Are you living in a simulated reality?

[jimmycase]

I have no problem with thought experiments, but it should not be sold as "scientific" when it is clearly not.

 

Clearly David Brin, Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, neil de Grasse Tyson, Paul Davis and Martin Reese et al disagree with you about it 'not being science' but we'll agree to disagree.

[setreal]

That makes no sense.

[jimmycase]

The Basics of the Simulation Argument

The basic concept of the simulation argument is that if a computer simulation can be run to simulate reality, then whoever ran the simulation would have run so many instances that there is a slim chance that anyone considering the argument is in “a base reality”. This is where the argument starts, but it doesn’t end there.

The argument is based on statistical probabilities that attempt to show there are three possibilities for advanced civilizations:

1. Civilizations go extinct before they can make simulations.
2. Civilizations quickly lose interest in creating computer simulations so there aren’t any or many.
3. We are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Further Justification for the Simulation Hypothesis – Can We Prove We Aren’t in a Simulation?

There are many signs that suggest we can’t prove we aren’t in a simulation. Our universe is based on rigid mathematical rule-sets, and (the specifics of the standard model aside) everything is essentially made of electromagnetic mass-energy (roughly light and electricity). We know a few simple rules create evolving complex systems (such as the binary code running the computer you are reading this on), and we can use modern physics and mathematics to calculate and predict a lot of complex phenomena with accuracy.

 

From fractal geometry to Euclidean space, to relative time and the constant speed of light, nothing around us suggests we aren’t “living in a computer simulation” (although, to be clear, nothing proves we are either).

 

Below we explore the different simulation arguments and ponder the viability of those theories.

 

Scientists Have Seriously Considered The Simulation Argument

The simulation argument (the idea we could be “in the Matrix) isn’t just a fun factoid, this is legitimately the conclusion of a scientific inquiry, and it has been discussed by many respectable thinkers (see an article about actual scientists discussing “the simulation argument” in 2016).

To clarify the above, one version of the simulation argument says: 1. we are made out of the same “star stuff” a computer program is (the only stuff everything is made out of, “mass-energy“) 2. if an advanced race could run a computer simulation that mimicked life they could run so many instances of that simulation that it would make it statistically probable we were a simulation (this is why for example Elon Musk thinks there is about a on in a billion chance we are in “a base reality”).^[6]

 

The exact arguments surrounding the above concept are complex, and the conversations are often had by conspiracy theorists than rational minds. Yet, people with rational minds do talk about this, and related science-backed theories include the well-worn Holographic Universe theory.^[7]

The Simulation Argument – Science Versus Metaphysics

The simulation argument is rooted in science but is a metaphysical argument. Specifically a cosmological argument. See “the difference between physics and metaphysics,” and “the branches of philosophy,” for more clarification on how to understand cosmological theories like, “the simulation argument”.

TIP: You can ask “are we real”, and “how do we know” all day. These are metaphysical and epistemological questions. Therefore, to be clear, this page asks a serious question and presents real science as evidence, but ultimately leads to philosophical questions rather than answers. Learn more about the branches of philosophy.

 

If We are in the Matrix, What are the Implications?

“Being in the matrix” (a virtual simulation) can mean a few different things. This includes, but isn’t limited to scenarios where:

• We are randomly in the matrix with no one driving the ship.
• We are in a matrix within a matrix.
• We are being tested, examined, or watched.
• We are one of many simulations being run by some other type of being.
• We are being used as a power source of some kind by mechanical Octopi… (OK, probably not that).

 

TIP: On the off chance that we are being tested, if say that test is to see if we can be “good,” then we are arguably not succeeding. I will now direct you to our page on morality and the meaning of life.

 

 

Are we living in the Matrix? We can’t prove we aren’t, and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic energy (therefore light) don’t exactly help. Source: Quantumdiaries.org

TIP: The “Let there be light” meme is a joke in this instance. Maxwell’s equations describe electromagnetic fields, and light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, so Maxwell’s equations can be used to describe light.

Arguments Against Living in the Matrix

The best argument against us living in a virtual simulation is that we are by no means living in a utopia. Unless the world around us, me and you the reader, is fake (and thus there isn’t the suffering we know there is), then we aren’t being placated. This argument draws into question a benevolent simulation, but doesn’t draw into question the idea that we are being tested or that the simulation isn’t being guided by anything more than basic rules.

