Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • You don't exist, and science is  pretty confident of that fact.

  • Well, it would be unfair to say that you don't  exist, you probably do. Just not in the way that  

  • you think you do. Instead of flesh and bodyyou're likely nothing more than electrons on a  

  • circuit board, your consciousness a long string  of code being run by a supercomputer somewhere.  

  • You believe you're real because you've been  programmed to think you're real- or perhaps,  

  • if you're really lucky, you actually are real, and  it's the rest of the world that's fake. But wait,  

  • let's back up a second because we can already  feel some of our audience's heads spinning.

  • Simulation theory is exactly what it sounds  like: our universe, and perhaps our very selves,  

  • is nothing more than a simulation being  run by an advanced computer of some sort.

  • You might be tempted to turn to computer engineers  for an answer to the simulation theory question,  

  • but it turns out that spiritual gurus  may have a better grip on the ultimate  

  • answer than a scientist or engineer. After all,  

  • spiritual gurus dedicate themselves to the study  and development of the spiritual side of life,  

  • seeking to understand the fundamental  question of why do we exist at all?

  • The problem with turning to scientists for  an answer on simulation theory is simply put,  

  • that any evidence they can discover to disprove  the theory could itself be simulated. Perhaps  

  • religion and spiritualism can give us a better  perspective on the question if we are real or not,  

  • and religion has some very uncomfortable  clues that we might in fact be simulated.

  • Eastern religions have a staggering amount of  evidence supporting that we in fact live in a  

  • simulation. One of the Buddha's most  well known teachings is as follows:  

  • All phenomena are like reflections  appearing in a very clear mirror,  

  • devoid of inherent existence. In essence, this  perfectly describes any video game- everything  

  • you see in a video game may look real, and havereal effect on a character inside the video game,  

  • but it is all ultimately not real to any  observer outside of the video game itself.  

  • If you log into Fortnite and someone  shoots directly at you, the real you  

  • behind the screen is completely unharmed by the  digital bullets being shot in your direction.

  • Even more disturbing is the ultimate goal of  Buddhism- Nirvana. Nirvana is the ultimate  

  • spiritual goal of a Buddhist practitioner, and  only achieved by rising above thethree poisons”,  

  • greed, aversion, and ignorance. Once you  accomplish that task, you are rewarded by  

  • being freed from the constant cycle of rebirthwhere you live and die a series of lives meant to  

  • act as teaching experiences. Achieving nirvana  leads to parinirvana, or the final nirvana, an  

  • afterlife for souls that have been freed from the  Hindu and Buddhist cycle of rebirth. What happens  

  • here is indescribable, and the human brain cannot  understand it so there is nothing known about it.

  • At a glance, Buddhism's nirvana seems much  like the carrot-and-stick core ideology of  

  • any religion- do good and be rewarded  with good, do bad and get the stick  

  • by being forced to live yet another life in  our imperfect world. Yet for a computer gamer,  

  • the entire concept of nirvana has a disturbingly  'quest-like' feature reminiscent of any computer  

  • game. It even comes with a respawn feature, just  like you would respawn in a game over and over  

  • again until you succeed by overcoming the obstacle  in front of you. Imagine a game of Super Mario,  

  • with Mario respawning over and over in  front of the bottomless pit he can't  

  • quite get the hang of jumping over- until  he does one day and continues on his way.

  • Buddhism's nirvana seems to point at one of  several possibilities for why we even live  

  • in a simulation, which we'll get to soonbut first, what do other religions say?

  • In the Hindu tradition life is believed  to be nothing more than a dream of Vishnu,  

  • and every single human being, along  with all of their history, triumphs,  

  • and defeats, nothing more than a miniscule  portion of the fabric making up that dream.  

  • When Vishnu awakens, we will cease  to exist, no different than if we  

  • were being simulated by a computer and the  simulation ended, or the computer shut off.

  • Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, whom all share  the same God, don't have as obvious links to  

  • the possibility of the universe being simulatedbut they do share a belief in a monotheistic God  

  • who created us to have a personal relationship  with him directly. The concept of a single God  

  • in control of the entire universe is no different  than the concept of a super intelligent AI  

  • creating a simulated universe, and  then populating it with simulated life.

  • Religion, especially eastern religion,  

  • seems to have strong links to simulation  hypothesis, but what does science say?

  • Well, the most important thing to remember is that  if our simulators wished to hide the fact that we  

  • were living in a simulation from us, then we would  never be able to find out as any evidence proving  

  • it could be simply edited, and any evidence  disproving it could be itself simulated.  

