+Infinity Pool true, he wud eventually get there in a year or so (my best guess) considering the content quality and presentation he puts into the videos...
Nick's channel has grow a lot in the last few months. He's only getting better. Considering the only thing that stopped me from getting a graduate degree in cosmology was the prospects of finding a job, is testament to Nick's dedication. He'll crack 100K before we know it.
How do you know 10^120 GHz is a significant amount of computation for an "outside" computer? Also, our universe doesn't have to be simulated in real time, our perception of time is not linked in any way to that of a potential simulation universe.
10^120 operations/ second comes from what is needed to describe everything if the computer is made of the same stuff as the universe which by definition needs to be real time. There is a limit to how much stuff you can cram into an area before it becomes a black hole and there are upper limits in thermodynamics before energies are too high for particles to form or Maxwell's law tells you that the computer will be too hot. But you are right, these theories and have nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis but tries to answer if the Universe is computational in nature. if you consider the quantum foam of virtual particles as the real hardware, there are suddenly an infinite number of operations/ second available, and the "computer" is no longer required to run in real time. The Simulation hypothesis, does not have a hardware limit, because as you say, we have no idea if we are dragging along at 5 FPS. The Asylum guy is mixing two unrelated theories here, which is all right, but does not make sense at the same time!!
@@Tore_Lund you're right it is necessary to distinguish the simulation hypothesis with the idea that the universe is computational also known as digital physics. The simulation hypothesis presupposes that the Universe we live in is a simulation being run on a conventional classical computer such as the ones we are all using now except maybe for the amount of computing power. The 10^120 GHz figure is what is necessary to simulate the location every particle in the universe in any given moment. Which of course is why it would make sense that those locations would actually be based on probabilities and only calculated when actually observed. The concept called digital physics while related to the simulation hypothesis is not the same as it. In Digital physics the program could be running in the mind of God and therefore none of the limits seen by a physical computer are going to apply.
No way are we a simulation.. Don't just think of physical also think of thinking.. I might add not only us, humans but every creature that can think (brains). If you had to record every thought process that happens or even run it at real time.. No way in hell..
One can pause a simulation and pre-compute some steps ahead in a deterministic universe. In a free-will universe things get complicated. Free-will as computational irreducibility, meaning no closed formula for future state. This is solved by the finiteness of speed of light/casuality/photons/carriers of interaction/information. Something non-ahead-predictable happens somewhere in spacetime, like schrondinger cat with 50/50 prob of dead/alive, but information from that event will affect outcomes somewhere else in spacetime, some steps later in simulation and not in the next step instantly. So maybe that makes a black hole, a core that has hit 100% and is unresponsive to interaction in reasonable time ie. hawking radiation-the slow down of the rate of local interaction processing due to extreme mass. That means that computational density required for simulation can be calculated by the amount of mass that is located in a given area of a black hole plus the rate of ingestion of light/information/mass that comes from around and inside the black hole. I don't understand where those Ghz come from. Cesium atom is ~ 9.2Ghz. Plank time is around 5 x 10^44 hz. 10^120 doesn't make sense. Another hint of the finite computational capacity of universe is that when you stay close to a massive gravitational field, the relative time outside the field contracts,but your local time proceeds as normal. For those outside the field is as if little evolution/computation happened inside the grav. field little time have passed, essentially limiting the interaction rate and mainting syncronization between universe local states in and out the strong gravitational field as a result of universe's local finiteness of computation capacity.
3:47 "Which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to..." This comment is 110% profound for the subject matter and (I believe) is the crux of your entire theme here: bravo!
@@uttaradit2 it's kind of like how if you're playing Grand theft Auto the game doesn't construct the entire scene until you walk in there. It saves memory for making the immediate observed environment for a conscious entities as detailed as possible, sort of like that episode of Rick and Morty where those aliens were trying to get the formula for dark matter out of Rick, and they had him and Morty trapped in a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation and that scene where Morty's dad and calls home and it shows the graphics outlining and then filling in for a phone to ring for Beth to answer? That would explain why subatomic quantum particles do not actually resolve themselves until we are actually observing them
@@uttaradit2 If the Universe is a simulation, it is (by definition) a 'simple' approximation of that which it seeks to approximate: any shortcuts it can take in one area allows better simulation elsewhere, and having quantum particles only having definite properties when observed is consistent with this idea - doesn't prove it's true though. Or something like that.
@@uttaradit2 look at minecraft, everything that is outside your render distance isn't rendering or even being processed in order to keep computational requirements low. In our universe the equivalent would be particles just being a bunch of probabilities that aren't even "there", just a bunch of probability clouds until observed. And those clouds of probability are easier to calculate for large numbers of particles than deterministic positions for each one, ergo, the computing power needed to run a simulation similar to our universe drops several orders of magnitude
@@anftrew3775 So we practice a form of efficiency with regard to the description of a scene. You wonder if a principle of efficiency is at work on a more general scale in the universe.
Sure particles only need to say what they are when ASKED - like render-on-demand in digital videos. Is a particle "there" when nothing is looking at it? No! - the computer knows where it is but doesn't bother to tell anyone when nobody is asking. What a waste of computing power that would be.
or maybe they just don't care since even if we had valid proof of us being a simulation made to serve a purpose we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
we are insignificant to be look up, which is just a tiny speck of atom rather there is/are bigger thing to look up than us all. we're meaningless.insignificant.none. we're just passing by from 'start' code to the 'end' code.
Nice video, I've been waiting for someone to put these points together. I'm not educated at all, I mean I haven't really been to school in any way, so feel free to correct my thinking if you can. 20 years ago when I first started reading Newtonian physics I wanted to believe the world was mechanical and deterministic, and from a Laplace's demon point of view I started associating computing power with the universe. Then when I read about the uncertainty principle it immediately stuck me as the universe trying to conserve computing power, by only doing the calculations necessary. Over the years as computer games have evolved, to the point of 1st person view and beyond, it always stuck me how similar the programming must be to the way the universe must 'calculate'. When I read about Planck length it also struck me as fitting right into this universe as a computer idea. So it was great when these theories started getting thrown around and now are picking up support. (Also Susskind's work with black holes). But if we take it that our universe is in some kind of computer, then that computer must be somewhere, and we get a 'turtles all the way down' problem. But I guess in the computers location time would have to be running at a different speed, or maybe an absence of time? And maybe different laws of physics? Anyone have a problem with this so far? And also does anyone have any out of the box ideas how there could be a place outside our 'computer' where time wouldn't exist? Or any idea how to end the turtles problem?
Yes, it's true the laws of physics of the computer's universe could be anything... but knowing we usually simulate things to make predictions about our own universe, it's more likely that the physics isn't all that different. I do agree though that we run into the turtles-all-the-way-down problem. It's something the movie Thirteenth Floor deals with really well.
So in a sense, energy needs to be used to create a universe even if it were a simulation. Information has to be exchanged. So even if we are a simulation, from what we can understand of the universe and laws of physics, something needs energy to keep time flowing forward. Did I understand correctly?
John Sessa Well, we're not sure. In our universe, it might not have taken any energy at all. It's possible there is a net zero energy in the universe (a bunch of matter *minus* all the negative gravitational energy)
I believe our Universe is a natural simulation from the nothing. Information is possibility and vice versa, nothing has the potential for infinite possibility. Everything came from nothing, think about it, nothing is lawless, it's nothing, which means it could be everything which could cancel out to nothing and so on. I believe there must be a multiverse of all possibilities that adds up to nothing.
I don't see the problem. There are infinitely many ways to simulate an universe, and they can be indistinguishable from inside the simulated universe. So it's not our business. Maybe we can't even know. It's the same way a story (the string of text) would be the same no matter who wrote it, when or where.
