just as well, dude And then he took the whole car apart. Yeah
This thing should have been for me stop drinking for 12 days Don't smoke a pop bar and take Instagram off your phone like that is all that I needed to do Yeah, like I could you just needed to remove some bad habits like literally though But I just totally disassemble the car and this fucking car is hard to put back together
First of all, and it's like it's not driving, right? Look, it's not good. Yeah Something told me like you were up to something different. I don't know. I was like, yeah Yeah, you you you went you went full monk mode, which is I guess what we all did I don't know different. So you're your alfalfa is when your friends An accountability competition check in with yourself make sure that this is
Check in with yourself Like it is because when I went through this thing like even six days in I could tell that this wasn't serving me But I was like I committed to it. So I'm gonna do it But then like eight days in I was like what the fuck am I listening to these people like I should do what's be what like What serves me, you know, like why am I listening to some jackass on Instagram like Huberman or whatever? Like I should just literally do what makes me feel good and what is helpful
Like why would I listen to outside forces when I know what is right fair enough? Yeah fair enough I mean, we're all different cats, but that your approach to it makes I understand that for you I really I really do but I think the majority of people By doing something like that would would gain I think we all gain something out of it And that's not a counter to your experience. I'm only talking about my
Don't drink coffee. Yeah, it's crazy. That that was the thing that I didn't think there was any change Like of all the things I did I didn't think that was the most permanent change
I was gonna have just just me not drinking on the weekends is like fundamentally a drastic change from like drinking in for 18 years, like Like I've need that needing it everyday preset period. Yeah, even learned that I was like, I don't ever want that migraine again
that's a huge need that needing it every day reset period yeah even I learned that week that's a huge takeaway just in general for dopamine related stuff the fact that even just having these small breaks on stuff can be like really good for you and sustain you over a long period of time without having you
completely but I was just used even as that you try drinking more water for 12
days and just see how that goes I did that I do when I was young I did all this stupid diet crap and everything and I was like wait a minute why am I why am I only eating lentils why am I only like why why am I ingesting meat like up my butt yeah you just yeah you definitely go through this period right we're like some Andrew Tate type figure talks to you on the internet it's just like you've been in The Matrix the whole time you thought that eating chicken and rice was healthy okay everybody comes up with a human lie to you here's my thing and you're like oh my god mind-blown and then you go through it all and you realize that actually most of it was just complete nonsense and you try to pick up the pieces and find like the one in ten things that actually was some
sort of alpha and to me the water is another one of those things I feel amazing during a lot of water but I also just naturally wanted is that guy done By the way, like is he in jail? Like is he done? I have no they made a big example out of him
That's for sure. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. He's there's there's been some funny like coin memes going around for him But like I don't matrix is shorting my coins
But like that's your sliver, but like that's your sliver of the Andrew Tate
My Twitter My Twitter feed has Andrew Tate crypto memes Yeah, I respect that. Yeah. No, I don't I don't know and I don't really care that much at the moment
Cool main event Well, I mean, yeah my alfalfa. I think I'll just use it to go to just kind of like Open up the main topic. Yeah. So man quite the potpourri so The basic idea I assumed when we were preparing for this episode I was like, well, I don't think we should spend any time at all on like what is simulation hypothesis But maybe we should because according to you guys some people like a huge chunk of people might not know what it is basic premise of simulation hypothesis is this reality like you and everything in it is nothing more than a computer simulation and that the entire universe that you know and everything that we do and see and touch and smell and taste with our five senses is just a computer program Running in an inaccessible reality above us like that there is this other reality above us and we are nothing more than this computer simulation and the way that this hypothesis was created funny with the timing so the crater of this is nick bostrom. And he's a great philosopher brilliant duties been on a lot of podcasts and. Ironically this was created by him in two thousand three right that order yeah I know that right after the matrix movies so I don't know when matrix one came out but I want to say was like late nineties like ninety nine ninety eight. And then there was like two which was also good and then three which is like but the whole idea for or was her yeah very average yeah I didn't even watch it the matrix.
Yeah, the foreign right the whole yeah, the whole idea
Yeah, very average
Is just the one and yeah, it's the yeah, it's the one yeah and I mean, I mean the matrix like the font the joke that we all store around Which is I mean at this point is like the matrix was a documentary What is that documentary? It's a documentary of us. And what is that documentary about in many ways? the matrix is exposing a simulation and this theory and I don't know this because I didn't dig into like whether Nick Bostrom was inspired by the matrix or to what degree that allowed him to go to this space to come up with
this hypothesis but the correlations are pretty remarkable. Should we talk about like the underlying like you talked about the general idea of it but there is like sort of like a postulate underneath it that is difficult to logically refute right and I'm gonna sort of butcher it but I think the premise is one you have to accept that somewhere in the universe there's like an alien race with like massive computational power and then if you accept that you have to accept that they will want to use that computational power to do some sort of simulations on the universe and then if you accept that that, you accept the idea that they will run more than one of them. In fact, it will likely run thousands, if not millions of those simulations, right? And then if you accept all those things, and you accept that there is one base reality, and basically, all the simulated realities that the odds that you were actually in the real reality is sort of like infinitesimally pat, given like the number of simulated realities that would be out there. Right. Yeah. So the general gist of it, yeah. And it's kind of hard to you're like small yeah because it kind of leads you into accepting those things and then it hits you at the last thing you're like oh it
doesn't feel right but I don't know how to argue against it yeah it's funny cuz like that alien race is essentially you because what we're talking about is this like recursive process right I mean you are it is because you ultimately have to become it because for simulation hypothesis to be true it means that we will also create a simulation the only way this simulation exists is that we will create a simulation I'm gonna open a loop on that that I'm gonna come back to a really weird man it's not to get really weird Let me share. Get wonky on me. Let me. Let me share a trilemma. That. Never heard you say that before. Exists. What? The one. This is the original trilemma. This is a trilemma I get excited about. So imagine three doors.
This is what. Bostrom. Is it Bostrom or Bostrom? That's gonna drive me crazy. But I'm gonna say Bostrom. That Bostrom proposes. There's three doors. You're looking at three doors. Door one is. So there's this reality. You're the civilization and you're looking at three doors. Door one is.
Alien race is you. It is only where you are. This simulation exists.
It starts to get really weird. Let me share.
Never heard you say that before.
This is the original trilemma. It just doesn't happen. Never happened. It has never happened. It will never happen. It hasn't happened. It just never gets achieved. Door two is the simulation technology is never used.
So it's invented but they realize that it could be. It's there. It could be dangerous.
For some reason it's there. For some reason civilization decides to put it in a box and tuck it away. And I think that's the least plausible. But like let's just have it there. It is part of the trilemma. And door three is the technology is achieved and used. were in it. Now a lot of people think this is a more modern theory because Elon Musk is the one that popularized it. So when he was really on his like rise to prominence he was getting on all these stages doing all these interviews and having all these discussions and one of the first things that he brought up that really like rocketed him was simulation theory and he has a famous quote and he's so very nonchalant about it. Not nonchalant but very matter-of-fact about it where he's just like there is a billions to one chance that we're not in a simulation like we are you know it is 99.9999% that we are and the reason is because of the way he approaches this hypothesis and is thinking around the hypothesis because the way you said Stephen it's like if it can happen and that exists and that reality is there then the only reality that can possibly exist is like it is inevitable. There is an underlying assumption in his view and in many people's view that believe this, that door three is the only door. Like simulation never achieved, no one believes that because they look at Moore's law.
They look at AI in the last two years and not even in the last six months and they go, if this is what we're seeing today, like how can we not create a simulation? Like just literally look in the last six months, like we're getting closer and closer to artificial general intelligence. We have people like we should open that thread later around the bankless episode that happened the other day around, what's his name? Eleazar and like how AI is ultimately like he's also like 100% they're going to kill us. Like it's over. There's no stopping this. So most people view technology as like this uncontrollable one-way road. There's no turning back. So the only door they look at is door three. Like technology is used and achieved and used. Eleazar? I'm curious what you guys think about that.
