We are living in a computer program reality.
Oh, we're definitely in one, but I will not tell you really what it is.
What's outside the simulation?
2003, Nick Bostrom gives us,
Are you living in a computer simulation?
He wrote a philosophy paper and he wrote us a tri-lima, guys.
We're in a post-human world.
That means that we have evolved past what we can now recognize as human beings.
We're not aliens.
We've just gone so down the technology rabbit hole
that we don't really recognize ourselves as humans.
And there's three things.
Now, his whole statement is one of three must be true.
One, when extinct before we had the ability to create our simulation,
two, we could create our simulation,
but we're not going to create the simulation.
And three, we are already in a simulation.
Welcome to Quantum Bombs,
a commentary show on the human condition through metaphysics and freedom.
AI, quantum physics, and mystics all agree that our world isn't a physical world at all,
but we are living in a simulation.
We have the two biggest problems in science, the hard problem of consciousness.
You've heard that one.
We're going to cover and get to David Chalmers later,
but we also have the hard problem of matter.
Oh, yes, neither.
We don't know what its intrinsic value is.
What is its fundamental substance?
We can't say it.
And for that reason, we have people like Elon Musk saying,
guys, the chances of us being in a normal base reality that we all act
and take it in every day as it is.
No, no, there's a one in billions chance that this is based reality.
Oh, okay.
What do you think?
Well, I think it's one in billions.
Okay.
Meaning we have a billion more times more likely that we are in a virtual simulation.
Today's topic is fascinating because I'm going to state at the top.
It bridges two world opposing worlds of materialism,
scientism.
We're all academia's materialist, where they don't believe in God,
but matter is the fundamental substance.
And it bridges in with idealists, people that believe in God,
and a lot of people that are into technology.
So it's a topic of philosophy, metaphysics, physics, theology, spirituality,
you know, religion, however you want to do that.
All right.
There's a tons of episodes on the simulation theory.
This one, I want to talk about what I really,
how a different way of looking at it, right?
NPCs, RPGs, we're going to explore a little bit of that at the top,
but I want to dive into all of the top thinkers on the simulation theory,
or those that don't like it at all, and really hold their feet to the fire of,
how do they see simulation theory?
What's their argument for it, right?
Who's behind it?
What is it?
And how would it work if it is true?
And I think by exploring five different camps,
you might have a better idea of, okay, I've got this thing in the bucket.
Next time I hear simulation theory, I can get it.
Why, I have always loved it.
It's a great way to get to know God.
If you're having those common problems,
the biggest philosophical questions today, you know,
why does God permit suffering?
And, you know, all these, all the big questions really can be answered
within the gaming and simulation theory.
This has been a discussion for over 2,000 years, right?
And as we've progressed forward with technology,
how they describe it to you changes with time, right?
Current technology that's easy to think about this today,
which is a drone, right?
Okay, so you, I'm going to send you to the absolute reality.
It's outside of space time, right?
And you're going to be the drone pilot, okay?
So your soul is in absolute reality.
We're going to put on your drone goggles.
So now, boof, you could, it looks like via your drone goggles
that you're at Earth flying this drone, right?
Well, your drone is now become your avatar, right?
Which is funny, that word is actually,
its original meaning would be like to describe Jesus,
who would be a divine incarnate taken on a human body from God.
However, now it's used often in the gaming world.
So just like you could put on any avatar,
like whoever you want to play the game with,
your avatar is a drone.
Your soul is in heaven.
Now, how does that work, Beth?
Because I thought our soul's here with us.
It's very easy to understand.
Okay, the fundamental field, which is consciousness,
creates space time, and it permeates into space time,
everything in it, everything.
In my last episode, go check it out.
We really go over the levels of consciousness using physics
and some physicist framework of how,
what's the difference between a rock's accumulated points of view,
points of consciousness versus a tree,
which is capped out at a living system as a tree versus yourself,
as an avatar walking around with a human.
You've all heard the term NPC, non-player character.
That's really, if you're in a video game,
it's the thing that isn't really alive or real.
So it's just a stage piece,
whether it is the bartender behind the bar at the game you're playing,
and then you have your role-playing game theory, right?
So that is you, you're here plugged in as an avatar
with your five senses making everything in our virtual simulation
feel very real.