Our simulations are always somewhat less “real” than reality. If we’re in an advanced sim, what did the creators leave out? Maybe the real world has quantum certainty.
Ability to manipulate matter directly with brain? We wouldn't even to begin to guess what happens "outside". Just as simulation doesn't know that it is a simulation, or animals don't know even self.
@@Plusle843 I'm just saying that any simulations we create are less than complete (think video games, etc), so I am extrapolating that maybe all simulations leave some stuff out for simplicity's sake. Maybe quantum uncertainty is at that pixilation level where reality only materializes when there's direct observation. Just a thought....
@@spnkrr I understand, but I was trying to think about it, and, well. I don't see how predictable quantum field can be. It looks like computing power save, and more like an inherent universe rule.
Our creators don't have to be simulating their own world. Our world could be like minecraft where the physics are superficially similar to the real world but are also very different.
@@spnkrr I think that's what the video is saying. Perhaps quantum uncertainty is a result of some optimization that assigns properties "just in time"; that to efficiently simulate way too many particles, instead of doing each one individually our universe gives particles a probability distribution, then when we manage to observe a singular particle the universe has to determine properties of that particle on the spot based on said distribution. To add on to that, we actually have "quantum tunneling" in our video games. Like the phenomenon of teleporting dogs in ds3, sometimes to save on computation games use MUCH longer timesteps for everything players can't see. Perhaps the simulation we are in, while much better and finer obviously, uses similar optimization techniques.
I wasn't seeing anything new, and I started to blame it on Nick until about my 4th play through of the end when I figured out that bit about particles only having definite properties when they have to or *are observed*. As usual, my compliments and gratitude. That was something I'd never considered.
10^120 Ghz in this universe, but if we're talking about being simulated by an extant reality, we'd have no idea that they even have the same laws of physics, nevermind computing equations.
"Which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to". I laughed so hard at that one. Nice work man, I really like your work, and in a few years I'm gonna teach my kid physics with the help from your vids. I hope you get tons of subs and likes because you deserve it!
3:47 ".. the particles only have definite properties when they have to.." kinda explains why we can only assume where electrons are or quarks are or how quantum entanglement of particles are determined on observation.
How do you define a simulation? What is its opposite? Reality? As far as we are concerned, reality is merely electrical signals inside the brain. Absolute reality cannot be defined, hence, anything can be a simulation as long as its governed by mathematical formulas.
This is NOT something the real Gottfried Leibniz would have said. I have a feeling that this poser has a very narrow understanding of Leibniz's philosophy.
Some thoughts... I don't think we can ever know if it's a simulation or not. I can't think of any evidence that would hold up to scrutiny either way. If it's a simulation, whatever is simulating it could also be a simulation. This would also seem to imply a non-infinite set of parallel universes. Unless whatever is simulating them exists outside of time, in which case I don't think it would need to simulate universes, not that there needs to be a "why". I'd like to admit myself to the asylum now.
+Ira Sanborn You're right. We'll probably never know for sure unless there's some way to get out. My goal was just to show it was POSSIBLE... which I think I did. If Planck units turn out to have physical significance, that's just more evidence for that possibility.
I am sure we can experiment with reality and try to find some "bugs". We'll have the technology to do it soon so I think the answer might come. I am currently studying for a physician but I honestly enjoy physics more, especially microphysics and astrophysics. I guess I will just have it as my hobby :( by the way the channel is amazing! Watching these videos is so delightful.
The Science Asylum the way to “get out” is so obvious it is completely missed. Think about it. What would “getting out” possibly mean? And what part of you could get out? Your consciousness. Hence why those who have deep spiritual experiences tend to call this life a “dream”. Instead of being a computer simulation, it’s a conscious simulation. By one very large consciousness. And yes, it’s outside of time. I don’t think it can be proven in a public (scientific) way though. Only to each person individually when they are ready for it.
@@shawnclark732 Eww, filthy subjectivity! Can't trust it, If I would, I'd believe I'm a close friend of Quetzalcoatl, 12000 years old and trapped in a human life that erased my memories. And all of this WITHOUT taking... stuff. Yes, I did experience the fake reality feeling after that, but that's just more filthy subjectivity...
I remember John Carmack discussing breakthroughs in game programming with leaf sectors: on the fly rendering of only what the player POV is, saving processing power. The data doesn't change; the presence of the POV just renders it. Collapses its wave function in its very local universe. Why not scaled up?
What actually would be the difference? At the most fundamental levels everything is either perception of electro-chemical reactions or is a description A perception based on a human construct called mathematics. So we basically constructed language that could in most cases predict and explain to humans what humans perceive which could all be simulation - which also can explain why mathematics need weird things like e, and Pi to work.
math is merely one formalism of a greater concept called relation. We have many words for relations which math is very very far away from describing. The power of math is in its reliability such that errors can often be rooted out. We have yet to fully describe the phase space of all possible relations, indeed i do not know of any research in the area. But eventually mankind will likely gain the mental tools needed to unambiguously understand raw information. When we reach that level, we can fully describe the physics of our world and all possible worlds within a given set of assumptions. Then we may actually be able to compare the difference between a virtual universe and our actual universe.
Consciousness itself seems to me to be a sort of fluid simulation. Every time we think we access our simulated reality and run new simulations. To be aware is to have a working simulation.
I went downstairs to drink water and I had this question: "what if the world we live in is a simulation?" When I went up back to my phone, guess what pops up into my recommend. Yup, you're right, this video
Who says we're in "real time" if everything and everyone paused for certain length we wouldn't perceive it. we could be "paused" or go through one step at a time. We wouldnt remember any gaps we would remember the last time we weren't paused and link them together in our heads
What language do you code in? And do you have any of it available to the public (ahem *me!*) to see? I do a lot of coding for apps and automation (mostly for Linux related tasks). Id like to see some code covering this topic. Thanks! - And GREAT channel!
Yes. We have been able to document different behaviors of observed vs not observed. We can see this in our simulations as a common result of imperfect optimization code. Any arguments about limited processing power are just ignoring that we don't create many of our high end simulations in real time nor would we be able to tell whether we are acting in real time.
If the universe is really a simulation, it'll explain alot of things, especially. 1. SUPERNATURALITIES when u play a game, u have to follow all the rules of the game, like how we follow the rules of physics. But when u die, u enter a spectator mode that u could just do anything beyond the game's rules like ghost's hobbies in haunted house. But you're still in the game though. Or it probably just a lag in a simulation. Psychic and rituals too. It's like a cheat code when u can command the properties of the game. 2.GRAVITY when u run a game with butt tons of information, there's a lot of processing so it takes time. When there's a difference of information between space. Time flows at different rate, causing time dilation and GRAVITY (sorry if u don't understand, i'm bad at englih) Too much information, and it's CRASHED, cause a BLACK HOLE. Note: it's just a theory, hope someone notice me and reply some other ideas.☺️☺️☺️☺️
One of the big problems with particle simulations is that if your time step is too big relative to the velocity of the particles, you don't catch particle collisions and they end up not interacting. Maybe the speed of light limit is to limit the smallness of the time step to prevent missed interactions.
If we get into religious fields, the whole idea of the world and the afterlife in somewhere else, is enough to prove at least that people always believed this is a palid glimpse or a bad simulation of what is endeed "real".
I liked the video. There's one thing I should mention, though: You measured the required computing power for the universe in gigahertz; it should be measured in flops (floating-point operations per second) as that is a better measure of computing _power_ whereas gigahertz is a measure of computing _speed._ These two are not necessarily equivalent. Flops _can_ be improved by increasing the core clock frequency (less time between operations) but it can also be improved by way of increasing operations per tick (e.g., adding more cores). This is why GPU computing is so effective; it's not that GPU cores are fast, if I recall correctly individual cores are in the MHz range. It's just that there's _thousands_ of them per chip.