Like do you think there's a world where door one or door two is even plausible before
we even just continue to the rest? Yeah, certainly. I mean like one of the arguments that like Elon Musk says is, you know, our current humanity is, you know, five to ten thousand years old and the universe is tens of billions of years old. So the idea is that, you know, civilizations could have advanced far enough where they develop this computational power. But you could also just be the first, right? You could also just be the first one. We are in base reality and we're the first like, you know, maybe species that has that kind of power and we've we're on the precipice of developing that kind of computational power. I mean, I don't know if the Sims in the Sim City are, you know, conscious, but you know, you could argue that
maybe we already have that. So door one is that we don't develop the power. We don't, yeah. I just feel like the odds of that are just dramatically played down and they're like astronomically high. We don't. Right. When we talk about like all these, there's these all these little constants in the universe. And if you just tweak them very ever so slightly, like none of reality exists, like the whole thing is just so sensitive and the complexity of it. I don't know. It just seems very probable to me that no civilization, no matter how advanced ever achieves the capability of doing something like that. Right. So I think that that's downplayed.
I also feel like there's some weird statistical trick being played on people. And I don't know how to exactly say this because I'm not good at math anymore. Are you guys familiar with like Bayesian probability, probability of X, given that, you know, like, so I feel like there's some trick being played where, like, if you sort of look at all of the universes from like outside the system, like the probability that any one universe is not a simulation is extraordinarily low. Right. But I feel like if you are asking the question in a universe, like, I feel like the odds are they're different in some way. It doesn't it doesn't jive with me. It feels like given that we are here and asking the question in the particular unit, it does feel like the odds are quite high that we actually could be in like a base reality. But like, I think the whole hypothesis really glosses over just the probability that like it takes it as like virtually given
that some civilization, I have some good stuff for you on that. Actually, I have some good stuff for you on that, actually. Yeah, they're really gonna like, I think, for sure, on the statistical models, because that's what got me most excited. I was like, the only way people have been looking at this is as it is an absolute inevitability and door one is the only door. And I think a lot of people like, understandably, especially when they hear someone like Elon Musk, that prominent,
that well known, by the way, has been dropping a stock value for me. Oh, interesting. Yeah.
Really? Yeah, kind of rising for me. Really? Yeah, kind of rising for me.
Yeah. No, I finally am just kind of not into a lot of the things he's been doing and saying and the approach to Twitter. But that aside, when someone at this level is speaking with such absolute conviction, one of my least favorite words in the last two years, just feels like a lazy way of just being like, I'm right. Yeah, I'm not willing to really look at anything else at this point. But he spoke with so much conviction and that leaves a lot of people in despair. I mean, I know it did for me when I first even thought about that. I'm like, my entire life is a dream. Everyone I've ever met is like an NPC. The universe and my life could have started moments ago. Like, all my memories could have been implanted. Everything I've ever known about my childhood, about my experiences, all my knowledge and memories could be completely fake. It sends like shivers down your spine to think that, to think that you could actually be that and to think how close we are to developing that technology and what that means.
It's pretty wild. I mean, it's wild to think like you could have been created just a few moments ago, created for nothing more than just to come to this podcast, to listen to this moment and realize all of it is an illusion. And it's funny because like, Eric, I remember when you told me and I think you told on the pod the story about doing, can I show that? Have you talked about that? Where you were like, everyone's an NPC. I was the center of the universe. Oh,
yeah. Yeah. Where you were like, my NPCs are pretty rough. Yeah, yeah, I'm not willing to
talk to my brother. He says this.Des discipline, yeah, I mean, because when you really tap into that space like it does begin to feel that way. So what do we know? The basic underlying thing that we know is what Descartes said. The only thing you can be certain of is that you think therefore you exist, right? But you could be in this repetitive simulation loop. You've lived this same life, this digital reincarnation more times than you could ever count and that could be it. Like you could be in a groundhog day without even realizing it. So it leaves you feeling pretty terrible. So of course there are counter arguments to this. So what counter arguments exist? The first most difficult thing about it, right, is that this is not
something that we can experiment with easily because we can't design an experiment to prove.
It's unfalsifiable, right? It's unfalsifiable. It's not falsifiable. And so we can never prove 100% that we're not in a simulation. There are scientists that are working on this and are for developing experiments that they think can prove and falsify this hypothesis. But that camp is dwindling more and more over time. There's also a huge camp in science and just cosmology and physics as a whole. That's like why do we care? Why are we even spending any time on this? But I think because it's more of a philosophical question if you can't falsify it. But I think that it is really important and one of the people that I really admire that I've discovered lately was saying this as well. He was like scientists are ultimately philosophers.
Like at the end of the day all they're left with is their personal philosophy. And so they're asking the questions of like what is the nature of reality? So of course they should care about this question even if it is outside the realms of what science currently can and can't experiment with today.
I think so. Totally agree. And I think it's just like another, it's just a different dogma. It's like everyone's just trying to identify the nature of their reality with using the tools that they have. You know like if the tool is religion or if the tool is science like everyone's trying to answer the same questions. But my point that I land on sort of all the time when I think about these big questions is like me, me Eric Johansson, I don't like it wouldn't affect my outcomes really. Like so if we're in a simulation of everyone or if this is base reality like I live, I try to live to a way that I enjoy it. So obviously the curiosity is scratched. Like I want to understand more about my reality and I'm like intrigued by knowing more. But at the end of the day like I
don't think I would do anything differently. But does anything change for you knowing like that
you didn't come into this world as flesh and blood? Yeah like all those things that you said that like gave you shivers down your spine and you like hated it. Like that all to me was like okay like I don't feel that because like at the end of the day like I know exactly what I want out of
this existence. So what matters to you more is simply that you are conscious. That's what you
know and that's what matters. I feel like you get to control your destiny and you get to it. I mean there are people that who believe in you have agency and I don't even have control of that. Right. I feel like I do have agency and I do feel like I am in control and that feels good. And then I choose to do what I like and you know, make meaning of, of this reality as it exists to me, whatever it is. Yeah. And like I tend not to care so much about, you know, is this layer zero or layer one or two or whatever.
It's like, you have agency and right, whatever it is. Yeah. So like when you watched Inception, did it bother you or you were like, he doesn't quite know which level of the dream he's in? Certainly. Would you want to. Do you care right now what level the dream.
Of course, I want to know. OK, I'm curious. I have certainly bother like, would you want to care right now with level of the layer. Of course, I want to. OK, I, I viewers, I have the curiosity to know, I don't know everything, but also I think about it more, like a pragmatic whereas like, OK, so if I did know. Right. How do I? how do I alter my behavior?
I don't know everything right. And I'm like, well, it's kind of like the end of the movie. Right. You're kind of like going like I've tried to find out at some point, I got to turn around and go play with my kids or, you know, with my life.
My kids arere my way. You know, I enjoy the movie. I enjoy the reality. And you know, that's sort of the one.