 

A Simple Algorithm that Could Create the Universe

There are only a few constants in the universe. To create a universe you would need to define the constants and the equation for how electromagnetic energy behaved. We have already figured out most of these equations, and while we don’t know everything yet, we could base an algorithm on simple steps like:

• Define the behavior of electromagnetic energy including how negative and positive charges attract, max speed, min speed, and constant gravitational force.
• Define the dimensions, and other limits.
• Define the amount of electromagnetic energy in the system and the bounds of the system.
• Define other potential unknowns regarding spacetime; it’s geometry, the cosmological constant, and dark energy etc.

Obviously, the specifics would be more complicated, but complexity science tells us that just a few simple rules can create a complex system. It’s not that this is likely, it is that we simply can’t prove we aren’t in the matrix.

 

 

Conclusion

We might be living in a virtual simulation, in fact there is a strong argument against this being “a base reality”. At the very least, we can’t prove we aren’t in the a simulation…. and even if we aren’t, it is rather fun to think about!

 

http://factmyth.com/factoids/we-might-be-in-a-virtual-simulation/

[John101]

When we can accurately predict the weather, the winner of an election or what the economy will look like in a weeks time i might start to believe all this. 

[Captain Turdseye]

What was the question again?

[ZonkoVille77]

The question is, are you able to count to peanut?

[Jairzinho]

The question is, are you able to count to peanut?

 

Probably ham, and thanks for asking.

[Red Phoenix]

If we did live in the matrix what better way to keep us away from truth then by making a film about it?

 

That's assuming that the operators of any potential matrix want to keep us from the truth. If we do find that it's a simulation, becoming aware of that could be a natural process. And we don't have to be in one for negative reasons because that was the case in a film.

 

I don't think many of us are bothered if it's non-falsifiable either. The subject isn't whether or not what we're talking about here fits into Popper's theory of what's accepted as science. If the scientists who aren't working in their spare time eventually find evidence that the universe could be simulated due to the work they're doing, does anyone here think that the first response is going to be "Popper said that's not science!" No I think we'll have more important questions to deal with.

 

Even if it's not accepted science, who gives a shit? Does that mean that it's not important to run tests on this? If scientists find that we're living in a simulated reality that'd be one of the most important discoveries ever, I don't think they're going to make the discovery then say to the world "Yeah well, it's cool but, you know....Popper said it wasn't science. So.....maybe it can be a philosophical discovery?"

[Red Phoenix]

Purple Aki's response to us being in a matrix could be : "Can I feel yer pixels?"

[jimmycase]

That's assuming that the operators of any potential matrix want to keep us from the truth. If we do find that it's a simulation, becoming aware of that could be a natural process. And we don't have to be in one for negative reasons because that was the case in a film.

 

I don't think many of us are bothered if it's non-falsifiable either. The subject isn't whether or not what we're talking about here fits into Popper's theory of what's accepted as science. If the scientists who aren't working in their spare time eventually find evidence that the universe could be simulated due to the work they're doing, does anyone here think that the first response is going to be "Popper said that's not science!" No I think we'll have more important questions to deal with.

 

Even if it's not accepted science, who gives a shit? Does that mean that it's not important to run tests on this? If scientists find that we're living in a simulated reality that'd be one of the most important discoveries ever, I don't think they're going to make the discovery then say to the world "Yeah well, it's cool but, you know....Popper said it wasn't science. So.....maybe it can be a philosophical discovery?"

 

Well I had to smile when a poster posited the subject isnt science by using an oxymoron "speculative assertion" when clearly some of the people involved are scientist using physics and computer science amongst other things. but, that's just a diversion.

 

If people dont want to accept the question, that's ok. its a free world (for now!)

 

Its also obvious we cant yet prove what we live in is or is not simulated. That is clearly a work in progress, we need more information on the universe and more computing power at the very least. it is however, an interesting hypothesis, either we are real or we arent, irrespective of whether we know it.