Yes, this is open for debate regarding the processor design and how the simulation actually works. However, switching the calculation from Hz to FLOPS would only make the number larger (since some floating point operations can take several processor cycles) ...solidifying the point I was trying to make with it.
Oof, not gonna lie, if I ran a physics simulation, and found out that part of the simulation accidentally became sentient, I’d feel a little bad when I had to unplug it.
What even is a simulation? It's a representation or model of reality. The more complex a simulation is made, the more closely it mirrors "reality." The more interesting thing is whether there's a convergence point between reality and simulation? In other words, can you make a simulation so complex and detailed that it is no longer distinguishable from reality? Then what.
- Particles only have definite properties when they have to - Causality has a speed limit and it's pretty slow - Spooky action at a distance Looking at all that I'm quite inclined to believe the universe is a vast simulation.
If this is a simulation, then what's to say whatever is outside our simulation isn't a simulation itself? It could be an infinite amount of simulations looping into itself for eternity.
Before watching the video: no because the word universe means all that exists taken as one, so the whole of existence including all the machines that run simulations are part of the universe.
I’ve been questioning this a ton lately as of September 2017-now, and I have say that is living in simulation is a very very very very likely. For the reasons mentioned in the video, but my only question is, is energy able to be conserved within an atom or piece of some Subatomic particle? I only ask because I have heard stories about people being able to remember events they never actually experienced things from the past almost as if they were reborn or reincarnated or something. Lately I’ve been having a similar experience they many have also had which I believe is a lot more common, and that’s having a dream and later it comes to true to almost exactly like the dream. I’m currently in high school, sophomore year and throughout this entire school year, I’ve been having those experiences. And admittedly I can say for sure that only one or two of those dreams I can say for sure that it was at least generally but exactly the same. Just some details were left out. So I guess my overall question is, are memories just energy or it is something else? It’s been bugging ever since I noticed it was happening, and this isn’t the first time this has happened to me where the dreams are constantly recalled but it’s never been this repetitive. It’s like when I think there’s no more dreams, another one comes soon after. Which is why I was and still am considering the possibility that it’s just my mind noticing those things and since this has become very normal at this point my mind might be just making things up or I did think of these things but it’s all just coincidence. I’ve considered that too but it feels too strange to simply call it a coincidence. So another theory that I’ve been thinking about is that everything in the universe will be at some point destroyed and then remade, going through the same processes, but the only reason I’m having trouble accepting that theory is because if it were to be true then, is our consciousness more than a really fast process of events? Or is our brain just constantly absorbing information given by surrounding like as if our eyes were looking at it and observing the data? And so yeah, concepts like free will and of course consciousness have been the most interesting things this year so far. Which is what got me interested in things involving quantum physics, as well as philosophy and stuff like that.
Sort of a small-scale example of the scene in that movie you referenced at the beginning of the video, and the 13th floor, where the dude runs out to the edge of the simulation
I should add that I have had questions which I have been unable to answer because the questions themselves 'dissolve'. Which leads me to the conclusion that certain questions are 'unthinkable' and that begs the question of why?
The "Which Way" experiment is a clear point in favor of the simulation theory. In order to save process power, when no specific information is need it, the universe delivers an statistical result. But when a specific information is required, like thru which slit did the photon went, then the universe simulates its trajectory
When you said "if we increase the speed of simulation we get errors; and if we let it run in its own pace we have to wait long".This sounds like the origin of uncertainty principle.Is it?
Along with the video on choice and pre-determination in time cones... A very interesting conversation. Living in the moment but the future from certain perspective (s) is the past and is therefore known.
I seem to be interpreting simulation differently to how some commenters perceived your video. If this ever expanding universe is a simulation similar to your mine craft metaphor, the void of "nothingness" is just pure potential and for anything to exist it must have data encoded into it some way. Would that "way" not be from perspective itself. The observational/experiential standpoint collapses the other possibilities like the Slit experiment. Thus making the universe a self generating simulation that we can have a hand in shaping it if we align our perspective to the principles/algorithms that govern this shindig?
at 3:18 or so, you say that the motion laws are defined locally, but how does that prove (mathematically) that the universe doesn't do any math? I do not see the correlation.
I just recently switched from vsauce to this. This is by far higher quality and much funnier. (Please never stop the achtchuoolee "nerd clone" I crack up every time) I'd imagine the average person who has 'somewhat nerdy atributes' would prefer that. But full blown nerdy proclivity demands a more in-depth explanation for ridiculous questions. (I read research papers and dissertations for fun just for perspective) Anyway great job. I hope our opinions as fellow nerds is appraised to be of more value then "popularity".
What is the Planck length and the Planck time can actually change depending on where you were at it’s almost like a TV that can change Resolution and that change them is gravity and velocity The time dilation and length contraction or quantized
It's not reliable to assume what computing capabilities our simulation would require. Otherwise we would have to assume the real universe is the same as our simulated universe.
Definite properties when they have to?!?! As in the double slit experiment when we measure for the location the particle went through? That does make it seem like a resolution issue like when you are zooming in on an image and it takes a moment to focus?
It's interesting that in the game Minecraft, people can create "lag machines" to make players in a whole server experience mild to severe lagging, depending on how complex the machines are. This might not sound very smart, but what if we could create and run some kind of machinery that is so complicated and enormous, it takes a lot of the "computing resources" of the computer(s) that runs this universe (this server, you might say) that we would also experience lagging. Maybe that is one way to find out whether we're in a simulation or not.
This could be expanded with the recent news on black holes possibly being "holograms". Nick, could you do a video about your favorite scientists?? I think it would be very interesting :)
One way tat lesson the computational load is if like thermodynamics one can approach this at a macro level as well as a micro level. And along the lines of the old question if a tree falls in a forest and their is no one to hear it doe sit make a noise. So say one simulated the air in a room at a macro level but if anyone or anything needs to "hear: it at a micro level those micro components are made to order based on the macro properties sort of like how quantum states become fixed when sensed. That way the simulation could work at a higher level of abstraction but at the sake time handle those trees falling when there is anyone to hear it fall. Yes this would take a bit of bookkeeping to keep track of which trees have made a sound and which ones haven't but maybe that book keeping is doable. One other thought. There seems to be three answers to this question, is the universe a simulation, yes or no, and if so is it a computer simulation or is creation in the mind of God and not in some computer. The answer to that might also have some bearing as to things like computer capacity and such given if it is in the mind of God and God is infinite that may not be a limitation.
Sure, in the world of physics, lines of force we use to simulate possibilities into the world we create. Even the simplest building or engine is first a simulated model to study before we go on to work on it to get to a Nobel Tower. 🏰
Its a definition in terms. If the universe is a computer, what it runs is not a simulation because it is the original program. Any computer programs we try to run to predict what happens in the universe are then simulations, which is reduced to being "a facsimile of".
Thanks!! Yes, I mostly code in python lately (that's what a lot of my complex animations are done in). I've been coding a long time though, so I also know BASIC, C++, Java, and HTML/CSS.
Hi Nick! As far as I remember, the mathematical problem with any simulation is to proof, that it converges against the solution of the equations it is supposed to simulate. If the universe was a simulation, I can’t even see, against what it should converge. In other words, one can‘t proof that the universe is a simulation or not. Therefore, we will never know but can believe whatever I like. Isn‘t ‘t it?