  • Think back on the last time you played a single  player video game and engaged in the questionable  

  • behavior of 'save scumming', or reloadingprevious save so you could get a beneficial,  

  • or the best, outcome. Your character has in effect  witnessed the effects of any number of possible  

  • outcomes, but you literally reversed time for that  character and he or she is now only aware of one  

  • outcome- the one you chose for it. So too might  our simulators simply reload a previous save state  

  • and then steer us away from the earth shattering  discovery that we are in fact, simulations.

  • But if everything can be edited and we can't  even trust our own observations or deductions,  

  • can there ever be any evidence that  we live in a simulation? Well, yes,  

  • possibly. One piece of evidence, and  it's definitely not good if you like  

  • to think you are a real flesh and blood  person, comes from simple probability.

  • We have observed our own universe and deduced  that it largely makes sense. Sure, there's some  

  • things that still bother scientists, but by and  large, the universe seems to be understandable,  

  • and the processes by which it operates are  themselves also understandable. That would  

  • seem to indicate then that there is a greater  probability that our simulated universe is a very  

  • close approximation of the real universeAfter all, you're more likely to create a  

  • simulation using values for the universe that  you already know work- never underestimate the  

  • probabilistic power of complacency driving  people to the path of least resistance.

  • This means that the real universe is likely as  large as ours, which in turn means that it could  

  • potentially be inhabited by numerous highly  advanced species- yet no matter how many real,  

  • unsimulated beings inhabited the real universethe ability to condense information onto a  

  • computer means that by sheer numbers alonethe number of simulated minds are inevitably  

  • exponentially greater than non-simulated mindsThat gives you pretty crap odds of being real.

  • But this is a rather imperfect argument, as it  relies on a number of values that we simply can't  

  • ever have precise data on. The real universe  might in fact be tiny compared to our simulated  

  • universe- our vast, seemingly infinite universe  could be nothing more than a fantasy dreamt up by  

  • a super intelligent species stuck in a boringmundane universe that's no bigger than a few  

  • solar systems. Consider the popularity of moviesbooks, and video games set in exciting worlds that  

  • are vastly different than our boring, mundane  earth. Intelligence seems to yearn for novelty,  

  • and is easily bored by its own everyday  reality- so the real argument here might  

  • be that if our universe is simulated, then the  real universe is far more mundane than ours.

  • Physics might offer better clues to the true  nature of our universe. In a computer simulation,  

  • what you can see is limited by the resolution  of the program, and if you look close enough  

  • you discover the individual pixels that make up  each image. In our world, atoms share very similar  

  • properties with pixels, as we know that atoms  make up everything in our material world. Yet,  

  • atoms themselves are made up of even smaller  particles known as elementary particles such  

  • as gluons and quarks, with the latter  being the smallest particle we know of.

  • If our universe is simulated, then why add  unnecessary complexity by increasing the  

  • resolution of our simulation down to the level  of quarks? Why not change the fundamentals of  

  • radioactive decay so that particles smaller than  atoms- which we believed for a long time were  

  • the building blocks of all existence- didn't  need up quarks and down quarks to operate? It  

  • seems like adding even smaller fundamental  particles is simply adding complexity,  

  • and in a simulation this means added computational  power that seems to be completely unnecessary.  

  • Unless our simulators exist in a universe with  unlimited energy, it's extremely dubious that  

  • they would run simulations requiring so  much energy input to power the massive  

  • amounts of computation needed to simulate  every single quark in our fake universe.  

  • Then there's the consideration of the  massive amounts of waste heat generated  

  • by the supercomputers crunching such incredible  amounts of numbers to make our universe work.

  • It's famously said that in order  to be able to simulate the entire  

  • universe- every single particle within  it- you would need a computer as big,  

  • or bigger than the universe, which also  seems to indicate that simulation theory  

  • is dead on arrival. Yet modern video games  offer clues to getting around this huge problem.

  • When you play a video game, your computer only  animates the part of the world you are currently  

  • looking at. After all, there's no sense  in wasting the computing power to animate  

  • whatever is going on behind you. Insteadthose details are stripped down to the most  

  • bare amounts of information needed to keep tabs  on the parts of the world you aren't looking at,  

  • and when you move the camera around the  computer then simulates the new viewpoint  

  • complete with graphical representations for what  was just seconds ago, nothing more than data.  

  • You've all experienced what happens whenvideo game isn't coded optimally to do this,  

  • or when your computer is getting old  and slow, and games you play stutter  

  • or hang often as the computer struggles to  turn data into graphical representations.