 

I think the philosophical argument comes into it around whether the creator or creators of any simulated reality is a god or could be considered a god and, should they be allowed to switch off or re boot the reality on a whim or other reason once the participants have become self aware and questioning their 'reality.'

[memyselfandpie]

Consciousness. If we are 'in something' the whole point is that we would never actually know it. We could theorise it, but we would never, ever know. The understanding would not be there.

 

I've always been a big fan of biology, in that, I don't see how it could be replicated. If you could give self awareness to a computer/robot, that's one thing, if you can give consciousness to them then that's a whole other ball game. If computers/robots, reach a level where they can become conscious, then theoretically at least, they would look to be an animal, but more efficient (they would have to have some history to go on). That's not to say that they would be flesh and bones, because if I put myself there I would immediately see that as a big weakness. Out with the flesh, in with something else; et cetera, et cetera. I suppose the question is, would that be the same for all physiological attributes? Would hearts, and livers, and kidneys, and brains be reproduced or 'upgraded? If they reach that point then the brain becomes a record, a tape, a CD, an MP3 and god knows what thereafter. It's very interesting.

[jimmycase]

Consciousness. If we are 'in something' the whole point is that we would never actually know it. We could theorise it, but we would never, ever know. The understanding would not be there.

 

I've always been a big fan of biology, in that, I don't see how it could be replicated. If you could give self awareness to a computer/robot, that's one thing, if you can give consciousness to them then that's a whole other ball game. If computers/robots, reach a level where they can become conscious, then theoretically at least, they would look to be an animal, but more efficient (they would have to have some history to go on). That's not to say that they would be flesh and bones, because if I put myself there I would immediately see that as a big weakness. Out with the flesh, in with something else; et cetera, et cetera. I suppose the question is, would that be the same for all physiological attributes? Would hearts, and livers, and kidneys, and brains be reproduced or 'upgraded? If they reach that point then the brain becomes a record, a tape, a CD, an MP3 and god knows what thereafter. It's very interesting.

 

We dont know at the moment. It may not be correct to say we would never know. Its not a question of understanding, it would become a question of finding proof.

 

For example, if there was a simulated reality, it would be run on what we would call a computer. The computer than the reality sits on would be based on what we would call a program. All programs have bugs in them, its just a question of finding the bugs. Find the bugs in your reality program and you've got proof, initial at least that your reality is manufactured (bit of a simplification but that's the reality!). Ergo, your reality is simulated.

 

In the article below scientists debated the subject recently. Doesnt mean they are saying we do live in a sim.

 

Sometimes, physicists can get too up in their own heads.

At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, recently held at New York’s Hayden Planetarium, scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? It’s an older question that you might imagine, and if we interpret it a bit more broadly then it’s really one of the oldest questions imaginable: How do we know that reality is reality? And, if our universe were a big, elaborate lie, could we ever devise some test to prove that fact? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.

 

Thankfully, that’s clearly silly. View the full, surprisingly entertaining discussion below.

When you set yourself to proving, or disproving, the hypothesis that we live in a computer simulation, there are basically two modes of attack. One, you can try to collect evidence on the subject — a difficult and time-consuming approach that tends to leave you without much in the way of funding or public recognition. One approach to this is to look for glitches, things that have no place in any sensible physical universe. Another is to figure out some limitation of a simulation that ought not to exist in a real world, and to see whether our universe exhibits this limitation. Recent work examining cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere could one-day be expanded to provide such evidence, but it’s in no way assured.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as though you didn’t know).

The other, more popular strategy is to reason your way out of the box — the Descartes approach. This involves coming up with logical statements that cannot be locked to any particular reality in which we exist; classically, Descartes claimed that he could definitively prove he existed, simply by thinking. “I think therefore I am” is not a reference to self-awareness, and certainly not artificial intelligence, but the simple fact of existence: I can’t be having the thought I’m having now if I don’t exist somewhere, in some form. Descartes had a pre-digital understanding of a simulation, arguing that he could well be a “brain in a vat” being fed false experiences. But the basic form of the problem is the same as our computer interpretation, though less specific and testable.