@@ScienceAsylum Hi Nick, thinking of the nature of simulations, I had the following ideas: With the Quantum Theories we have somehow discret models which in some sense work like numerical simulations. If you anticipate the different interactions of quantum particles as steps of this „simulation“ and if you take the (unknown) changes of the partirles at an interaction as result of a „calculation“ of this Simulation, which happens instantanously with a certain probability (whether it happens instantanously or not can’t be observed, because any observation would be an interaction, too). If this is the case, the state of the participants of the interaction (and the respective probabilísticos) will not change until the next interaction. For two entangled particles, the state of both will not change until the next interaction. If we look at one of the entangled particles, we instantanously know the probability of the state of the other without any „spooky action at a distance“. What I don‘t see yet: How do I have too interprete Bell‘s inequality under this assumption? Does it still work? In other words: Does the wafe function change over time between two interactions (which would result in a break of locality) or is it just constant, having possibly discrete values in any respektive time intervall (which would result in conservation of locality)? (I think, the „quantum simulation“ can not converge against anything continous or differentiable like the relativity theories, because there is a lower limit to the steps of that simulation. Therefore I think, there can the relativity theories can at most be a statistical limit of quantum theories.)
If it is, my first instinct would be to think that not every single particle of it needs to be ran in the simulator. And that is very important because it saves a hell of computing power. Only things which are observable very close by a human observer, need to be simulated in detail. Example: the moon surface yes, the earth core NO. Also, the fact that the earth is a basically a gravitational prison - escaping it takes a LOT of energy. i.e. the simulation shows us that the universe is ludicrously big if not infinite, but we are allowed to be only in a really tiny fraction of it. Then the other question is: whoever is running the simulation, are they living in a simulation themselves? if so, when does it stop and what does the un-simulated universe look like?
I mean, come on, the universe consists out of small points with no mass or size that just have a bunch of attributes "attached" to them (including xyz coordinates) that effect each other on an 11 dimesional gradient and everything emerges out of that. Literally the definition of matrix. An 11 dimensional matrix and a bunch of code that guides it's dynamic behaviour. It's simply a technology that we haven't invented yet, a large matrix that defines the entire piece of software as a core. But we're slowly getting there with Ray tracing and whatnot. We as a a species just need to get to the point of really powerful computers to become commonplace and one smart guy to come up with implementation of that and we'll be running our own simulations in no time, questioning ethics and directly or indirectly making changes. Maybe our God is a team of IT corporation executives from an existence plain one level higher. Everybody talks about the idea of a single God. Nobody entertains the idea of there being a society of people, whose culture and public opinions define corporate decisioning of what's going on. Maybe money does rule the world, but not in the way you think.
Constants are a product of finite energy in a closed system. The expansion of the universe (which requires input energy) supports the claim that we are in base reality as the required memory of some finite turing machine is finite, and our current model of the universe would require infinite memory, processing power and/or clock speed to deal with spacial expansion as time tends towards inf... this is all just in support, but if fundamentals of the universe were to change with the expansion of the universe (like time got slower relative to all bodies from some outside observer) then you could argue we are in a sim. We never gunna know tho haha
A long time ago a question hit me. Did anyone tried to do any experiment about this? One i came up with: Far away from the Sun, we have two spaceships. Inside one there is the greates super-"supercomputer" which does a lotlot calculations per second + atomic clock, inside the other there is "nothing" + atomic clock. You try to measure if the "time flows the same speed" in both ships by comparing the atomic clock readouts. If OUR UNIVERSE is a simulation, it may happen it has a limit of processing power, and we can try to throttle the timeflow. The supercomputer can be substituted to something which does even more "information operations" per second. the only condition would be that there has to be a readout of the "solved problem" in the end so all the inner states matter. Quantum computer would not work imho tho. It does not actually need to know the individual states during the computation, tho with a "regular" computer, you need to have the states all done and read and stored (measured - so no quantum fizziness). Where did you come up with 10^120 GHz? Is it calculated from some of the plack constanst and some minimal informational energy? or wtheck ;O
Back in the early sixties superman was transported to an alternate universe , DC comics. That universe had extremely weak forces and superman did a lot of damage just by speaking. I was 10 and this started me thinking about reality. It occured that no matter how weak or strong the forces it was relative . This is a sort of simulated universe . What we think of as reality is really our prejudice that our world is solid and forceful. When George Berkely said something quite similar about reality to Samuel Johnson , Johnson became quite agitated and jumped up and brought his foot down on a rock and said "I refute it thus". I imagine if Johnson could have seen a video of himself doing this he would have thought otherwise
I'd be curious about the following: If you simulate something, don't you need more parts to create the simulation than the amount of parts that you are simulating? I mean if you want to simulate the properties of a single atom you definitely need more than a single atom to produce such a simulation. Hence, if the whole universe would be fully simulated it would require a far bigger universe to even create such a simulation and at that point the question is, how could one even operate such a thing? I don't think it's possible this universe could even theoretically be a simulation for that reason
You mentioned Planck time, 10-43 seconds, can you do a video on explaining that term? Or did you already explain Planck time - length? All I can understand about Planck time is that we cannot measure a moment of time any smaller, meaning that it would not be possible or something like that.
Usually, Planck measurements only come up as kind of a "side-note" in other topics... but I have a video coming soon that might discuss them a little more.
The only question I'm asking myself is how this guy still has less than 100k subs.
or say less than 10k if u wanna get deeper
Amit Patel Or less than a million if you want to get bigger (phrasing)
+Infinity Pool true, he wud eventually get there in a year or so (my best guess) considering the content quality and presentation he puts into the videos...
Nick's channel has grow a lot in the last few months. He's only getting better. Considering the only thing that stopped me from getting a graduate degree in cosmology was the prospects of finding a job, is testament to Nick's dedication. He'll crack 100K before we know it.
Same here.
How do you know 10^120 GHz is a significant amount of computation for an "outside" computer? Also, our universe doesn't have to be simulated in real time, our perception of time is not linked in any way to that of a potential simulation universe.
10^120 operations/ second comes from what is needed to describe everything if the computer is made of the same stuff as the universe which by definition needs to be real time. There is a limit to how much stuff you can cram into an area before it becomes a black hole and there are upper limits in thermodynamics before energies are too high for particles to form or Maxwell's law tells you that the computer will be too hot. But you are right, these theories and have nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis but tries to answer if the Universe is computational in nature. if you consider the quantum foam of virtual particles as the real hardware, there are suddenly an infinite number of operations/ second available, and the "computer" is no longer required to run in real time. The Simulation hypothesis, does not have a hardware limit, because as you say, we have no idea if we are dragging along at 5 FPS. The Asylum guy is mixing two unrelated theories here, which is all right, but does not make sense at the same time!!
animowany111 all you need is 10^117 cores all at 1 THz
@@Tore_Lund
you're right it is necessary to distinguish the simulation hypothesis with the idea that the universe is computational also known as digital physics. The simulation hypothesis presupposes that the Universe we live in is a simulation being run on a conventional classical computer such as the ones we are all using now except maybe for the amount of computing power. The 10^120 GHz figure is what is necessary to simulate the location every particle in the universe in any given moment. Which of course is why it would make sense that those locations would actually be based on probabilities and only calculated when actually observed.
The concept called digital physics while related to the simulation hypothesis is not the same as it. In Digital physics the program could be running in the mind of God and therefore none of the limits seen by a physical computer are going to apply.
No way are we a simulation.. Don't just think of physical also think of thinking.. I might add not only us, humans but every creature that can think (brains). If you had to record every thought process that happens or even run it at real time.. No way in hell..