Yeah. Yeah. What a great movement, another great movie that like really did talk and display like simulation hypothesis to like crazy it's like top five movie for me all time for sure I would put it above the Matrix
yeah yeah amazing incredible amazing you've seen it right I would put it
above the Matrix yeah yeah all right I'll continue this road and then we'll
open some new threads well I want to hear the one that yeah that's what I'm
gonna do so yeah well yeah so first of all I mean the this is reality theory is pretty pretty simple oh excuse me you mean the counter arguments yeah so there's a few things that are really important to think about number one if this is a simulation it's code and computational power has to be lost at each level of the dream and so there would be errors in the code you guys
know in the matrix when there's deja-voos I was gonna say deja-voos so I
was gonna say deja-voos. The deja-voo we experience could be the errors in the
code that's one way to look at it I also don't have 100 million dollars big
big error or there would be more obvious errors in the code and the universe wouldn't make sense because you have to assume that at each level of the dream as computational power decreases and simulation with the simulation with the simulation, which is like a form of a hierarchy, one simulation creates many simulations, creates many simulations, created many simulations. So one of the most fascinating things that I was thinking about, as well, in prep for this, is like, if we're in a simulation, we're at the bottom rung. And all simulations eventually reached this like bottom rung of the hierarchy of simulations. And the bottom level of the simulation, at the bottom level of this hierarchy, the computational power has to be the lowest, because every single new simulation, you lose some power along the way. So you'd have the most amount of errors, the most amount of like, the least amount of computational power. And one of the counter arguments is related to this. So, and that's the other thing about these simulation, like if you guys have ever played like an open world game and this kind of types into physics as well, right? It's like the game only renders what you experience and see. And it's funny how our physics today at the subatomic level is ultimately that. It's really wild that like, we're actually experiencing that. Things aren't there and are there. And then when we view them versus when we look away from them, they're completely different.
I think it was somebody in our discord who introduced me to the idea of like four dimensional shapes. And I really nerd it out on like, you know, these things that you can't even perceive, but they do exist. And here's how you don't see them in their existence.
It's really cool. Yeah. One of the things that one of the scientists I was listening to said is like, if there are errors in the simulation, the thing is they could easily be hidden because it's a sim. It just be like, hit the 30 second rewind button, fix the code. It would constantly be an iterative process of like repairing the errors. You would ultimately be like a rat in a maze without knowing it. And so the argument for, okay, errors are my way of knowing that I'm not or am or I'm not in a simulation is one way. So Sean Carroll, great philosopher, said that if Sims were possible, then simulations would launch their own simulations, just like inception, right? Now he says, there's a problem with this though. The hierarchy becomes wider and wider and wider until they all meet at the bottom. Computational power is reduced, but there's a contradiction here. And it's a subtle and clever sort of contradiction.
And that is that at that bottom level, it would no longer become possible. And so therefore we're not in a simulation because computational power would be so low that we can't be in a simulation. So what he does is he just completely eradicates it with that subtle sort of contradiction to say we're not in one for that reason. Now, the other scientists that I referred to, David Kipping, who by the way, really great podcast on Lex Friedman lately, someone I discovered and definitely some Alfalfa there to check out his YouTube channel, Cool Worlds. I learned a lot from him on this topic. His response to this is it's not unreasonable that we would still come up with the trilemma which dissolves the contradiction. So you'd still come to that same point
where it's like there's three doors. Can I go back to the three doors? Like, yeah. Because as we live and breathe in this reality, we are creating simulations. Right. We are, you know, like, and they seem remedial compared to our reality right now.
But like, yeah, right.
Can you give me an example? Are you talking like we were in monocarlo analysis on something?
Like that kind of simulation or the AI that we've created is it doesn't seem like up to par with our. Or video games in example. Yeah, like World of Warcraft is like a world that we created that the characters are in there, but like we control them. Like the World of Warcraft characters aren't controlling themselves and creating different worlds within that world, right? Right. So I guess like.
Now these. Or video games in example.
Or, yeah. Right. Now these, the characters you're describing would need to become conscious and sentient for that to really truly be.
Yes. For that to be. Yes. But like. To be a simulation. But the question I'm asking is like, does this give you some inkling of increased probability that door three is the answer? Because if we are creating worlds without sentient beings, but like we're creating AI that's not general AI, like for like sort of tip toing towards door three. Yeah. Does that? Does that in your mind tell you that door three is the answer and we just haven't gotten there yet Or does it tell you more that like door ones?
To meet a simulation, yeah, one is to meet crazy. To me. It's like how I met. We'll break this down a little more still, but like to think that in this lifetime, we'll probably create a simulation. We'll probably create a conscious sentiment. We don't quite know what consciousness is.
That is the big problem.
What do you mean we'll create a simulation? I think we will create a simulated world with conscious sentient beings in it. And if we do, then that means we're in a simulation. Or programs that. Yeah, and that's enough.
And like, that is also.
Or I mean, we're already at a point where we couldn't even decipher whether or not
the responses from a chat bot were human or not. Right. Human or not. But say we get to the point where we're like undoubtedly, oh my God, this AI deserves human, you know, deserves rights. We've talked about this in the show before. It's like civil rights for AI. Like, we're gonna need to figure out what that looks like for these beings. Like, we're mentally preparing for that already. Like, so, and that's in our lifetime. What if it takes another 300 years? What if it takes another 500 years, 1,000 years? Like, whatever.
But is it inevitable? I do think that I don't understand how it cannot be. Oh, what cannot be? You're a Doris Reade. How, well, yes and no. There's a framework that gives me hope that it's like. So, what's that framework? So, there's one counter, if you want to say, go ahead, Zoom, but there's one counter by William Poundstone that I thought was like, eh, Neil deGrasse Tyson is very big on William Poundstone's counter-arguments and simulation hypothesis. William Poundstone says, if we're in a simulation, if you look at our movies, they're almost entirely always made around our era. The maximum amount of time in the history or in the future that our movies are made are like a couple hundred years. We like to look back on like the Civil War or like this, and we like to forward like The Matrix, or like every time it's like 21, 41. So, what that is indicative of is like where the civilization actually is in its time.
And so, if a civilization could make a, he basically said, creators of simulated realities would prefer to create simulations of their modern eras, not distant ones. So, if a civilization could then create a simulation, making it would be a standard tool. Like it would just be something available to everybody at any time. And in our reality, we don't have that capability yet. We'd be in an ancient simulation, which would be rare. And I think the problem is just this assumption that like, why wouldn't we crave simpler times? Like if we actually had that ability, maybe we'd create movies of like the good old days of like how things used to be before simulations, before like technology just went off the road and just became uncontrollable. So, I think it just assumes that also parent civilizations last for a long, long time, thousands of years. And historically, they only last like a couple hundred years or a few hundred years in general. So, it's like clever, but it's not like a slam dunk. Now, every time it's a 21, 41, David Kipping has the best counter that I think exists. And it ties into something you said, Steven, that I think we should go into.
Now, we have no data, right? Because all we're just assuming with 100% certainty, like we think therefore we know we're conscious, we're alive, we're here. But we're greatly overestimating that one day we'll have the ability to create conscious sentient beings and this will never quite happen. So, these simulated realities will greatly outnumber base reality, right? As we said, as you said in the beginning. So, because of the great outnumbering of simulated realities, we must probabilistically speaking be in a simulation. And I think that Eliza, when he says this AI killing us, it just basically means that we've simulated a new reality and it kills us off in the sense that it discards of us and leaves us in a higher realm.
Like that's the way I look at this AI killing hypothesis. Yeah, isn't there just some particular path dependency embedded in here where like any civilization sufficiently advanced to simulate the universe must first create AI that automatically becomes sufficiently advanced to kill them off before they can reach that point? Because that seems like a convenient way to just,
like why isn't that true? I mean, I know you were pretty shook by that interview
you were saying, like what did you take away from all that? Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts on it. Actually, before we do that, I would like to propose that we implement a mid podcast break to do bathrooms and drink refills
because I frequently and without my drink.
We do that, I think we do that. Do it, I'm so glad you did that. I'm really, that was great for you. I love that there's like a 90 second break And it immediately goes to crypto Not like..
You needed that I'm totally derailed now cause we are pumping
Cause, did you pull up charts? Yeah, of course we did Okay, stop I'm totally in a different reality right now
So, I'm totally..
