The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience

this video was sponsored by the great courses plus i quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation it gives me hope that things will be better on the next level unfortunately the ideas aren't scientific but why do some people believe in the simulation hypothesis and just exactly what's the problem with it that's what we'll talk about today according to the simulation hypothesis everything we experience was coded by an intelligent being and we are part of that computer code that we live in some kind of computation in and by itself is not unscientific for all we currently know the laws of nature are mathematical so you could say the universe is really just computing those laws you may find this terminology a little weird and i would agree but it's not controversial the controversial bit about the simulation hypothesis is that it assumes there is another level of reality where someone or something controls what we believe are the laws of nature or even interferes with those laws the belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature but for some reason remains hidden from us is a common element of monotheistic religions but those who believe in the simulation hypothesis argue they arrived at their belief by reason the philosopher nick bostrom for example claims it's likely that we live in a computer simulation based on an argument that in a nutshell goes like this if there are a many civilizations and these civilizations be built computers that run simulations of conscious beings then c there are many more simulated conscious beings than real ones so you are likely to live in a simulation elon musk is among those who have bought into it he too has said it's most likely we're in a simulation and even neil degrasse tyson gave the simulation hypothesis better than 50 50 odds of being correct maybe you're now rolling your eyes because come on let the nerds have some fun right and sure some part of this conversation is just intellectual entertainment but i don't think popularizing the simulation hypothesis is entirely innocent fun it's mixing signs with religion which is generally a bad idea and really i think we have better things to worry about than that someone might pull the plug on us i dare you but before i explain why the simulation hypothesis is not a scientific argument i have a general comment about the difference between science and religion take an example from christian faith like jesus healing the blind and lame it's a religious story but not because it's impossible to heal blind and blame people one day we might well be able to do that it's a religious story because it doesn't explain how the healing supposedly happens the whole point is that the believers take it on faith in science in contrast we require explanations for how something works let us then have a look at both trip's argument here it is again if there are many civilizations that run many simulations of conscious beings then you are likely to be simulated first of all it could be that one or both of the premises is wrong maybe there aren't any other civilizations or they aren't interested in simulations that wouldn't make the argument wrong of course it would just mean that the conclusion can't be drawn but i will leave aside the possibility that one of the premises is wrong because really i don't think we have good evidence for one side or the other the point i have seen people criticize most frequently about bostrim's argument is that he just assumes it is possible to simulate human-like consciousness we don't actually know that this is possible however in this case it would require explanation to assume that it is not possible that's because for all we currently know consciousness is simply a property of certain systems that process large amounts of information it doesn't really matter exactly what physical basis this information processing is based on could be neurons or could be transistors or it could be transistors believing they are neurons so i don't think simulating consciousness is the problematic part the problematic part of bostrim's argument is that he assumes it is possible to reproduce all our observations using not the natural laws that physicists have confirmed to extremely high precision but using a different underlying algorithm which the programmer is running i don't think that's what bostrim meant to do but it's what he did he implicitly claimed that it's easy to reproduce the foundations of physics with something else but nobody presently knows how to reproduce general relativity and the standard model of particle physics from a computer algorithm running on some sort of machine you can approximate the laws that we know with a computer simulation we do this all the time but if that was how nature actually worked we could see the difference indeed physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed like in a computer code but their search has come up empty-handed it's possible to tell the difference because attempts to algorithmically reproduce natural laws are usually incompatible with the symmetries of einstein's theories of special and general relativity i'll leave your reference in the info below the video the bottom line is it's not easy to outdo einstein it also doesn't help by the way if you assume that the simulation would run on a quantum computer quantum computers as i have explained earlier are special purpose machines nobody currently knows how to put general relativity on a quantum computer a second issue with bostrim's argument is that for it to work a civilization needs to be able to simulate a lot of conscious beings and these conscious beings will themselves try to simulate conscious beings and so on this means you have to compress the information that we think the universe contains bostrom therefore has to assume that it's somehow possible to not care much about the details in some parts of the world where no one is currently looking and just fill them in in case someone looks again though he doesn't explain how this is supposed to work what kind of computer code can actually do that what algorithm can identify conscious subsystems and their intention and then quickly fill in the required information without ever producing an observable inconsistency that's a much more difficult issue than bostrim seems to appreciate you cannot in general just throw away physical processes on short distances and still get the long distances right climate models are an excellent example we don't currently have the computational capacity to resolve distances below something like 10 kilometers or so but you can't just throw away all the physics below the scale this is a non-linear system so the information from the short scales propagates up into large scales if you can't compute the short distance physics you have to suitably replace it with something getting this right even approximately is a big headache and the only reason climate scientists do get it approximately right is that they have observations which they can use to check whether their approximations work if you only have a simulation like the programmer in the simulation hypothesis you can't do that and that's my issue with the simulation hypothesis those who believe it make maybe unknowingly really big assumptions about what natural laws can be reproduced with computer simulations and they don't explain how this is supposed to work but finding alternative explanations that match all our observations to high precision is really difficult the simulation hypothesis therefore just isn't a serious scientific argument this doesn't mean it's wrong but it means you'd have to believe it because you have faith not because you have logic on your side this video was sponsored by the great courses plus last year like i guess many of you i spent a lot of time at home this really got me into online learning and i have found the great courses plus to be an amazing place for that the great courses plus is a subscription on demand video learning platform that allows you to stream lectures on your browser or using an app on your phone it's kind of like netflix but for learning the great courses plus have more than 11 000 video lectures from recognized experts about whatever it is that you are interested in from science and math to linguistics and cooking the great courses plus now offers a free trial for viewers of this channel which is a double benefit because it both serves your curiosity and supports this channel to make use of this offer please visit thegreatcoursesplus.com zabina that's s-a-b-i-n-e or just click on the link in the description below and start your free trial today thanks for watching see you next week you

Channel: Sabine Hossenfelder

Views: 460,862

Keywords: science, pseudoscience, simulation hypothesis, do we live in a computer simulation, is the simulation hypothesis science, nick bostrom, is the world a simulation, do we live in a simulation, are the laws of nature simulated, can consciousness be simulated, hossenfelder, science without the gobbledygook, physics, philosophy

Id: HCSqogSPU_Q

Length: 10min 5sec (605 seconds)

Published: Sat Feb 13 2021