 

Now, Descartes had to eventually abandon basic thought proofs in favor of some questionable further assumptions designed to make his quest for a sensible universe remotely possible. In particular, he had to fall back on ideas about God, and His unwillingness to viciously trick mankind. In other words, if our senses tell us a thing, we can trust in God’s fairness to assure that that thing is, at least roughly, the way we observe it to be. If it isn’t, then God has given us senses designed to trick us, and God would never do such a thing!

Sergey Brin (Google) in the Matrix, as Neo, stopping bullets.

For modern physicists, this approach obviously won’t cut the mustard. Even highly religious scientists know they can’t reference God in their theories. To move past the problem of mere existence and on to more relevant questions, they and their atheist colleagues alike must lean on an equally convenient, and equally useless, argumentative crutch: infinite-time thought experiments.

The Large Hadron Collider could one day produce a proof that we live in a computer. But, probably not.

 

This is the crux of Tyson’s point: if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations — and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off.

In such a reality, simulated universes might outnumber real ones by an infinity to one, and so to assume we live in the one and only real universe would be the height of arrogance.

There is, in all probability, a spoon.

 

It’s not so much that this thinking is “flawed” as it is “so useless it invalidates all of human thought and achievement from pre-history to today.” Think about it: If we are to be convinced by this sort of non-argument, then why not assume that every person around you is a time traveler? After all, if we imagine that time travel will one-day exist on an infinite time-line, then we must also assume that time travel has been used to visit every single time and place in our planet’s history — including this one. People will, in principle, want to have fun vacations in the past, putting on period-appropriate clothing and walking around using slang wrong; how could we be so arrogant as to assume that the people we meet are part of the real, finite population of our time, and not from the far more numerous ranks of temporal travelers from any time?

 

Does this prove that Tyson and his colleagues are wrong? No. But it does prove that their thinking here is inherently useless — that is, that they could be right and until we can prove it with real evidence, their correct statements would still be useless. As the old saying goes, we should be open-minded — just not so open-minded our brains fall out.

[Red Phoenix]

Well I had to smile when a poster posited the subject isnt science by using an oxymoron "speculative assertion" when clearly some of the people involved are scientist using physics and computer science amongst other things. but, that's just a diversion.

 

If people dont want to accept the question, that's ok. its a free world (for now!)

 

Its also obvious we cant yet prove what we live in is or is not simulated. That is clearly a work in progress, we need more information on the universe and more computing power at the very least. it is however, an interesting hypothesis, either we are real or we arent, irrespective of whether we know it.

 

I think the philosophical argument comes into it around whether the creator or creators of any simulated reality is a god or could be considered a god and, should they be allowed to switch off or re boot the reality on a whim or other reason once the participants have become self aware and questioning their 'reality.'

 

I think it kind of unites science and philosophy and I don't think that they should be so separated anyway, so that's also something that has a lot of potential good effects. Popper's falsifiability might work well for most of current science, but it doesn't have to be a rule that deters scientists from searching and making theories. And if scientists are going to declare everything non-falsifiable not science it'll just make philosophy a lot stronger anyway, taking many current scientific theories with it. Maybe they should be balanced more anyway (philosophy and science.)

 

If the falsifiable aspect still really bugs some people, this might make interesting reading :

 

Popper and Evolution

 

In connection with the discussion of Karl Popper's philosophy of science (Reports 13(1) and 13(3)), it should be recalled that this philosophy played a small but significant role in the creation-evolution controversy in the early 1980s, and it is still used by anti-evolutionists a decade later.

 

Popper asserted that making testable (and thus potentially falsifiable) predictions of previously unobserved phenomena was a necessary condition for a theory to be called "scientific." This was known as the "falsifiability" criterion. Popper himself concluded that Darwinian evolutionary theory failed to satisfy that criterion so it was not a scientific theory but only a metaphysical research programme--a way of explaining what had already happened, not a theory that can predict what will happen in the future.

 

There is an obvious flaw in the criterion, at least in the extreme version originally proposed by Popper: it excludes not just evolutionary biology but also historical geology and much of astronomy, even though these are recognized sciences. A more subtle objection is that even in testing theories that obviously are scientific, such as Einstein's general theory of relativity, scientists do not give any more weight to previously unknown phenomena (such as the bending of light by the Sun) than to deductions of known phenomena (such as the advance of the perihelion of Mercury).