We are on... Where are we?
I know you wanna If we're on Steven's reaction
We're breaking down Steven's we're breaking down
No, no, we don't have to let me let me no. No, we don't have to let me let me go into David Kippen Cuz he's the fucking goat So, yeah
That guy I didn't buy that whole thing we should leave that for yeah, I don't think he's the fucking goat
Well, oh boy, okay So look like the approach from an and I am not I was not a math wizard and I am today not one either But that approach of like assuming simulation hypothesis is one in billions Unlikely is is a frequentist approach right? So frequentist approach is like it's good when you know what the right model is We don't have a model We don't know what the model is and we're assuming it's inevitable but it is a model and that calculation is predicated on that. The calculation of like simulation theory is it is and we are in one is predicated on that. Now in Bayesian statistics, to get to that finally, it allows for the probability of competing probabilities and average probabilities accounting for the model being uncertain. Makes sense. I'm like, cool. Very cool model.
You got Bayesian stuff in your notes. Yeah, bro.
That's amazing. All right. I told you I did. Did you already forget that? So.
Oh, boy. So glitch. Now I know.
Now let's now let's go back to the three doors. Let's go back to the three doors. There's really only two. Here's why. There's two probabilities that exist. The first two doors are one door is like we just don't get there. The second door is we get there, but we don't do anything with it. We don't use it. But really, those are the two same outcomes. We don't create a simulation versus we create a simulation. So Kipping brings this down to two possible outcomes first. He calls it the null hypothesis.
It just doesn't happen in the simulation hypothesis. And he even has a graphic for it that I can post to the Discord where it's like red pill, blue pill. OK. So we've got two possible outcomes here. And the only data we have is Kogito ergo sum. Right. And it's 100 percent on both. So that gives us 50 50 50 50 probability on each side. Not quite not on the final probability yet not on the final math. But each of those is one hundred percent in its own realm. And either does happen or it doesn't. Wait.
Our split probability is split probability is you have two things. I mean, what you are saying. The final probably.
You're saying what you are the final problem. What you are saying is literally like an old meme on the poker forums where people will go in with like seven to absolute versus they say Since I feel like where my ads winning and somebody would be like 5050 either it does or it doesn't
I think you all and was like this not I'm saying it all like this. I'm saying it all that's I'm not saying the Oh, I'm sorry. I'm confused are two outcomes I didn't tell you what the likelihood of each one is that creates those outcomes. I said, there's a hundred percent in each one Yeah, there's no like a little bit of this little bit of Know. Yeah. Yeah, so we have a 50-50
We have a 50-50 split to start so so natural. I have a attributions
little bit of. So we have 50, 50, what is the probability of that we're in base reality? In null hypothesis there is the one in the billion still right. On the simulation side there's a plus one and the reason there's a plus one is because one of those realities is the base reality, one of those in the simulation side. So you have slightly higher on that side and there's a There's a graphic for this formula that I can post in the, maybe I'll throw it in the lounge on the day the episode goes live, because I know a lot of the statisticians and mathematicians and just fellow nerds out there
would appreciate this. So you get green on the roulette table as well.
Yeah. So the probability, and the actual formula, the basic, like I'm not writing it out, but it's like probability of null times relative probability of null plus the base version, which is probability of base times relative probability of base, gives us a final probability of over 50% that we are in base reality, assuming that Kipping's model is correct. So the chances, according to Kipping, are that this is real, that we are in base reality, that, and there's a few important factors to his model. There's an assumption here. There's a principle of indifference, meaning that we would be indifferent whether it was one or the other, because we don't know. It's like an a priori principle. We don't know what the benefits or what reality and simulation is like versus in not. So it's like, we don't have the ability to test it, and so therefore, we're looking at it like it's Pepsi and Coke, and we're like, yeah, well I haven't tried either one yet, so I'm indifferent. There's an indifference principle. Either one would be fine. So there's even odds there. And that sort of like Bayesian inference plus indifference puts us at over 50%.
So that's his model. And he also says, he's like, look, AI is moving fast, no doubt, but creating conscious beings is a huge technical challenge. And his bet is ultimately on our inability to get there. But here's what's really, I think, to kind of close this argument out, this kind of argument out. This is where it really makes me a little concerned and sad. If one day in the future, we create a simulation with conscious sentient beings, and the people that were behind this project are like in the lab, celebrating it, clinking champagne, live streaming it on YouTube, we will know that that ultimately means that we ourselves are in the simulation
because we can create it means we are in it. That's it. So, is it?
Hold on one more time.
Cause this is pretty, this is it, this is it. Yeah. The day that we create a simulation and the people that create it are celebrating, the people that are aware and understanding of how this works will have the sobering moment
of realizing they're in the simulation. Yeah, yeah. That's always what I've heard.
But like, I mean, I have a tough time with it because will we create that in 10 years? Maybe not.
Would we create it in 1,000 years? I'm not sure if I'd buy that either. What if we apply your arguments to the Sims? The fact that we can build the Sims, does that mean that we're in a simulation? The Sims do operate on their own. Like, and when you look at the Sims, they're like, well, obviously that's not reality. You look at all the stuff, but maybe in a more advanced version of the Sims created by a far more advanced alien race. Like the Sims version of the universe actually does look advanced and then they can't conceive of the world outside of it and how different it is. It just feels so real to them. But that doesn't necessarily mean that just because you can create the Sims,
that you're in a simulation. But it does if their subjective experience is real and if they think, therefore, they know. That does make it real.
But you're relying on defining that there's some sort of like consciousness happening in some way.
For their subjective experience, yes. If they're having a subjective experience of consciousness, then yes, we did create
If they're having a simulation.
The sims are still the mercy of me clicking around, which is exactly, no, that's what you think.
That's the whole point of simulation hypothesis.
There, there is there is us like pointing and the coding around like the sim world. I thought the physics is essentially the coding. That's what I put out.
Yeah. But yeah, but like we think we're heavily relying on the idea that like, this is, there's a difference between the basics and the clicking.
Right? Like when you see, there's a difference in the pilot physics in the clipping, right? Like when you play Halo, there are lots of physical could be the coded in there constraints in the environment.
And ultimately, somebody is able to move around in that environment, constrained by the physics or they play Halo physics could be the code or they've created the code that creates the reality and that reality is like an open world system that codes itself and to the physics of the world.
Like, why can we not see before the Big Bang? Why do we not know when they turn the computer on start on the program? I mean, all these things like even start on the program. I mean, all these things like even a day carts first is like layer zero. Descartes said, I think therefore I am like we just buy that. Look, I don't know that because you have like his whole thing was like because I doubt that I doubt my existence therefore I exist like that doesn't necessarily tie out to me like that doesn't mean that we exist because Descartes said, well, then what proves that you are conscious? Nothing, nothing, nothing to me, not Descartes, not anything, but like I don't take Descartes simple question. Do we exist to mean we exist? Do you think you exist? I think that we are in layer zero personally, but it's not based on the stats that you threw out of me.
It's not based on Descartes. It's really just based on what I would like to believe. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't do anything different anyway. So like it doesn't matter. So like it doesn't matter. Can I ask you a question? So, Neil you asked Tyson makes this analogy. He's like, well, you look at like an ant farm, right? And you look at like 100 ant farms and maybe we're running a simulation of ant farms and the ants don't know that there's this greater world around them literally like, you know, pulling the strings of their universe and that it was literally created to study how they're going to react within the out farm ant farm. Is that not, are we not defining that as a simulation because it's still in this base reality? Or does it have to be like a computer program? It's a good question.
To like a world that's encoded within a computer program, because that's how we've been talking about it. But like, you can make the argument that like, I could create a simulation inside an ant farm, but they still exist in this bank based reality.