One can pause a simulation and pre-compute some steps ahead in a deterministic universe. In a free-will universe things get complicated. Free-will as computational irreducibility, meaning no closed formula for future state. This is solved by the finiteness of speed of light/casuality/photons/carriers of interaction/information. Something non-ahead-predictable happens somewhere in spacetime, like schrondinger cat with 50/50 prob of dead/alive, but information from that event will affect outcomes somewhere else in spacetime, some steps later in simulation and not in the next step instantly. So maybe that makes a black hole, a core that has hit 100% and is unresponsive to interaction in reasonable time ie. hawking radiation-the slow down of the rate of local interaction processing due to extreme mass. That means that computational density required for simulation can be calculated by the amount of mass that is located in a given area of a black hole plus the rate of ingestion of light/information/mass that comes from around and inside the black hole. I don't understand where those Ghz come from. Cesium atom is ~ 9.2Ghz. Plank time is around 5 x 10^44 hz. 10^120 doesn't make sense. Another hint of the finite computational capacity of universe is that when you stay close to a massive gravitational field, the relative time outside the field contracts,but your local time proceeds as normal. For those outside the field is as if little evolution/computation happened inside the grav. field little time have passed, essentially limiting the interaction rate and mainting syncronization between universe local states in and out the strong gravitational field as a result of universe's local finiteness of computation capacity.
3:47 "Which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to..." This comment is 110% profound for the subject matter and (I believe) is the crux of your entire theme here: bravo!
I've been thinking that same thing for years; it almost really explains everything
please expand your reasoning
@@uttaradit2 it's kind of like how if you're playing Grand theft Auto the game doesn't construct the entire scene until you walk in there. It saves memory for making the immediate observed environment for a conscious entities as detailed as possible, sort of like that episode of Rick and Morty where those aliens were trying to get the formula for dark matter out of Rick, and they had him and Morty trapped in a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation and that scene where Morty's dad and calls home and it shows the graphics outlining and then filling in for a phone to ring for Beth to answer? That would explain why subatomic quantum particles do not actually resolve themselves until we are actually observing them
@@uttaradit2 If the Universe is a simulation, it is (by definition) a 'simple' approximation of that which it seeks to approximate: any shortcuts it can take in one area allows better simulation elsewhere, and having quantum particles only having definite properties when observed is consistent with this idea - doesn't prove it's true though.
Or something like that.
@@uttaradit2 look at minecraft, everything that is outside your render distance isn't rendering or even being processed in order to keep computational requirements low.
In our universe the equivalent would be particles just being a bunch of probabilities that aren't even "there", just a bunch of probability clouds until observed.
And those clouds of probability are easier to calculate for large numbers of particles than deterministic positions for each one, ergo, the computing power needed to run a simulation similar to our universe drops several orders of magnitude
"Particles only have definite properties when they have to" - Now that's a folksy description of the uncertainty principle.
In 3d animation, to reduce the processing power needed to render a scene, surfaces are only rendered when they would be in view.
Ha ha! But there's no God ...
@@anftrew3775 So we practice a form of efficiency with regard to the description of a scene. You wonder if a principle of efficiency is at work on a more general scale in the universe.
Sure particles only need to say what they are when ASKED - like render-on-demand in digital videos.
Is a particle "there" when nothing is looking at it? No! - the computer knows where it is but doesn't bother to tell anyone when nobody is asking. What a waste of computing power that would be.
Imagine if it was a simulation and the 'thing' running it watched this video and went like "Heck! They're figuring it out!"
If they're watching us that closely. I would suspect, we're not actually that important overall (at least at the moment).
They watch me banging every time!
or maybe they just don't care since even if we had valid proof of us being a simulation made to serve a purpose we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
we are insignificant to be look up, which is just a tiny speck of atom rather there is/are bigger thing to look up than us all. we're meaningless.insignificant.none. we're just passing by from 'start' code to the 'end' code.
@@ScienceAsylum If we're "figuring it out," then we're their "AI" and we're about to become sentient in "their" world.
I believe we are the universe experiencing itself, it's actually quite beautiful :)
Nah. You just quoted Tysson
29 dislikes from the overlords running the universe simulation.
😂😂😅👍
And I'm one of them....
Ita 60 nowadays lol
True, but those are only simulated overlords.
HAHAHAHAHA... nice one! :)
Nice video, I've been waiting for someone to put these points together. I'm not educated at all, I mean I haven't really been to school in any way, so feel free to correct my thinking if you can. 20 years ago when I first started reading Newtonian physics I wanted to believe the world was mechanical and deterministic, and from a Laplace's demon point of view I started associating computing power with the universe. Then when I read about the uncertainty principle it immediately stuck me as the universe trying to conserve computing power, by only doing the calculations necessary. Over the years as computer games have evolved, to the point of 1st person view and beyond, it always stuck me how similar the programming must be to the way the universe must 'calculate'. When I read about Planck length it also struck me as fitting right into this universe as a computer idea. So it was great when these theories started getting thrown around and now are picking up support. (Also Susskind's work with black holes). But if we take it that our universe is in some kind of computer, then that computer must be somewhere, and we get a 'turtles all the way down' problem. But I guess in the computers location time would have to be running at a different speed, or maybe an absence of time? And maybe different laws of physics? Anyone have a problem with this so far? And also does anyone have any out of the box ideas how there could be a place outside our 'computer' where time wouldn't exist? Or any idea how to end the turtles problem?
Yes, it's true the laws of physics of the computer's universe could be anything... but knowing we usually simulate things to make predictions about our own universe, it's more likely that the physics isn't all that different.
I do agree though that we run into the turtles-all-the-way-down problem. It's something the movie Thirteenth Floor deals with really well.
So in a sense, energy needs to be used to create a universe even if it were a simulation. Information has to be exchanged. So even if we are a simulation, from what we can understand of the universe and laws of physics, something needs energy to keep time flowing forward.
Did I understand correctly?
John Sessa
Well, we're not sure. In our universe, it might not have taken any energy at all. It's possible there is a net zero energy in the universe (a bunch of matter *minus* all the negative gravitational energy)
I believe our Universe is a natural simulation from the nothing. Information is possibility and vice versa, nothing has the potential for infinite possibility. Everything came from nothing, think about it, nothing is lawless, it's nothing, which means it could be everything which could cancel out to nothing and so on. I believe there must be a multiverse of all possibilities that adds up to nothing.
I don't see the problem. There are infinitely many ways to simulate an universe, and they can be indistinguishable from inside the simulated universe. So it's not our business. Maybe we can't even know. It's the same way a story (the string of text) would be the same no matter who wrote it, when or where.
Our simulations are always somewhat less “real” than reality. If we’re in an advanced sim, what did the creators leave out? Maybe the real world has quantum certainty.
Ability to manipulate matter directly with brain? We wouldn't even to begin to guess what happens "outside". Just as simulation doesn't know that it is a simulation, or animals don't know even self.
@@Plusle843 I'm just saying that any simulations we create are less than complete (think video games, etc), so I am extrapolating that maybe all simulations leave some stuff out for simplicity's sake. Maybe quantum uncertainty is at that pixilation level where reality only materializes when there's direct observation. Just a thought....
@@spnkrr I understand, but I was trying to think about it, and, well. I don't see how predictable quantum field can be. It looks like computing power save, and more like an inherent universe rule.
Our creators don't have to be simulating their own world. Our world could be like minecraft where the physics are superficially similar to the real world but are also very different.
@@spnkrr I think that's what the video is saying. Perhaps quantum uncertainty is a result of some optimization that assigns properties "just in time"; that to efficiently simulate way too many particles, instead of doing each one individually our universe gives particles a probability distribution, then when we manage to observe a singular particle the universe has to determine properties of that particle on the spot based on said distribution.
To add on to that, we actually have "quantum tunneling" in our video games. Like the phenomenon of teleporting dogs in ds3, sometimes to save on computation games use MUCH longer timesteps for everything players can't see. Perhaps the simulation we are in, while much better and finer obviously, uses similar optimization techniques.
I was programmed to write "yes, we are living in a simulation."
And I am programmed to reply you.
You are right
@@msaadkamran8067 wow big brain
i have entirely no choice in agreeing with you.
yes
"which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to"
is this a quote?
This channel is sooo f**king underated!!!