 

Popper reversed himself in 1978 and asserted that Darwinian theory is scientific. But the damage had been done; creationists used Popper's original statement to argue that evolution is not a science and hence does not deserve precedence over creationism in the classroom. For example, in 1982 a proposed "equal-time" law in Maryland argued that "evolution-science like creation-science cannot be ... logically falsified."

 

In a society where the word "science" implies reliable knowledge and the authority that goes with such knowledge, lots of people (especially including creationists) want to grab that label, and many of us feel a strong need for an objective test or formula to distinguish between science and nonscience. Popper's falsification criterion once seemed to be the answer, but it was too simplistic. I don't think there is a single test that can capture the multidimensional nature of real science. At the same time we can insist on several factors that should be involved in judging theories: internal coherence, compatibility with other accepted theories, agreement with empirical evidence, etc. A careful reading of Popper's works shows that he advocated such a multifactor approach when he wasn't discussing the falsifiability criterion which made him famous.

 

https://ncse.com/library-resource/popper-evolution

 

Does Science Need Falsifiability? (an extract.)

 

String theory suggests a solution: It predicts that our universe is just one among a multitude of universes, each with its own fundamental constants. If the cosmic lottery has played out billions of times, it isn’t so remarkable that the winning numbers for life should come up at least once.

 

In fact, you can reason your way to the “multiverse” in at least four different ways, according to MIT physicist Max Tegmark’s accounting. The tricky part is testing the idea. You can’t send or receive messages from neighboring universes, and most formulations of multiverse theory don’t make any testable predictions. Yet the theory provides a neat solution to the fine-tuning problem. Must we throw it out because it fails the falsifiability test?

 

“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

 

“Elegance can help us invent new theories, but does not count as empirical evidence in their favor,” says Carroll. “The criteria we use for judging theories are how good they are at accounting for the data, not how pretty or seductive or intuitive they are.”

 

...

 

Perhaps “falsifiability” isn’t up to shouldering the full scientific and philosophical burden that’s been placed on it. “Sean is right that ‘falsifiability’ is a crude slogan that fails to capture what science really aims at,” argues MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson, writing on his blog Shtetl Optimized. Yet, writes Aaronson, “falsifiability shouldn’t be ‘retired.’ Instead, falsifiability’s portfolio should be expanded, with full-time assistants (like explanatory power) hired to lighten falsifiability’s load.”

 

“I think falsifiability is not a perfect criterion, but it’s much less pernicious than what’s being served up by the ‘post-empirical’ faction,” says Frank Wilczek, a physicist at MIT. “Falsifiability is too impatient, in some sense,” putting immediate demands on theories that are not yet mature enough to meet them. “It’s an important discipline, but if it is applied too rigorously and too early, it can be stifling.”

 

So, where do we go from here?

 

“We need to rethink these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way that also takes the best interpretations of fundamental science, and its limitations, seriously,” says Ellis. “Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

 

So getting caught up in the idea of falsifiability here is a real distraction I think. It's the idea and the searching for the answers that's a lot more important than whether or not it's classed as science, philosophy, a mixture of both, and so on.

[memyselfandpie]

If a civilisation of some sort could create and manage a simulated civilisation to the point where it became self aware, conscious, and grew to a point where it 'knew' it wasn't actually real, how would the original civilisation manage that? What would they do if their subjects attained such high intelligence that they could think about potentially freeing themselves? 

 

I don't see it, certainly not in a long-term sense, as they would always, no matter what, be far more advanced and would study, learn, predict, measure and absorb any relevant information required long before such occurrences came about.

[Section_31]

Consciousness always seems like something parasitic to me, it's as though you're two creatures, an instinct driven creature filled with low cunning like an animal that's largely in tune with the algorithms that keep the rest of nature ticking together.

 

And then there's this 'thing' that's 'you' that's sort of turned up from somewhere and hasn't got the faintest fucking clue what's going on, constantly battling to figure everything out and trying to resist or interpret what the animal underneath it is trying to do.

 

Where does that 'thing' come from though? Maybe you're just a pilot that's been implanted inside this smelly bundle of sweat and shit.