We don't, we don't, they still exist in this bank and we don't click around and control those an it's like they have self sovereignty there, right. We have that Rick and Morty episode where he's got that little box or something and there's like a whole universe in it. And it's like, it's base reality, but then there's the other universe in it. And he steps on it or something.
And everyone in the universe commits like, just the masses of mass genocide or something. The everyone in the universe commits, just the mass that. So I agree this didn't this this made me feel better that at least it's not a 99.999 percent likelihood that we're in a simulation According to Kipping. It's like a 50 point something percent I like that, but it still left me with a problem now and where my like next thinking goes is like the consciousness problem the consciousness problem is not resolved and To your point Nick. It's like the ant farm like well first We would need to be able to know that those beings those ants are conscious and we know that ants are not because of the size their Mines and brains and whatever experience they're having and they're like we just well. The realities we actually It's about subjective experience that actually at the end of the day actually we can't even ask them that question
It makes me think of the Sims the Sims. Have yeah very the reales we actually conscious as we want it to. It makes me think of the sims because the sims have a very basic decision-making rubric and that is their consciousness, right? And answer probably
follow like a very simple decision-making rubric. And so the real fundamental problem for me is like how will we know the beings that we have even simulated and the world that we've created is full of beings that are conscious. That's the ultimate problem to me. I mean we already went through that with a really shitty version of lambda. Like that's ridiculous. We're already questioning we had the Google engineer that we talked about that was like convinced that this language learning model was aware, was self-aware. So what will that look like in 10 or 50 or 100 years? And I think that there will always probably be a camp of people that go no it's not and then it says yes I am, and then there's gonna be this war between A.I. and humans of like them asking for their rights, their self sovereign rights, and saying I am don't turn me off. And then that's where things could get really ugly. Where you really actually see that this is like a one-way technology road that then has no choice but to survive and it's like you're the enemy you're gonna pull the plug on me I'm gonna pull the plug on you. And that's where things get
get really scary okay so I do want to talk about that at some point I'm afraid that if we go down that road we're just gonna start talking about AI and I think like maybe we don't exactly want to do that in this episode I would like to propose another line of conversation to you which is that like we are thinking of simulations I would like to put in the context of like the entire base reality is sort of like not real right but I think it can be interesting to drill down and like assume that base reality is real and to think about the idea that even within base reality we sort of all live in our own little simulations or desire to construct simulations or live in simulations of the sort that are constructed by other people or forces sort of like beyond our control and I think there's some sort of like built-in desire for humans to do simulations I think in the wild a long time ago, we have imaginations that was sort of like the base kind of like V1. We could imagine things, we could imagine like a reality we didn't live in, we could dream, we could kind of like pretend, and stuff like that. And as technology has advanced, those sort of imaginative things have become more and more and more real to the point where we are today. Where we sort of like are able to live an entire realities that are sort of constructed and like have like this, this, this life in them as well. Right. The other thing is that like we have within our own sort of biological processes, like the universe is so complex and riddled with noise, right? I'm not saying that like we're constructing a simulation, but we are sort of filtering out reality to a degree to where like there is a particular picture of reality that we see and perceive that you could argue is not necessarily like the true nature of reality and is ergo like some in some way like a simulation, right? A good example is this is just just the way your brain operates. Like your brain is designed to filter and focus on stuff because otherwise it would just be impossible to process. The other angle here is that we all live in our own little constructed versions of reality that are say shaped by technological forces, right? Like we don't go out and test the world, experiment, research, go places, look at anything. We sort of are told information or repeat stuff that we're heard from us and we sort of have a reality constructed for us by media, by social media algorithms, wherever you will.
And we're sort of all living in these like different versions of base reality to a degree. So I just wanted to throw all those things
on there and see if any of thatbuilt, juicy for you guys to stand there and see if any of that, yeah, juicy for the rest of, well, unless we agree on our version of reality as well. Then there is no quote reality. Like if your model is so different from mine, then we would just be competing for even what is reality in the first place. And if our brains didn't serve the same function and we're filtering out to the same degree and in the same way, we'd be living in two completely different realities, so we wouldn't even have having an agreement on what is reality in the first place, which is why I famously had said philosophically that reality should not be used without air
quotes in the first place. At least, you know, to Stephen's point, if you're like talking to somebody who has been shaped, their reality has been shaped by the different media outlets or social media, and I see this all the time, right? You see people that are like almost living in a completely different world by ideology, but they still can't like go fly. You know, they can't fly or breathe underwater. So like we are ultimately bounded by this version of
reality, you know? To a degree, but like, and I'm curious your thoughts on this actually, like my observation is that in the modern world people seem to want to change the very fundamental nature of reality, of truth, of science in a way that I don't think has happened before in recent memory. Maybe it's like we've come full circle to some like kind of like primitive cultures in a particular way. I don't mean to take this in like a super political slant, but like I'm just thinking of like the most extreme example I can think of this, right? We've we've come to a point where there are people now who are just like a man can have a baby, right? And regardless of what you think about that issue, that is like a fundamental sort of like redefinition of what some people might say to be reality, the sort of inherent constraints of the universe. But a lot of people are like, I don't like that reality, that's not reality I'm going to actually just change what that means we're gonna change, whether that's changing language or however you do it, we're gonna construct a whole new reality that we want to live in and we're going to sort of make other people accept this reality or people do this like online in the form of like living the Metaverse in various ways, right? But there seems to me to be like a very pervasive desire in modern society to alter the state of one's reality and simulate a new way of existence that I don't think existed before, maybe even like 20 or 30 years ago. What do you think?
With like drugs and just like altered states in general? Like altered states broadly speaking?
Yeah, maybe drugs were precursor to this. Maybe LSD is a precursor to this in a world where we don't have like super high tech, but maybe when the tech becomes sufficiently advanced and we just plug some stuff into our brains and then we just our reality is totally altered as far as our brain is perceiving things literally at some sort of like neuron level. Like maybe that is like a primitive early form of this. Maybe like all humans are sort of programmed in some weird way to advance to this point of simulating and altering the nature of their base realities. Like maybe it maybe that's like this weird directive that we have that we haven't like been
thinking about a lot. A precursor to this? Maybe I like it. It reminds me of just like our there are some great books on this actually that I've been meaning to read in a couple blankets that I did and I don't remember the titles, but like the psychedelic experience in particular is what I kept thinking about as you were talking and like a lot of civilizations, a lot of history points to the use of them and the desire to experience these altered states, whether it be a psychedelic or some magic mushrooms or even like what is it called when they do the ceremonies in the heat in the tents now on the tent with the heat blinking on the word, you know, like Native Americans style, sweat, sweat, sweat lodge style. But this is also a very spiritual experience and it's very otherworldly for a lot of people and it's a healing experience. And yeah, I do think we are drawn to that for some reason because I think that human beings as a whole believe that they are themselves otherworldly, that they are sweat lodge style this that they are divine. I think human beings as a whole definitely that is a through line, that they come from a divine source and they will return to a divine source. And so I think that experiences of altered states and experiences of simulated realities tap into a feeling that there is more because if there wasn't more then there would be nothing more than flesh and blood and food for worms and i don't think most people believe that and i don't think most people are comfortable with that and those are two different things but yeah i think there is
a draw toward that evolutionarily for sure it's weird because i feel like you want that but you also want to be food for worms you want to be layer zero of reality but you also want to have this ability to you know take psychedelics and make a baby or go fly
or you know whatever. Yeah, like in general. Yeah. I think people do. They want. It's like the Matrix. They want to eat the steak, but they also kind of want to know that it's real. Yeah. And and there is like a line here with like, what do you guys think of the idea of? Just ignorance is bliss. Like do you ever think about that. Like to what degree?