The same way it's doing for your little drone
as you're flying around here in Earth.
But you're operating that sucker from the absolute reality,
which is outside of space time,
a.k.a. home, astral heavens, whatever you want to call it.
It's outside of the virtually simulated space time,
our universe, reality.
So there is your soul operating the gamer, your avatar, in Earth.
Now, when you die, your drone gets blown up.
Boom, what happens?
Well, you're like, crap, you realize you've got a headset on.
You awake, you wake in heaven.
It's called awake because you're not,
it's like you're waking from the dream,
and when you'll wake up, you remember, oh yeah.
This is why everybody, there's things saying,
when they get to heaven, you'll laugh.
This is why there's the saying in Hinduism, Maya, delusion.
This is a simulation.
It's a mind matrix that you're like, oh,
I took that poop way too seriously.
Here I am, I remember all of the,
I remember the architecture of my home, the absolute reality.
I've been here before, that was one heck of a ride,
and I'm glad it was hard, and it made sense to me
because I was able to have fun and live fully
because there was no getting it wrong.
You can't get it wrong in the game, right?
When you're playing Nintendo, it's pretty much the only game
I know like Mario Brothers.
You could just keep playing over and over again.
There's no getting it wrong.
You could live fully, be yourself, mess up,
really bad or not so bad
because you're always going to end up
back in the absolute reality.
Now, the variations of heaven and hell,
different show, we could talk about another day,
but the whole point is,
this is a virtual simulation, you're coming to play
as a role-playing game theory, living your best
with free will in the game.
You could take it much further with physics.
If you think about it, there's this collapse of the wave function,
whether the observer created the reality.
Well, in the gaming world, you have many different people
having their own subjective reality,
is that contributing overall to the larger objective reality, right?
Some people are on different levels, right?
I might be on level nine, you're on level three,
meaning my game player that came into this simulation
might have done it before.
You could see how far you could take this.
It's great brain candy because the more you munch on it,
the more you might see God's hands all over it.
But for the big scientists,
let's get into some of the nitty-gritty of this theory
and the arguments to four, et cetera.
So today, we're going to be discovering the people,
how they feel about this simulation of these five buckets.
Ooh, who do we start with first?
We're going to start with our famous folks first,
just so y'all can get your feet wet.
The biggest hitters, they believe in it
and they're telling you, oh, we're definitely in one,
like Elon Musk, literally don't have a chance
of not being in a virtual simulation.
But I won't give you my philosophy.
I will not tell you really what it is,
but I will say how it's done, which is programmers.
It's not a God, but it's some like super smart future being.
This is kind of where the camp where all these guys are in.
Nick Bostrom's theory of why, if you're a materialist
and you believe in simulation, it has a goal.
Our children, who became super humanized,
wanted to run their own simulation
to see what their great, great, great, great grandparents were like.
They wanted to study their history, so they do have a purpose.
Neil deGrasse Tyson's like 50-50, we're in a simulation.
Roman, if you don't know who Roman is,
I highly recommend you listen to one of his podcasts.
What are the...
I'm really intrigued to know what are your biggest unanswered questions
that you wanted?
What's outside the simulation?
Oh, really?
That's the one.
You want to know what's outside the simulation?
That's real knowledge, real physics, real answers,
real information about intelligence.
Everything here is simulated.
He says we have a 99.9% chance of dying from AI.
Love him.
I really enjoy him.
He is his whole thesis of all of his life work
as AI safety and cybersecurity.
Another famous person on this board,
we've got to give our shout out to
him.
He is a science fiction writer.
He gave us Man in the High Castle.
He gave us Blade Runner, like four other movies,
all exploring alternate realities.
He said this a long time ago, in 1977, at a speech.
We are living in a computer-programmed reality,
and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed
and some alteration in our reality occurs.
And Christ was saying over and over again
that there really are many objective realms,
somehow related and somehow bridgeable by living,
not dead men.
It was his mission to teach his disciples
the secret of crossing along this orthogonal path.
He did not merely report what lay there.
He taught the method of getting there.
But tragically, the secret was lost.
The enemy, the Roman authority, crushed it.
And so we do not have it.
But perhaps we can re-find it since we know
that such a secret exists.
On to what I'm very most comfortable speaking about
is consciousness made it.