I wasn't seeing anything new, and I started to blame it on Nick until about my 4th play through of the end when I figured out that bit about particles only having definite properties when they have to or *are observed*. As usual, my compliments and gratitude. That was something I'd never considered.
10^120 Ghz in this universe, but if we're talking about being simulated by an extant reality, we'd have no idea that they even have the same laws of physics, nevermind computing equations.
This has got to be one of your best videos
Really? I wouldn't have guessed that.
The Science Asylum yuy
"Which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to". I laughed so hard at that one. Nice work man, I really like your work, and in a few years I'm gonna teach my kid physics with the help from your vids. I hope you get tons of subs and likes because you deserve it!
Why did a fact make u laugh so hard? It's like saying red roses are red and me laughing my balls off
Your clones deserve their own channel lol
Hahahahahaha
3:47 ".. the particles only have definite properties when they have to.." kinda explains why we can only assume where electrons are or quarks are or how quantum entanglement of particles are determined on observation.
How do you define a simulation? What is its opposite? Reality? As far as we are concerned, reality is merely electrical signals inside the brain. Absolute reality cannot be defined, hence, anything can be a simulation as long as its governed by mathematical formulas.
Gottfried Leibniz very good point
agree ... nice point
So without the presence of sentient lifeforms, a Reality cannot exist??
This is NOT something the real Gottfried Leibniz would have said. I have a feeling that this poser has a very narrow understanding of Leibniz's philosophy.
Just in Jest
This was the best video on the Simulation Hypothesis, because you explain the actual reasons people use simulations. Brilliant analogy.
Some thoughts... I don't think we can ever know if it's a simulation or not. I can't think of any evidence that would hold up to scrutiny either way. If it's a simulation, whatever is simulating it could also be a simulation. This would also seem to imply a non-infinite set of parallel universes. Unless whatever is simulating them exists outside of time, in which case I don't think it would need to simulate universes, not that there needs to be a "why". I'd like to admit myself to the asylum now.
+Ira Sanborn
You're right. We'll probably never know for sure unless there's some way to get out. My goal was just to show it was POSSIBLE... which I think I did. If Planck units turn out to have physical significance, that's just more evidence for that possibility.
I am sure we can experiment with reality and try to find some "bugs". We'll have the technology to do it soon so I think the answer might come. I am currently studying for a physician but I honestly enjoy physics more, especially microphysics and astrophysics. I guess I will just have it as my hobby :( by the way the channel is amazing! Watching these videos is so delightful.
You seem to forget the pesky turtles problem.
BTW - you're in already.
The Science Asylum the way to “get out” is so obvious it is completely missed. Think about it. What would “getting out” possibly mean? And what part of you could get out? Your consciousness. Hence why those who have deep spiritual experiences tend to call this life a “dream”. Instead of being a computer simulation, it’s a conscious simulation. By one very large consciousness. And yes, it’s outside of time. I don’t think it can be proven in a public (scientific) way though. Only to each person individually when they are ready for it.
@@shawnclark732 Eww, filthy subjectivity! Can't trust it, If I would, I'd believe I'm a close friend of Quetzalcoatl, 12000 years old and trapped in a human life that erased my memories. And all of this WITHOUT taking... stuff.
Yes, I did experience the fake reality feeling after that, but that's just more filthy subjectivity...
Everything here is a derivative of hydrogen.
Please bring a 2nd part of this video
I remember John Carmack discussing breakthroughs in game programming with leaf sectors: on the fly rendering of only what the player POV is, saving processing power. The data doesn't change; the presence of the POV just renders it. Collapses its wave function in its very local universe. Why not scaled up?
03:48 - "which might explain why particles only have definite properties when they have to". Beside processing power, it also saves memory.
What actually would be the difference? At the most fundamental levels everything is either perception of electro-chemical reactions or is a description A perception based on a human construct called mathematics. So we basically constructed language that could in most cases predict and explain to humans what humans perceive which could all be simulation - which also can explain why mathematics need weird things like e, and Pi to work.
Rick Finn Guys, I found Rick!!
Make sure you don't forget the certain/uncertain h-bar.
math is merely one formalism of a greater concept called relation. We have many words for relations which math is very very far away from describing. The power of math is in its reliability such that errors can often be rooted out.
We have yet to fully describe the phase space of all possible relations, indeed i do not know of any research in the area. But eventually mankind will likely gain the mental tools needed to unambiguously understand raw information. When we reach that level, we can fully describe the physics of our world and all possible worlds within a given set of assumptions. Then we may actually be able to compare the difference between a virtual universe and our actual universe.
Your videos are all great.
Consciousness itself seems to me to be a sort of fluid simulation. Every time we think we access our simulated reality and run new simulations. To be aware is to have a working simulation.
I went downstairs to drink water and I had this question: "what if the world we live in is a simulation?" When I went up back to my phone, guess what pops up into my recommend. Yup, you're right, this video
Who says we're in "real time" if everything and everyone paused for certain length we wouldn't perceive it. we could be "paused" or go through one step at a time. We wouldnt remember any gaps we would remember the last time we weren't paused and link them together in our heads
What language do you code in? And do you have any of it available to the public (ahem *me!*) to see? I do a lot of coding for apps and automation (mostly for Linux related tasks). Id like to see some code covering this topic.
Thanks! - And GREAT channel!
I mostly code in Python. The fancy animation with the 3 spheres is done with the Visual Python add-on.
At 3:38 what is the name of the clone???
Oh, that's Nerd Clone.
@@ScienceAsylum oh,thanks a lot
Yes. We have been able to document different behaviors of observed vs not observed. We can see this in our simulations as a common result of imperfect optimization code. Any arguments about limited processing power are just ignoring that we don't create many of our high end simulations in real time nor would we be able to tell whether we are acting in real time.
There should have been some mention of Konrad Zuse here.
Anyways, keep up the good work...
Don't forget that the Sun is also in an orbit around another orb, but we seem to find out predictions without considering that.
If the universe is really a simulation, it'll explain alot of things, especially.
1. SUPERNATURALITIES
when u play a game, u have to follow all the rules of the game, like how we follow the rules of physics. But when u die, u enter a spectator mode that u could just do anything beyond the game's rules like ghost's hobbies in haunted house. But you're still in the game though. Or it probably just a lag in a simulation. Psychic and rituals too. It's like a cheat code when u can command the properties of the game.
2.GRAVITY
when u run a game with butt tons of information, there's a lot of processing so it takes time. When there's a difference of information between space. Time flows at different rate, causing time dilation and GRAVITY (sorry if u don't understand, i'm bad at englih)
Too much information, and it's CRASHED, cause a BLACK HOLE.
Note: it's just a theory, hope someone notice me and reply some other ideas.☺️☺️☺️☺️
Simulation or no simulation I still have to pay my rent.
Fair point.
One of the big problems with particle simulations is that if your time step is too big relative to the velocity of the particles, you don't catch particle collisions and they end up not interacting. Maybe the speed of light limit is to limit the smallness of the time step to prevent missed interactions.
That is the description of the tunnel effet, basically
3:45 “About 10^120 GHz.”
Was that a mistake? Is it really 10^120 GHz (as in 10^129 Hz) or is it actually 10^120 _Hz_ ?
If we get into religious fields, the whole idea of the world and the afterlife in somewhere else, is enough to prove at least that people always believed this is a palid glimpse or a bad simulation of what is endeed "real".
The way you just put it blew my mind open.
Y u have less number of subscribers as u r very awesome
yeah, why?!?!?! :"v
It's because of a glitch in the Matrix.
@Kelsey Smith
Something _has_ changed. He has less subscribers than he's supposed to.
Nick.,your videos are good. I have been watching it go quite some time.
This guy is awesome. Great video.