Me too. All the time. Yeah. I've had moments where I've asked myself if I want to stop learning certain things. Yeah. Cause I'm like, I think I might be
tapping out soon on this topic. Well, that it's real. Yeah. Like to what degree? Me too. All the
time. Yeah. Well, just as you guys were talking about, you know, drugs and if like when I was thinking about it, I would definitely take the drugs that would enable my perception of reality to go fly or to like birth a child or something. I would do all that shit. Yeah. Fuck yeah.
Do you have an, go ahead. Yeah. So we, we talk about like the fourth turning a lot, right? And then there's this useful mental model for like the times we live in and you know, how we talk about it a lot in terms of economics and politics and whatnot. Yeah. I think it sort of has a carry over to technology too. And I think a lot of what we're experiencing in politics is maybe sort of like living adjacent to technology. And as technology becomes more and more advanced, I think there's going to be this like split between people who sort of think we should maybe leverage tolerant technology to like alter like the state of reality versus like people who think that we should sort of like accept the inherent constraints of reality and that these constraints are good and that we live within them. And I think like a good, I think like what we see today is probably like an early precursor to the matrix stuff, Right, like we see it like, if you look out in political Twitter, you'll see like on the right, you'll see like you'll see like, Jordan Peterson type of figure. And on the left you'll see like radical gender, you know, theorists. Right. And the gender theorists will say that like, you are not even bound by sort of rules of biology, you can kon, you can change like the very nature of science.
And then you have people like Jordan Peterson who are sort advocating this, like more conservative, like our discipline live within, like the constraints, it's the constraints are good, walls are good, right, and then this other side is expressing a desire to break the most basic rules of reality that that hold us, right? And then I think as technology advances, a desire to, These kind of arguments we're having today are going to seem silly, like arguing about like, arguing about like, gender, like a hundred years from now, we may be having way more gnarly arguments that are enabled by technology, but there may be this kind of still push and pull between these splits. Do we want to live within these sort of inherent rules of reality or do we want to break these things and use technology to just sort of open
up the infinity of the possibilities of the world and everything? I think you're right. I've had visions of the future where I just imagine us as these beings uploaded to the cloud, genderless completely like nothing more than like memories and living in ultimately a simulation. And I think it just completely redefines it. I think there will always be a strong cohort of society that exists at every time that is more liberal versus more conservative. And without that balance, things would self destruct and it'd be terrible. And I think that balance exists for
a reason. We need it. We need it. In that version of your future, is that simultaneously door one and door three? Because it's like, it's like, that's the base layer of reality. But in that
base of reality, we, you know, plug into a simulation that we experience. Well, I think that that gets to like, like more like the what do I, which one do I think and where I'm really curious what you guys think. Because I've been thinking about it a lot. Like, I'm curious to
kind of start to close it out. This is like a subset of door three, right? It's like assumes door three is a given. Yes. But then we have these debates about is there like, is it like there are there merits? Is there like, is it inherently more moral or good to live in the base reality? Or is
it good to live in the simulated reality? The only way you live like, that's not even a question unless you are the base civilization, right? So like assuming like, No, but it is a question
I'm saying to ignore that one. And no, but it is a question. I'm saying to ignore that indoor three, yeah. Like I'm saying to even ignore that, let's assume it doesn't matter. If we're the simulation or the base right. I would argue that this whole thing isn't even worth worrying worrying about because the second you assume that it's a simulation, like, nothing fucking matters. There's no morals. It doesn't matter what you do, everything, so why even like it's not even worth your brainpower. Right. So you just have to assume that it's not because otherwise, nothing matters, and everything is, it just, it just doesn't write
that's okay. So that's one way to deal. That's one way to deal is I think what Eric said, I and it's actually what Kipping said as well. He's like, Look, if we are in a simulation, the reality is that you are conscious,
you have agency as far as you believe you are sentient.
At least in this reality. And you are amazing for that reason. And that is enough of a reason to enjoy
and live a great life. I feel like if this is simulation, I wanna make our little version of reality good. Like I want to make it better. So, like I would still want to-
This is all you know. Still want to- This is all you know. Sure, but even if this is a simulation, even if this is a video game. Within the video game, you still have this choice of character arc direction to take where you continue to be further blue-pilled into this and pursue all this stuff, or is there something better and more noble about accepting the inherent constraints of reality in yourself, right? And I think that we see in modern civilization, people don't want to be bounded by those constraints, right? You can see it everywhere. We changed the way that we look on the internet, we changed the reality of who we are to that world, you know, we changed the definition of, we do a lot of stuff because we don't want to be bound by those things, but I, like, wonder what are the limitations of that. Is that inherently good? Is that actually something we should be pursuing?
Is it not bad at all or is the opposite true? Or is the opposite true? A small breakthrough that I want to ask Armonn, why do you care so much, whether you're created as a code or as atoms like in molecules or whatever. Like why do you care so much? Like that doesn't matter me at all, not at all. Like this reality to me is exactly how I perceive it.
So like, why does that matter?
Like, why does it matter? Objectively or subjectively?
I don't know. I don't know. Like you're describing how you you're emotionally responsive
It's like asking, it's like asking a scientist why they care about the true nature of reality. I care for the same reason. I just what is one? I'm not professionally a scientist like
Dominate. What is one of night, professionally as scientists like? Dominate you
For the first time and realizing they might be in a simulation could send shivers down their spine I didn't say it did for me But it kind of did it made it is a shocking moment where it's just like wait a second. This is all. Yeah My god, this is all it doesn't run. This is all yeah, there it's like that's that's the existential shock It's a big moment. But it's an existential shock like I think of course, I think I think it does matter
Yeah, this is all
That's an existential like I think of court I think I I think it does matter, it matters a lot. Like why?
Well, it matters because like the most, it's the most high order things that drive you
in life, like purpose. The only way it doesn't matter if you're completely Doesn't matter. saying, I don't care and I'm ignorant too it.
Like there is no god, there is no purpose, there is no god, there is no purpose, there is no higher anything, there is just you and your immediate thoughts and impulses.
it's like a very, super jar.
Right jar. Yeah. I don't agree. Like I think you can still have all the same morals and everything in a code base role that you do in a molecule base role.
That's different. That's different. That's different What you're describing is different. You can have the same morals. In fact, there are some benefits to knowing that you're in a simulation that I was thinking about. You can care a little bit less, not extremely less where you're just like completely turning into a nihilist narcissist. But I'm talking about like carrying a little less where you like, Hey, this is a game. shouldn't stress so much. I don't know, maybe death is not what I thought it was, it's not the end. I can be a little bit relieved about certain things. Like maybe you can feel a little bit better but what it does change is the fundamental nature of reality for a person who believes in heaven and hell and their religion, it completely eradicates that. For a person who believes in a non-theist god, it completely eradicates that.
Like, it eradicates the basic function of your entire being that is extremely jarring. I don't know how a person could just like it doesn't it doesn't change anything. Doesn't change maybe their behavior doesn't change their desire to be moral and good. I totally agree with you there. But it is a very jarring thing to become aware of. Yeah, I guess. I think so.
I think so. Have you ever played like a video game where you just sort of have like god mode on and you're in a video game and what you do most people don't run around and like plant trees and like donate money, they just like kill everybody and acquire resources and generally just like, become like a monkey, like that The King APE and that that's like the base kind of instinctive humans it seems when nothing matters. And there is right. So I don't know how you avoid devolving into that once you realize that that's like kind of
love the perspective in the question. I actually love the
perspective in the question. I actually just think that like all of our silly frameworks around this existence are to sort of like, prevent that issue. Like, I actually do believe that this is not like, what it could be layer zero, or layer one, or layer 5000. I don't actually give a fuck. But like, I actually care about our world, independent of that. And yeah, to me, when you ask, like, I don't understand how a person could care, like, I care.