Rizwan Verk is one of the most excellent people
you can visit if you really want to understand
simulation with gaming theory.
It feels like it's real.
Like this teacup actually consists of bits of information
rendered to appear as if it's real, even though it's not.
I looked at that as a computer scientist
and said, that's exactly how we build video games.
How do we know we aren't already inside
one of those virtual worlds?
Awakening could be like you become lucid in a dream state.
Yes, and this is what the spiritual traditions
have been telling us all along,
that the world is a kind of carefully crafted illusion.
In the Tibetan tradition, they use lucid dreaming
to wake up inside the dream
and realize that the physical world is also a kind of dream.
You know you're in it, but you also remember not being in it.
And that gives you a whole different perspective.
Challenges are integral to the nature of the game.
We're here to learn that.
What happens in a video game if you don't complete a quest?
You do it again.
You do it again.
What are you drawn to again and again?
His how is it generated?
Now he's not a physicist, so he's not the how guy to go to,
but he thinks it's a game world rendered by information
with the soul as the player and karma as the record
that carries across lives.
Let's jump down to Thomas Campbell,
NASA's physicist, the author of this My Big Toe Highly Recommend.
How is it generated?
My model says this is a virtual reality,
computed by consciousness, right?
And we're a piece of consciousness.
That big universe is a virtual.
It's just computed.
If it's just computed,
when we look at all those little stars
that are just little dots of light,
that's what's being computed us.
It's a dot of light, nothing more.
It's just we look out there, we look away,
we go to sleep, we're not getting that data anymore.
It's gone.
It's just like no man's sky started this idea
that you only compute what a player's looking at.
Right.
Well, that's the way it works.
That's efficient, much more efficient.
The next question is, how many seats does this
larger consciousness system need
in this entropy reduction simulator?
As each choice is a good choice,
then the entropy lowers a little bit,
but because that consciousness is a part of the system,
the whole system's entropy is lowered a little bit.
So we're the larger consciousness systems,
one of its ways of lowering its own entropy is through us.
So we lower entry, it lowers the entropy of the system,
and it has to compute a whole lot of stuff
for nine billion people.
It's a big game.
It's a big multiplayer game.
So it's a larger consciousness system,
rendering from outside of space time
and creating this world we're in.
Computing it like a world on demand, like a video game.
Their physics is actually showing we have a purpose,
and that goal is, with Thomas Campbell,
the system wants to lower its entropy
through love and kindness, through order.
Going down to Federico Fagan,
Fagan is the inventor of the microprocessor,
a conscious field expressing itself.
It's not computed.
He calls it the one.
See, every single one of us is a field
that is both the observer, the observer, and the actor.
Every one of us is a field, and it doesn't exist.
This field does not exist in space and time.
Space time exists within these fields that we are.
It's us.
So this changes the paradigm, right?
Its goal, per Fagan, is to know itself.
Comprehension will lead to meaning, and love is what meaning is.
Okay?
And that is collapse of the way function,
which are free wills decision of the field,
of the various fields that are interacting
and creating this thing that emerges from these fields.
The particle is not separable from the fields.
It's integral to the fields.
Then they forget about it.
Then they think of the particle a little ball.
The people that study biology think that their self is classical.
It is not classical.
There is nothing more.
There is no particle.
But physicists, the particle physicists,
but I see the particles.
No, you don't see the particles.
You see the effect of the states of the field
on this classical world.
And then you see something, but that is not the particle.
That is the effect of something that was amplified.
And a huge number of times to give you what you call a particle.
That there is a deeper reality where the feelings and the fields exist.
The meaning of information exists.
And from that world, you have this world that is a classical world
where you can get classical information.
And we think that the only world that exists is this world.
But this world we have constructed with our bodies.
And it's a way to look at it.
I think you have this metaphor yet in Silicon that
would it be like consciousness being the field, writing a book,
and the book itself is our space-time dimension, our body sitting here.
Or a film, recording a film and showing it,
the film shown on the screen of perception.
Yeah, but the book emerges into this three-dimensional reality,
but the writer of the book is in a deeper, faster reality.
He is not in the book.
And my body here is a sentence in that book.
The body is a symbol.
It's a symbol of a complexity which is unfathomable for now.
Okay, people will find this crazy idea.
It is crazy.
Yeah.