  • So if our universe is simulated, one way to get  around having to constantly track every single  

  • molecule, atom, and quark in existence, is to  simply not load those objects until needed-  

  • like when scientists start cracking atoms open  to discover what lies inside of them. Not only  

  • would a simulation rarely need to devote the  computing power to simulate atoms or quarks,  

  • because we are after all rarely ever interacting  with them in a direct way, but it could  

  • completely ignore these elements when they aren't  necessary. Until the invention of the microscope,  

  • our simulation would have had no need to simulate  every single individual cell, bacteria, or virus,  

  • as we were completely oblivious to their  existence and had no way of detecting them.  

  • Right now our simulation doesn't need to simulate  the weather systems of every single planet in  

  • the universe, it only needs to run localized  simulations in the very, very small areas of  

  • our own solar system we've explored, like a few  dozen miles around our Mars rovers for example.

  • In essence, it's the classic question of doestree falling in a forest make any noise if nobody  

  • is around to hear it- only in this case the tree  makes no noise, and doesn't even fall, because  

  • there's no need to waste computer power simulating  any of that if nobody is around to hear or see it.

  • Therefore, you wouldn't need a computer the size  of the universe to simulate the universe itself,  

  • you would only need a computer with enough  computing power to simulate the very small  

  • parts of the universe being directly observedBut there is a fundamental problem with this too,  

  • because as our technology develops, and as  humanity expands into the stars, both our  

  • observations of, and interactions with, greater  and greater parts of the universe will increase,  

  • requiring more and more computing power  to keep the simulation running smoothly.  

  • We will interact more and more with fundamental  particles too, not just in research but through  

  • application of our technology, which will  mean our simulation will need to begin  

  • accurately simulating exponentially  greater and greater amounts of data.

  • And one single slip-up on the computer's  part could give the whole thing away.  

  • Which leaves us with a frightening  possibility- what if through our  

  • own technological expansion and growth  throughout the universe as a species,  

  • we bring about our demise by simply crashing the  program we've been running on this whole time?

  • Of course, our simulators could simply  pause the simulation as we near this point  

  • and install new hardware to accommodate  our growth. Or they could just end it,  

  • instantly erasing you from existenceand start over from scratch.

  • Perhaps then our greatest piece of evidence for  why we are not living in a simulation is simply  

  • thus: it would be the single most immoral act in  history to even create such a simulation in the  

  • first place. After all, once you have reached the  technological sophistication to simulate a mind,  

  • that mind is itself no different than a  'real', biological one- it simply runs on  

  • silicon rather than flesh and blood. Even our  allegedly real brains operate on electricity,  

  • with our flesh and blood nothing more than  the materials the hardware is made of.

  • Because a simulated mind is no different than  a real mind, then creating a simulated being is  

  • in effect creating a living being, who exists  in your universe in the form of electrons on  

  • silicon chips. You would simply be tricking  that mind into believing it existed in a  

  • different universe than it really doesand you would be allowing it to grow,  

  • find a mate, breed, and create more simulated  minds. Those minds would in turn also reproduce,  

  • creating even more simulated minds, so on  and so on for as long as the simulation ran.

  • In time you would face an inevitable choicewhen do you turn the simulation off and commit  

  • the greatest genocide in the universe's historyreal or fake. You would have to turn it off too,  

  • because eventually you would run out of materials  to build the hardware your computer needs  

  • to continuously expand its computing power  in order to keep up with the exponentially  

  • increasing amount of simulated minds, or  you would run out of energy to power your  

  • computer. Eventually even your own real  universe would end, and along with it the  

  • trillions of simulated minds you had been  nurturing inside your simulated universe,  

  • making you the greatest mass murderer  in any history- simulated or real.

  • Then of course, there's always the chance ofstray accident shutting down your simulation,  

  • or destroying your computer, no different  than the millions of accidents that happen  

  • every day in our universe and damage  sensitive electronics. Only in your case,  

  • that accident just wiped out billions of  simulated minds- maybe even more depending  

  • on how long you allowed the simulation  to run. Once more, you have become the  

  • greatest mass murderer in history, because  you created the simulation in the first place.

  • Such an act is so unthinkably immoral,  

  • that perhaps it is the greatest evidence for  why our universe is in fact not simulated.

  • Still yearning to find a place in  the world? Check out Why Is There  

  • A Universe? Or check out this other video instead!

You don't exist, and science is  pretty confident of that fact.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Operation of videos Adjust the video here to display the subtitles

B1 simulation universe simulated computer simulate nirvana

Science Proves You Don't Exist

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 posted on 2020/11/29
Video vocabulary