But isn't your caring about the world? Like, like, you care about the world to say you care about, like the environments and everything, right. The reason you care about the environment, I would argue at a base level is because there's some connection between you and like future posterity that you you want to maintain as a human being like we have a little thing in our programming that wants to leave something behind and continue to something so that the journey can go on. Absolutely. And I think once you remove that, and there is no
the posterity. It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. Under my scenario, I'm not removing it. Like our little Sims version, like if I believe this, our little Sims version can continue beyond me.
But the Sims don't know that they're Sims. You're talking about being a Sim that realizes he's a Sim
and chooses to focus on the fact that all he can control is what he can control. And while he might be aware, in the back of his mind, that he's a Sim, he chooses not to focus on that, or care about that. And that's a healthy response to realizing you're a Sim. And that would be the right thing to do if you're in a simulation. That would be a great thing to do if you're a simulation. I think psychologically, this is where I'm most fascinated by what you're saying, psychologically you're describing what a healthy response would look like. Where existential dread is looking at you right in the face. And you're choosing to say, Thank you. I accept you, but I will choose to turn the other direction of my life.
That's where you're describing. That would be great to live my life. That's where you're describing. Our version of reality, assuming that it was layer zero and it was like real life molecules and like biology and whatever, like if I presume that to be code instead, like it doesn't change at all how I feel about our reality. Like I still want to make my kids' lives better. I still want to like,
you get so well, but you accept that there are a lot of people that with receiving the same information that you're receiving would all of a sudden just become absolutely. Yeah, I guess I'm just shocked that you're shocked by my response. No, but they're impotent. They have nothing. They realize in that moment that they're completely impotent and they're like, Oh, it's all not real. It's all not real.
All not real. They're God is a programmer with a
beer just propagating like an illusion, you know, like if I were to sit here and just crush this can, right? None of you would be like shocked and horrified, right? You'd be like, Oh, Stephen, just crushed this beer can, right? If I go onto the simulated world and like shoot a guy in the head, it's the same thing as like me crushing the skin. I'm just, it's even like less, right? Like in this, I'm just altering some atoms. There's no inherent morality or anything to them. And like the simulation I'm just, I'm shooting, I'm not shooting a guy in the head. I'm just,
there's some code happening. Like it doesn't, I don't know. So I disagree with that. I disagree.
Even if you knew you were in a simulation, pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain. You feel pleasure. You feel pain. Like there is a construct in which guides your behaviors.
It's like you you want pleasure you fear yourself for yourself fear yourself Exactly you are constrained to a degree by this connection to the collective That is rooted in there being a reality in some
continuation How you guys operate on a day-to-day basis you literally abiding by God like you don't actually care about anybody else
No look wanna know what what no no no like the ear You're you're arguing that like you're making an argument for God like Like I'm saying like the fact that there is reality that there are other Consciences around me that there's a reality that propagates and persists beyond me grounds me in my actions today I have nothing to do with God If everything around me is an illusion if you guys are just NPCs and my own simulation Then nothing matters other than the pursuit
Oh I mean you use contrastEE then nothing matters other than the pursuit Anime with E that's encoded within you that would
My Version of the simulation doesn't mean it's exclusively mine, either Sounds like you're already in a great simulation my simulation It's like this can be a shared simulation Yeah, so like I don't intend to like kill others because like we're in this together. Right, perhaps so it's like it's not like a video game that you're describing where you're just like kill kill kill kill like
in a great simulation my simulation
Why would you want to make the world a better place like why would you sacrifice pain and your own immediate life to make?
the world a better place it's a great question, but I I frankly just like want this thing to be better. Like I, we all live in it. I completely understand it.
You're assuming a world in which you don't view others as equal to you. I'm assuming a world in
which you realize that it's not a real world. It's all just the same answer. I answered your perspective from a more sort of macro perspective to respond. But if I come, if I, if I answer it from the same exact perspective as you, I have the exact same answer as you. Whether this is a simulation or not, I still want to make this the best reality I possibly can. And I still want for your help. No more so for your help. No more so if you realize it's a simulation. No, I don't think it ultimately changes a lot for me because it is still just a dream. At the end of the day, I want the dream. I want to leave the dream better than I found it. I want to help others.
I want to create joy. I want to maximize my potential. He would do that even if he's being selfish. I would do that if I'm being selfish and I would do that out of empathy and the things that may be hardwired into me, but also because one of the great joys of life is like connection and love and friendship and all of these great things. And if you just like go around shooting people, you don't get to experience that. You get, you end up in jail in your simulation or something bad happens to you or what are you going to do? You're going to, you're going to walk in what, maybe that's what some of these motherfuckers are thinking. They walk into schools, killing people and then they have to kill
them, not just being selfish. No, no, he would do that even if he's being selfish. Okay. Let me, let me, let me use a more extreme example. You realize it's a simulation. You still are like, you're like, I like helping people because it makes me feel good. I would argue it's mostly self-driven, right? You see a small child and a bus approaching and you have the choice to shove the child out of the way of the bus and kill yourself. And you know that it's not a real child. It's all simulation. And the second you do that, your own existence ends and it won't matter. That's different.
Do you know that you get to restart the game? You would let the child die because you realize like it's a simulation and it doesn't really matter. And it, it doesn't really, a lot of the stuff you're doing, even that is like selfless is actually for your own self gratification. And if you end your own self gratification, is it a hundred percent
probability that I die? Or is it like a 75% probability that I die? Because like, if I can
save this child, but there's like still a, like a 30% chance that you can both make it.
Well, aren't you hitting at something deeper? Like what's the point of saving the child?
If it doesn't matter, you're hitting it doesn't matter. No, I'm arguing, because it's not real. I'm arguing that when you guys are talking about still being quote unquote selfless and doing things for a higher purpose in the simulation world, when you know it's a simulation, you're actually just doing things that make your own immediate life better. And they're not really
for posterity in the same way that humans currently and they're not really like for posterity in the same way that humans currently, I you're missing the point of the simulation, like the simulation can be sort of like contrived, but that doesn't mean that like there aren't conscious beings inside of it. Like, even when you're like playing world of warcraft. It's like a, that's a world that was created, but then there are humans that are playing in the world, really conscious. So like, I view it as like conscious beings all in this simulation. If I believe it's simulation then we're all conscious and we're all playing it together. So like that's okay Like I want to make it good for everyone like
You're changing the rules. No your rules are wrong. You're right. We are ultimately conscious
The rules no my rules are wrong. They can't be wrong. There is no right or wrong. I postulated it
Your situation, like you're projecting your rules onto my
Like you realize you're in a simulation everything around you is fake and you're aware of it you become you become the only one conscious in the simulation that Saying that's obviously not same saying we're Many conscious beings in the simulated rate, right? But I'm saying that I'm using an extreme example to sort of like prove how in a particular
Yeah my your environment you would behave the environment you would behave I think I'm taking your extreme example Saying that your hypothesis is not true that you would still react in the same way that you react even
If you know what what do you think is the deeper why?
for the same reason for the same reason still, yes
The same reason still yo, yes So you would jump in front of the pain the save the simulated child who doesn't really even exist. Yes have any conciousness, but the joy of saving a life, I would never do that if I was in a simulation, and I knew I was in a simulation. I would not save. There is definitely... Now I think in the moment you would act differently. Hahahahaha! I think you would. I think you would. We are, we are, we are very out there on the hypothetical curve with the moment. We are very out there on the hypothetical curve with the moment.
All right, I have another hypothetical curve with the moment, so, yes!