But it is much closer to the truth than what you get from the scientism.
Next, we have Naseem Haramein, which says how is the simulation generated?
A field of information in a vacuum that everything emerges from and feeds back into it.
He who is behind it is the unified field is his terminology for God.
And why is the universe is knowing itself through every living thing?
Okay, and then last but not least, Donald Hoffman.
He believes that it's generated from conscious agents outside of space-time,
projecting the interface we call the physical world.
God as a being itself is who's behind it, he believes.
And its goal is infinite consciousness, exploring itself from countless viewpoints.
Well, I have taught that on a lot of my past episodes.
But the interesting thing about Hoffman is that he differentiates from Fagan regarding
the non-player characters versus the role-playing gamers by saying that not everything is conscious.
Basically, he disagrees with Fagan.
Fagan, on my last episode, I point out, I actually tell you and explain to you how
the difference between a rock and a tree and a human being's consciousness works.
Donald Hoffman would just say the rock is a non-player character.
It's just, I believe he calls it an icon.
All these people's frameworks has words that makes you think of the gaming world.
Okay guys, a machine made it.
These are our hardest materialists we're going to talk about.
That means they think it's matter all the way down and they are putting,
saying how is it generated, this simulation?
It is via matter.
It is through some type of computer.
Vopsen actually says he found out that information has mass because if you took
like a hard drive, I believe, one that had like data on it and one that didn't,
he found the one that had data weighed more.
So he truly believes that this is an informational-based world and that he wants to weigh the information.
The top row is both Vopsen's theory and Zeus.
Zeus is our OG of the entire thing.
In 1969, he said that the world is literally a computer and this is even more funny.
Who is behind it?
He actually says nobody.
It just runs.
So unlike everybody else in our framework,
he's the only one that's saying it's literally just a computer and no one made the computer, right?
None of these guys know that there's any type of goal.
James Gates is very interesting.
I want to study more of his work.
He is basically saying he runs equations in quantum physics and particles and basically says,
I found out that there's a code in my math that shows that there's an error code being
corrected, but to correct something, it's got to be transmitting something.
So there's like a function that's being corrected.
I guess how I'd explain James Gates is it's a weaker cousin to the fine-tuned theory,
which is we all know that the world, the classical relativity, everything is fine-tuned.
So we don't explode or so we can exist here in this universe, but in his math he's doing,
he's finding that there's error coding built in to the functionality of the particles that he's
been creating the math diagrams around.
And he sits on the fence on everything.
He's a very safe physicist, I would say, meaning he's only running theories.
He's not making any claims whatsoever.
I kind of feel bad throwing him in here, but his work is so unique,
giving a possibility for a simulation being from a matter world that I wanted to put him in here.
I wanted to include him.
Let's jump over to the pond of brilliant minds who won't pick.
Tegmark is actually on the line of no simulation and won't pick,
but I couldn't put him on the other slide, so please forgive me.
We know Max Tegmark from one of my prior episodes.
He is massive on AI safety.
I highly recommend you watch his framework behind the 12 possible futures with AI.
We've got to be in one of 12.
And he believes reality is mathematics.
There's no simulator needed.
If you drill it down, he basically is a neutral monist, a bit like myself,
but I'm an idealist slash neutral monist.
He's a neutral monist slash, I think you call it like,
he believes in mathematical universal hypothesis, I believe.
Every structure is its own universe.
So nobody simulated it.
And obviously there's no goal if nobody simulated it.
Chalmers is the most unique character, along with Castrop on here.
Chalmers, I want to give to his horn because nobody has dedicated more decades
to the research of what consciousness is,
but he doesn't let his ego get in the way and actually pick a side.
How hard is that?
Because I'm preaching to you idealism and consciousness all day long, right?
He won't say.
He knows more about consciousness than a lot of people.
Though this Ivan Antic guy, I would mind blowing on how much he knows,
but I like it.
I feel like you can get a fair read off this guy.
Why?
Because he won't put his toe in any of the water.
Castrop is very interesting because he's a philosopher, former CERN guy.
He's one of the next buckets too, which is it's the wrong question
because he's basically saying, first off, he's consciousness is fundamental,
but by saying there's a virtual simulation being had,
you're saying there's a computer somewhere simulating it,
and that's just making the simulation one floor up,
which therefore makes it a materialist world.
