2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?

I fell asleep at 3 am and woke up to this

Actually, my life would be pretty simple to simulate. I spend most of my time in front of a computer screen.

It's so nice to see grown adults talking and debating in a mature environment and not talking over each other or yelling to try and make either point.

Every year I come back and watch this, taking away new thoughts and ideas that keep me utterly occupied, and confused. Brilliant. I hope that this topic can be revisited with light of the AI progress in 2023, as the infinite information section of this video could be explored more with AI and the compilation of its data.

My right ear loves this debate

could have used a computer scientist on the panel as well

A pleasure and thank you for being here

I'm only 2 minutes in, but it strikes me as notable that Neil deGrasse Tyson passes such personal judgement on the topic while introducing it. Gives me all the more reason to consider the possibilities discussed here.

7:35 The Oracle 9:25 Neo 11:40 Morpheus 13:30 Twin 16:04 The Architect

I cant handle the fact that guy is almost wearing Morpheus glasses lol

What I took from the first lady’s speech about limited computational resources is they lack the tools to answer this question. And they can only begin to answer the question if they make a giant leap and assume the creators of this simulation are limited to finite resources. That’s like saying we have to assume Michelangelo only had black and white paint because we can only look at a limited portion of his masterpiece.

Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never on it's own separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals: A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...) When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again. A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything. Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives. As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, physical / chemical / biological law-"abiding" universe? Which brings us back to Occam's razor.

There are far too many leather jackets and sunglasses on stage for it not to be an attempt to look as matrixy as possible.

can u imagine creating a simulation and seeing them organize to the point that they have a debate about weather or not u exist... lmao

I would have LOVED to witness the identical panel engaging in a debate today, seven years later, considering all the mind-blowing discoveries they were completely unaware of back then...

3:10 introductions 5:50 personal introductions

I feel like this discussion would have been more complete if they brought in a proficient computer programmer to give their take on it.

2 hrs on wooden stools... who planned this event?!

I think the best example of this concept is plainly but beautifully displayed in the movie “Free Guy” where we created a free thinking AI program that can both observe and exist in the simulation.