I liked the video. There's one thing I should mention, though: You measured the required computing power for the universe in gigahertz; it should be measured in flops (floating-point operations per second) as that is a better measure of computing _power_ whereas gigahertz is a measure of computing _speed._ These two are not necessarily equivalent.
Flops _can_ be improved by increasing the core clock frequency (less time between operations) but it can also be improved by way of increasing operations per tick (e.g., adding more cores). This is why GPU computing is so effective; it's not that GPU cores are fast, if I recall correctly individual cores are in the MHz range. It's just that there's _thousands_ of them per chip.
Yes, this is open for debate regarding the processor design and how the simulation actually works. However,
switching the calculation from Hz to FLOPS would only make the number larger (since some floating point operations can take several processor cycles) ...solidifying the point I was trying to make with it.
Is it also okay to be more than little?
Oof, not gonna lie, if I ran a physics simulation, and found out that part of the simulation accidentally became sentient, I’d feel a little bad when I had to unplug it.
I don't think I _could_ shut it off. I would try to find a way to keep it running.
What even is a simulation? It's a representation or model of reality. The more complex a simulation is made, the more closely it mirrors "reality." The more interesting thing is whether there's a convergence point between reality and simulation? In other words, can you make a simulation so complex and detailed that it is no longer distinguishable from reality? Then what.
- Particles only have definite properties when they have to
- Causality has a speed limit and it's pretty slow
- Spooky action at a distance
Looking at all that I'm quite inclined to believe the universe is a vast simulation.
I love your videos. Thanks for being mind blowingly entertaining.
You're welcome! Thanks for watching and appreciating :-) It means a lot.
If this is a simulation, then what's to say whatever is outside our simulation isn't a simulation itself? It could be an infinite amount of simulations looping into itself for eternity.
Before watching the video: no because the word universe means all that exists taken as one, so the whole of existence including all the machines that run simulations are part of the universe.
if this is a simulation how do you go about being a reality hacker?
I’ve been questioning this a ton lately as of September 2017-now, and I have say that is living in simulation is a very very very very likely. For the reasons mentioned in the video, but my only question is, is energy able to be conserved within an atom or piece of some Subatomic particle? I only ask because I have heard stories about people being able to remember events they never actually experienced things from the past almost as if they were reborn or reincarnated or something. Lately I’ve been having a similar experience they many have also had which I believe is a lot more common, and that’s having a dream and later it comes to true to almost exactly like the dream. I’m currently in high school, sophomore year and throughout this entire school year, I’ve been having those experiences. And admittedly I can say for sure that only one or two of those dreams I can say for sure that it was at least generally but exactly the same. Just some details were left out.
So I guess my overall question is, are memories just energy or it is something else?
It’s been bugging ever since I noticed it was happening, and this isn’t the first time this has happened to me where the dreams are constantly recalled but it’s never been this repetitive. It’s like when I think there’s no more dreams, another one comes soon after. Which is why I was and still am considering the possibility that it’s just my mind noticing those things and since this has become very normal at this point my mind might be just making things up or I did think of these things but it’s all just coincidence. I’ve considered that too but it feels too strange to simply call it a coincidence.
So another theory that I’ve been thinking about is that everything in the universe will be at some point destroyed and then remade, going through the same processes, but the only reason I’m having trouble accepting that theory is because if it were to be true then, is our consciousness more than a really fast process of events? Or is our brain just constantly absorbing information given by surrounding like as if our eyes were looking at it and observing the data?
And so yeah, concepts like free will and of course consciousness have been the most interesting things this year so far. Which is what got me interested in things involving quantum physics, as well as philosophy and stuff like that.
hey, nice thougths. how did your research evolve since last year?
Love your videos
Sort of a small-scale example of the scene in that movie you referenced at the beginning of the video, and the 13th floor, where the dude runs out to the edge of the simulation
I should add that I have had questions which I have been unable to answer because the questions themselves 'dissolve'. Which leads me to the conclusion that certain questions are 'unthinkable' and that begs the question of why?
I'm not sure but I'm leaning to it isn't there something about the number pi that says if there is a limit to pi shows the universe is virtual
Couldn't you use differential equations to solve the three body problem?
Only in some _very_ special cases.
The "Which Way" experiment is a clear point in favor of the simulation theory. In order to save process power, when no specific information is need it, the universe delivers an statistical result. But when a specific information is required, like thru which slit did the photon went, then the universe simulates its trajectory
it's a simulation. when you die, you just take of a helmet and remembered that you've just been playing a game. this must be the way it is
Bjørn B Hope not. Who would want to play a boring game like this?
When you said "if we increase the speed of simulation we get errors; and if we let it run in its own pace we have to wait long".This sounds like the origin of uncertainty principle.Is it?
Along with the video on choice and pre-determination in time cones... A very interesting conversation.
Living in the moment but the future from certain perspective (s) is the past and is therefore known.
What about irrational numbers??
I seem to be interpreting simulation differently to how some commenters perceived your video.
If this ever expanding universe is a simulation similar to your mine craft metaphor, the void of "nothingness" is just pure potential and for anything to exist it must have data encoded into it some way. Would that "way" not be from perspective itself. The observational/experiential standpoint collapses the other possibilities like the Slit experiment. Thus making the universe a self generating simulation that we can have a hand in shaping it if we align our perspective to the principles/algorithms that govern this shindig?
if it's a perfect simulation it doesn't matter actually
Hey, couldn’t you just use Calculus? Seems like I am missing something?
at 3:18 or so, you say that the motion laws are defined locally, but how does that prove (mathematically) that the universe doesn't do any math? I do not see the correlation.
I went into more detail here: th-cam.com/video/inPcQeYWVT8/w-d-xo.html
I just recently switched from vsauce to this. This is by far higher quality and much funnier. (Please never stop the achtchuoolee "nerd clone" I crack up every time) I'd imagine the average person who has 'somewhat nerdy atributes' would prefer that. But full blown nerdy proclivity demands a more in-depth explanation for ridiculous questions. (I read research papers and dissertations for fun just for perspective) Anyway great job. I hope our opinions as fellow nerds is appraised to be of more value then "popularity".
Being in a simulation is one way I'd be able to wrap my head around a quantum eraser.
booyah is the best condensed translation ever.
What is the Planck length and the Planck time can actually change depending on where you were at it’s almost like a TV that can change
Resolution and that change them is gravity and velocity
The time dilation and length contraction or quantized
I find it strange that things get fuzzy on a small scale and impossibly vast on a large one.
It's pretty crazy...
Then you are indeed an idiot.
I had to give you a thumbs-up for mentioning the 13th floor, my favorite movie.
It's not reliable to assume what computing capabilities our simulation would require. Otherwise we would have to assume the real universe is the same as our simulated universe.
Definite properties when they have to?!?! As in the double slit experiment when we measure for the location the particle went through? That does make it seem like a resolution issue like when you are zooming in on an image and it takes a moment to focus?
It's interesting that in the game Minecraft, people can create "lag machines" to make players in a whole server experience mild to severe lagging, depending on how complex the machines are.
This might not sound very smart, but what if we could create and run some kind of machinery that is so complicated and enormous, it takes a lot of the "computing resources" of the computer(s) that runs this universe (this server, you might say) that we would also experience lagging. Maybe that is one way to find out whether we're in a simulation or not.
This could be expanded with the recent news on black holes possibly being "holograms".
Nick, could you do a video about your favorite scientists?? I think it would be very interesting :)
One way tat lesson the computational load is if like thermodynamics one can approach this at a macro level as well as a micro level. And along the lines of the old question if a tree falls in a forest and their is no one to hear it doe sit make a noise.
So say one simulated the air in a room at a macro level but if anyone or anything needs to "hear: it at a micro level those micro components are made to order based on the macro properties sort of like how quantum states become fixed when sensed. That way the simulation could work at a higher level of abstraction but at the sake time handle those trees falling when there is anyone to hear it fall.