[jimmycase]

If a civilisation of some sort could create and manage a simulated civilisation to the point where it became self aware, conscious, and grew to a point where it 'knew' it wasn't actually real, how would the original civilisation manage that? What would they do if their subjects attained such high intelligence that they could think about potentially freeing themselves? 

 

I don't see it, certainly not in a long-term sense, as they would always, no matter what, be far more advanced and would study, learn, predict, measure and absorb any relevant information required long before such occurrences came about.

 

Who knows how the originators would react? We could guess the options though;

 

They could let the simulation continue to run even though the 'sim' became aware of their own 'reality.' Or, they could re boot the reality and start it again with a different set of variables or, they could upload a patch or patches to the original simulation and let that continue.

[Hades]

The self is an illusion of space and time. 

[memyselfandpie]

Consciousness always seems like something parasitic to me, it's as though you're two creatures, an instinct driven creature filled with low cunning like an animal that's largely in tune with the algorithms that keep the rest of nature ticking together.

 

And then there's this 'thing' that's 'you' that's sort of turned up from somewhere and hasn't got the faintest fucking clue what's going on, constantly battling to figure everything out and trying to resist or interpret what the animal underneath it is trying to do.

 

Where does that 'thing' come from though? Maybe you're just a pilot that's been implanted inside this smelly bundle of sweat and shit.

 

I think what you have described there is the same thing, in that life is an animal drive, but then there is a consciousness of some kind going on each time, in varying degrees, that wrestles against that in a more rational way.

[Section_31]

I think what you have described there is the same thing, in that life is an animal drive, but then there is a consciousness of some kind going on each time, in varying degrees, that wrestles against that in a more rational way.

The idea of inspiration always baffles me too. The idea of agonising over something and then realising it, it's as though your subconscious has already got everything sussed and is banging on your consciousness's door going 'listen dickhead!'

[Curly]

I really hate scientists.

 

Jesus? Is that you?

[memyselfandpie]

The idea of inspiration always baffles me too. The idea of agonising over something and then realising it, it's as though your subconscious has already got everything sussed and is banging on your consciousness's door going 'listen dickhead!'

 

See, as more of a biology freak I'd explain that away as simply your brain recognising things, remembering them, but perhaps not using them, until the time is right. For example, if you look at autistic savants, it shows that the brain is capable of mesmerising things, but the 'healthy' brain filters out what is 'not necessary' at the time - but still stores that information for potential use. In savants, the filter is, in a way, off, and freed up in some way. The brains capacity is then free to output the input in a way that is more true to what is really going on.

[jimmycase]

Another interesting feature. Im not sure if the link to the recording will work but if not, go to the original page and click there.

 

Oh, and dont worry, even though de Grasse contributes, it's "not science"!

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/11/startalk-radio-with-neil-degrasse-tysson-is-our-universe-an-incredibly-complex-simulation.html

 

Is our universe just an incredibly complex computer simulation? Or is it just one of many universes, each brought into existence by the choices we make? In this episode of StarTalk Radio, Neil deGrasse Tyson investigates the nature of reality, from quantum physics and string theory, to the multiverse and The Matrix.

To grapple with these questions, both very big and very, very small, Neil interviews his friend, theoretical physicist Brian Greene, while in studio, he gets help from co-host Maeve Higgins and David Chalmers, who is a Professor of Philosophy and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU.

Discover why the multiverse concept makes mathematical sense, at least through the lens of quantum physics. You’ll hear how Schrödinger’s Cat can be simultaneously both dead and alive and why Planck’s Constant has changed our understanding of how reality plays out on a quantum level.

You’ll learn about the “simulation hypothesis”: that we are all living in a computer simulation, and why any evidence to the contrary (or glitches in the matrix) could be part of the simulation, too. Find out what Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says about the complexity of that simulated universe, and why the idea that we are all characters in a game designed by a pimple-faced 15-year-old from the future may be more in line with the laws of physics than the idea of a creative god.

Finally, explore the relationship between physics, string theory and music with Stephon Alexander, who is both a theoretical physicist and a musician. Plus, Chuck Nice heads to the streets to find out what the people know about theoretical physics, and Bill Nye ponders what life as a sim would be like.

LISTEN HERE

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[Bjornebye]

We all are.

[Fugitive]