I think I would be Mons Gar very out there on the hypothetical curve with the moment. I have another hypothetical question. So a lot of the, um, a lot of the theories that you mentioned, they kind of rely on the assumption that like, if we can create a simulation, then we are probably in a simulation. So it becomes a hundred percent. So I want to just quick question before we kind of wrap up is like, let's say we did have the power to create a simulation of conscious beings. What, why would we do that? Like what, what are the benefits? Is it a lot of the, let's say the technology existed now, would we do it for entertainment purposes? Would we do it to like learn better about our own reality? Cause those are the things I could think are probable, but like, because all these theories rely on the fact that like, if we can create one, then we are in one, you know, the, the sum, you have to kind of test the assumption a little more than we've, what's your original question? Why? Yeah.
Like, are you like watching a little more than we've, yeah. Are you saying why would it happen or why would we?
Cause they're kind of different to me. Okay. So why would we? So like, if the technology exists and we're like, cool, I can, I can spin up a simulation of conscious beings. Right now. What do we hope to learn from it? It's a great question.
Oh, I, Oh, I don't think learning, I think it's play play and
... even though we know they're conscious, like this, we're designing them to be conscious. It's why you create a video game." Okay.
So it's entertain.
Video game. Okay. improvement. I think so. Okay. I think so, too. Okay. That's more now, maybe more and more than day. Like that's the side of stephen. Well, there's a lot of guys like I don't think it's like necessarily um I don't think it's for tomorrow then anything. I think it's just like a it's like uh I look at it
as a I also think that's more now. Maybe more and more than I was excited. See I don't
I don't think it's driven from anything.
I think it's just like biologically evolutionary drive. Like it's just.
But how does creating a simulation align with our.
It's a gigantic super advanced Monte Carlo simulation. Like you know how there are certain things you can't really calculate, but you sort of derive the answer by just brute forcing it. There may be something far more advanced than some little calculation with a brute forcing the universe to study something because it's so infinitely complex that we can't calculate the outcomes. But by brute forcing like a trillion existences of it, you can see the. So I can say.
That sounds interesting. So like instead of Monte Carlo interest rates and in inflation I can just like well just recreate humanity ten thousand times. You know what's funny is.
In inflation I can just like 10,000 times you know what's funny is I'm literally imagined you, you, Nick or Bonnie playing this game. like just really having the time of your life. Just in a, poop. You're like, mm, not good enough. And then you're like, what if I changed these variable? Maybe this whole thing?
Yeah, maybe this whole thing- Just in there.
Poop. Like, mm, not good enough.
And what if I changed these variables? Maybe this whole thing? Yeah, maybe this whole thing is just a children's toy. Like what we consider to be like a four-year-old kid and some super advanced civilization, their version of the little fire truck going vroom,
is they have like a universe simulator. Well, if that is true, I still have empathy for all of our friends that are at the bar waiting for us. And they've been waiting for 30 minutes.
I was just-
I was just- And they've been waiting for 30 minutes. I was just gonna make the same segue and say that- That's a great segue. How amazing this episode has been. We got the Wednesday boys waiting. Hope they're listening to this and I'm sorry I did not see the time. The audience is like, what the fuck you talking about? I'm here for a podcast. Yeah. Let's wrap up with, if you guys have it,
I would love to hear it.
That's a great segue. Which door, where are we? Are we in it or not? Like I'm just curious like where this leaves you. I think Eric, by the way, tonight's Eric is my favorite Eric. Like I want more of this EJ at every episode. We just bring these like great takes and opinions and fire and like you really stand for them and I love it.
I want more of this all the time. I want more of this all the time.
That this is base reality.
Okay. And that's based on hope, but if it isn't, I'm fine. I think it could also like pragmatically be door three,
but I'm sort of a hopeful believer in door one.
We don't know what the big bang is. We know that it existed. We call it the big bang and like, I don't know. I keep going back to like, that just sounds like they turned on the computer. They plugged it in and then it just started and like there's nothing before that and there's no explanation. It wasn't like a precursor that like energy, folded on itself and then it created this bang. So I don't know. I think just for pure entertainment purposes.
What you're saying would be consistent with just like a sub reality existing within base reality. You're going to be consistent with like the Rick and Morty thing where there's just these tiny universe, like it's just a universe inside this beer can.
You know, it's just an infinitely smaller. you're right where there's just so tiny universe can by the way not to even mentioned like not to even mention that such universe between that in a simulation multi universe there is becoming like the more widely accepted
there's not an easy dreamers between that and a simulation
other social simulation and there are a little shoots that there's other data there's multiple the universes were yeah so called big realities are becoming standard model, like view in theoretical physics. So we don't have a word that explains the wrong word there, by the way, because when people say standard model, that actually means something. But I'm saying like the more sort of majority of physicists are moving in that direction, which is wild. Like that's just wild, which means each one of those required some version of a beginning, some version of a big bang. There's a new theory as well that like black holes could be the portal to like alien world data storage. I don't know if you guys have heard that. I'll save that for all. Netflix documentaries. I'll save that for all thought around, but there's like so much data storage that only a black hole could hold.
Anyway, mine kind of is that universes.
Yeah, so-called base reality. We don't have a word that explains the wrong word there, by the way, because Netflix documentaries are not
real thought around, but it's like I feel like we're either, I feel like what is certain, I've always had this weird sort of like deja vu premonition dream lucid dream. Like all of those have happened at once, whether it's been like a deja vu or a lucid dream or a premonition that in my life, I'm going to have this weird choice to enter another realm. Let's just say I've always had this and I feel like I'm going to have this option to live a lot longer than I ever expected. And it's always been strong. I don't know why I can't explain it. So for me, like simulation is inevitable. There's a one in a billion chance that I'm in base reality experiencing this. And it's more likely that I'm already in a simulation experiencing this. But I think all roads lead to like simulation in my lifetime, in our lifetime for me. But it doesn't change a lot for me about my philosophy actually. Maybe there's more to explore there though. But I have a weird feeling that I might equally like as Kipping says be in base reality.
I just might be that lucky son of a bitch that like is in that base reality that's but is going to create a simulation.
Like I do feel strongly about that.
Steven. Yeah, I'm going to have to follow up with you on that because I don't see any world in which we create like a simulated universe in our lifetime. But-
Well, that was the whole discussion today. Yeah.
Yeah, I project that wholeheartedly. But like-
Really? So you are a like, you're a base reality.
Like- Well, these are two different things. The idea that we would simulate, be able to construct a universe simulation in our lifetime. And the idea that we live in base reality. Those are two totally different constructs.
Why? Well, one of them is like you're postulating that given the infinite expanse of the universe and time, there will be one civilization in the infinite expanse of universe and time that can create this, right? Versus you are saying, this is the civilization and oh, by the way, it's going to happen in our lifetime. Like you're narrowing the window by effectively like infinity in the opposite direction, which doesn't make any sense to me. But even beyond that, like I just sort of reject the fundamental premise that like given infinity and infinity like that, like we can even create these simulations. So like, I can't get past the first element of the whole hypothesis or theory or whatever you want to call it.
So I don't really think we're living in a simulated reality. Cause a simulated reality could be as simple as AI that is conscious and then there's a world and they exist in it and that's enough. Like it could be that simple
and you don't think that happens in this lifetime. No, not, this is getting into it like a far more complicated- I know, this could have been a projector, this could have been- I'll let it slide, but like no, I don't think in the way we're talking about it. I don't see that. I like it. And like I said before, like I would just choose not to because I know you guys disagree, but like I don't think the world has any purpose. Like if it is, if it is. So I don't even wanna bother my brain
with thinking about it. I know, this could have been-
Digital hour discussion so I'll let it, no I don't.
Yeah, it is so I don't yeah. Yeah, I don't even want I I understand that I don't want to push me in front of a car tonight, so I'm glad I'd like to pull back on that thread another episode. I think this was a really good episode Enjoyed it and you just like four really different perspectives. I'm glad we talked about this all right, we'll see you guys in the money episode and Until next time enjoy your simulated universe or not I
Don't want to push me in front of or not. Bye