It's just a dumb argument.
He doesn't like it, right?
Okay.
So those are the people that won't really pick because they just don't like the argument,
you know, anyways, but now we have people that are like,
y'all just bat shit, like y'all just crazy.
This is just wasting all of physics, physics time.
It's just base reality folks, right?
Sabine Haasenfelder.
Love this chick.
I watch her on YouTube of quirky gal, quirky gal to say the least.
No, I'll just say my cute pun on her.
I love it because she's so into math and science,
she'll just do a whole episode with no bra on,
and it's distracting me and I'm a girl.
I mean, she's beyond brilliant.
You know, I struggle to keep up with what she's saying,
but her argument, along with most people in this bucket,
if we haven't solved the problem of bringing quantum physics in with,
with, with relativity, how in the world are we going to have an equation for some simulation,
right?
There's no math to support any, we don't even have the math for these two.
And I would argue, you know, Fagan, our prior consciousness physicist we went to,
says this over and over and over again, math can't create consciousness.
How can you explain free will and conscience with something that doesn't have either?
You cannot explain it.
How can you explain consciousness with math?
When is consciousness that created math?
When can you explain free will with something that doesn't have free will?
You see, it's foolish to think that, you know, that you can explain,
how can you get more with less?
You cannot.
You can be less, you can get less from more.
You can get determinism from indeterminism.
You can get unconsciousness from consciousness,
not the other way around.
And that's so simple and so common sense.
But science doesn't want to go there.
Why?
Scientism doesn't want to go there.
Why?
Because you lose your power.
Because if I know the equations, I know more than you.
And that's not acceptable.
Fagan is saying you've got to go from inside out.
You can't go from outside in.
So we will get relativity.
Classics met with quantum once we start looking at it from the inside out.
From the field, from consciousness coming outward.
Not the other way around.
But that's just my thoughts.
Sean Carroll basically, he's saying we already don't have the fundamental answers.
So adding another layer of stupidity and questions just really isn't helping us right now.
I had to like sum up how he feels about it.
And then Lisa Randall bit similar.
Why would we even bother?
There are the chances for her, you know, the scientific proof that she needs as this
scientist is effectively zero.
Another big one, Wolfram.
The universe computes itself.
No simulator needed.
You know, there's the saying, if you want to tell me something, I'll remember it for an hour.
Show it to me.
Let me see it.
I'll remember it for a day.
Let me experience that sucker and I'll remember it for a lifetime.
The system wants to know itself.
Self realization.
This is all the same mysticism that is taught throughout all religions, throughout millennia.
When you look at quantum physics, you have the worlds coming together, the Tao of physics.
This is the book.
If you want to really understand the most complex, how was the world built?
I highly recommend it.
Check out that picture.
The holy science.
You got to take one page at a time on that sucker.
Another one, one page or a few pages at a time, the physics of consciousness.
And then lastly, we'll get to one of these physicists today.
My big toe by Thomas Campbell.
It's kind of cool how when you look at it from this very dry logical lens of physics,
that it's a system wanting to know itself, right?
Of course, that's the consciousness viewpoint.
But the only way to know is to know.
So why in the world would you go to the absolute reality put on the headset to come down here?
Well, I'm sorry, you're already in absolute reality.
There's no escaping it.
I love how Roman Yamo Pulaski tries to figure out how he could hack the system and escape it.
Because I've always pictured trying to escape space time myself.
I'm like, I'm gonna get in a rocket.
I'm gonna fly faster than the speed of light somehow.
But even if I could, because of our expansion rate, we can't even get outside space time.
But the irony is, is if you sit still on a pillow and guess what?
You lose track of those five senses.
You detach your consciousness from the avatar.
And all of a sudden, you feel a connection to the greater essence of what you really are
back out of this reality.
And you're able to leave the reality if you want.
You're able to get intuition into the greater truths of life, etc.
Right?
So that's kind of how I see it.
I hope it made sense to you.
Let me know in the comments what I missed, who believes, what camp are you in?
And I hope the framework wasn't too hard to kind of run through,
because I kind of jump around all over the place and I'm sorry about that.
Later Gators, stay human, stay connected to the fundamental field of our reality.
Have fun in the simulation and I'll see you back in Absolute Reality.