Yes this would take a bit of bookkeeping to keep track of which trees have made a sound and which ones haven't but maybe that book keeping is doable.
One other thought. There seems to be three answers to this question, is the universe a simulation, yes or no, and if so is it a computer simulation or is creation in the mind of God and not in some computer.
The answer to that might also have some bearing as to things like computer capacity and such given if it is in the mind of God and God is infinite that may not be a limitation.
Nick Lucid - Super Genius
Sure, in the world of physics, lines of force we use to simulate possibilities into the world we create. Even the simplest building or engine is first a simulated model to study before we go on to work on it to get to a Nobel Tower. 🏰
What was the mumbling part? Could someone type it out here?
Its a definition in terms. If the universe is a computer, what it runs is not a simulation because it is the original program. Any computer programs we try to run to predict what happens in the universe are then simulations, which is reduced to being "a facsimile of".
1:16 but what about sundman series
Do you code? If so in what langue? By the way your videos are AWESOME!
Thanks!! Yes, I mostly code in python lately (that's what a lot of my complex animations are done in). I've been coding a long time though, so I also know BASIC, C++, Java, and HTML/CSS.
Cool I code on Python too !
Hi Nick! As far as I remember, the mathematical problem with any simulation is to proof, that it converges against the solution of the equations it is supposed to simulate. If the universe was a simulation, I can’t even see, against what it should converge. In other words, one can‘t proof that the universe is a simulation or not. Therefore, we will never know but can believe whatever I like. Isn‘t ‘t it?
I don't see how to verify the simulation hypothesis either.
@@ScienceAsylum Hi Nick, thinking of the nature of simulations, I had the following ideas: With the Quantum Theories we have somehow discret models which in some sense work like numerical simulations. If you anticipate the different interactions of quantum particles as steps of this „simulation“ and if you take the (unknown) changes of the partirles at an interaction as result of a „calculation“ of this Simulation, which happens instantanously with a certain probability (whether it happens instantanously or not can’t be observed, because any observation would be an interaction, too). If this is the case, the state of the participants of the interaction (and the respective probabilísticos) will not change until the next interaction. For two entangled particles, the state of both will not change until the next interaction. If we look at one of the entangled particles, we instantanously know the probability of the state of the other without any „spooky action at a distance“. What I don‘t see yet: How do I have too interprete Bell‘s inequality under this assumption? Does it still work? In other words: Does the wafe function change over time between two interactions (which would result in a break of locality) or is it just constant, having possibly discrete values in any respektive time intervall (which would result in conservation of locality)?
(I think, the „quantum simulation“ can not converge against anything continous or differentiable like the relativity theories, because there is a lower limit to the steps of that simulation. Therefore I think, there can the relativity theories can at most be a statistical limit of quantum theories.)
If it is, my first instinct would be to think that not every single particle of it needs to be ran in the simulator. And that is very important because it saves a hell of computing power. Only things which are observable very close by a human observer, need to be simulated in detail. Example: the moon surface yes, the earth core NO. Also, the fact that the earth is a basically a gravitational prison - escaping it takes a LOT of energy. i.e. the simulation shows us that the universe is ludicrously big if not infinite, but we are allowed to be only in a really tiny fraction of it. Then the other question is: whoever is running the simulation, are they living in a simulation themselves? if so, when does it stop and what does the un-simulated universe look like?
I mean, come on, the universe consists out of small points with no mass or size that just have a bunch of attributes "attached" to them (including xyz coordinates) that effect each other on an 11 dimesional gradient and everything emerges out of that. Literally the definition of matrix. An 11 dimensional matrix and a bunch of code that guides it's dynamic behaviour. It's simply a technology that we haven't invented yet, a large matrix that defines the entire piece of software as a core. But we're slowly getting there with Ray tracing and whatnot. We as a a species just need to get to the point of really powerful computers to become commonplace and one smart guy to come up with implementation of that and we'll be running our own simulations in no time, questioning ethics and directly or indirectly making changes. Maybe our God is a team of IT corporation executives from an existence plain one level higher.
Everybody talks about the idea of a single God. Nobody entertains the idea of there being a society of people, whose culture and public opinions define corporate decisioning of what's going on. Maybe money does rule the world, but not in the way you think.
Constants are a product of finite energy in a closed system. The expansion of the universe (which requires input energy) supports the claim that we are in base reality as the required memory of some finite turing machine is finite, and our current model of the universe would require infinite memory, processing power and/or clock speed to deal with spacial expansion as time tends towards inf... this is all just in support, but if fundamentals of the universe were to change with the expansion of the universe (like time got slower relative to all bodies from some outside observer) then you could argue we are in a sim. We never gunna know tho haha
Plot Twist: Humans explore space and force the graphics to render. Computer overheats. The last thing everyone sees is a blue screen of death.
A long time ago a question hit me. Did anyone tried to do any experiment about this?
One i came up with:
Far away from the Sun, we have two spaceships.
Inside one there is the greates super-"supercomputer" which does a lotlot calculations per second + atomic clock,
inside the other there is "nothing" + atomic clock.
You try to measure if the "time flows the same speed" in both ships by comparing the atomic clock readouts.
If OUR UNIVERSE is a simulation, it may happen it has a limit of processing power, and we can try to throttle the timeflow.
The supercomputer can be substituted to something which does even more "information operations" per second. the only condition would be that there has to be a readout of the "solved problem" in the end so all the inner states matter. Quantum computer would not work imho tho. It does not actually need to know the individual states during the computation, tho with a "regular" computer, you need to have the states all done and read and stored (measured - so no quantum fizziness).
Where did you come up with 10^120 GHz? Is it calculated from some of the plack constanst and some minimal informational energy? or wtheck ;O
hey nick!!!! upload an awesone video on p vs np problem man!!
Back in the early sixties superman was transported to an alternate universe , DC comics. That universe had extremely weak forces and superman did a lot of damage just by speaking. I was 10 and this started me thinking about reality. It occured that no matter how weak or strong the forces it was relative . This is a sort of simulated universe . What we think of as reality is really our prejudice that our world is solid and forceful.
When George Berkely said something quite similar about reality to Samuel Johnson , Johnson became quite agitated and jumped up and brought his foot down on a rock and said "I refute it thus". I imagine if Johnson could have seen a video of himself doing this he would have thought otherwise
Is it possible to find an equation of for two objects motion when the force law is something other than the inverse square law?
Most _accurate_ models are unsolvable for more than two objects (regardless of the law type)... with the exception of a few special cases.
It doesn't matter in our daily lives.
I have faith that I'm real.
Simulationism is just creationism with extra steps.
I'd be curious about the following: If you simulate something, don't you need more parts to create the simulation than the amount of parts that you are simulating? I mean if you want to simulate the properties of a single atom you definitely need more than a single atom to produce such a simulation. Hence, if the whole universe would be fully simulated it would require a far bigger universe to even create such a simulation and at that point the question is, how could one even operate such a thing?
I don't think it's possible this universe could even theoretically be a simulation for that reason
I know I'm kinda late on it but as a PhD student anything I find I have to pick at so what is your resolution to irrational numbers?
Maybe irrational numbers don't actually exist in the real universe... then again, maybe they have to: th-cam.com/video/TUU6n-z3Yhc/w-d-xo.html
You mentioned Planck time, 10-43 seconds, can you do a video on explaining that term?
Or did you already explain Planck time - length?
All I can understand about Planck time is that we cannot measure a moment of time any smaller, meaning that it would not be possible or something like that.
Usually, Planck measurements only come up as kind of a "side-note" in other topics... but I have a video coming soon that might discuss them a little more.
thanks,
Hey Nick.. was just wondering why are galaxies required at all and can stars form beyond galaxies