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

could have used a computer scientist on the panel as well

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

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.

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

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'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.

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...

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

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

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.

I fell asleep at 3 am and woke up to this

My right ear loves this debate

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.

3:10 introductions 5:50 personal introductions

At first, I thought that the panel members with black sunglasses represents the Matrix (Simulation) side of the debate.

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

Watching this while playing Dark Souls. Love destroying my mind, soul and room all in one sitting lol

Great video!!!! So since I'm just seeing this video for the 1st time and it was posted 6yrs years ago I'd love to see a follow up video with all the same people.

I wonder how much more colorful the conversation would have been with a coding expert that makes simulations and games and the like.

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

I just have to say one thing: I’ve taken Java 101 and C++ 101, and I know for a fact that all it takes to have anomalies is to write a method in your code that sets a value that picks a “random number” (it’s not really “random”, but that’s a WHOLE other discussion….) and then uses this “random” numerical value to say, for example: when the value equals 1 through 999,999,999…. Then you produce the typical result…. If the value equals 1,000,000,000; then run the anomaly. For any programmers out there: you know what I’m talking about when I say that it would likely be: “0-999,999,998”, and the anomaly would be on “999,999,999; but same difference to the layman. Anyway, if one wanted to run a program with anomalies like the existence of matter, one would simply have to produce a “random” number, and then run a “if then” and “else if” that allowed the program to produce an anomaly. This takes up VERY LITTLE processing power, and wouldn’t be hard for even “THIS GUY”, a C++ 101 student to code myself from scratch. I could run it EASILY on a computer from 1992 in MINUTES…. Just saying….

A pleasure and thank you for being here

How can they talk about simulations with a straight face when Morpheus is sitting right there with them, just ask him guy's !

They really should have invited a game programmer to that panel. A game programmer could explain how this could be done -- limiting the simulation for example.

What movie was the number 42 @25:30 referenced to? Where earth is the machine to compute it.

Our sense of continuity depends on our memory being consistent with the present. If an error occurs, the memory can always be rewritten, and as long as it was consistent it could be quite different and you would not be aware of discontinuity. The universe might be an objective simulation or automaton at the Planck level, but I don't think it's possible to remove the subjective element in practice. Of course, that applies to reality even if it isn't a simulation!

Simulators: “Hmm..dam they got us.” “Time to introduce coronavirus.”

They talked a lot about "bugs" in the universe but they seemed to ignore an important point. Bugs are relative to the intention of the creator. For all we know many of the things happening in our universe are actually "bugs", but we would never know it because we are not aware of the intentions of our creator (if there is one). We instead treat them as intended features of a perfect creator. Searching for bugs in the universe doesn't really make much sense unless you have knowledge of these intentions. You can, however, search for bugs in your own understanding of the universe, but I think this panel confuses those two ideas.

Neil DT is so amazing and has made a career out of interrupting people way smarter than himself.

The question I'm going to ask is, "If we were truly living in a computer simulation, how would it benefit us to have have the knowledge that we were in one???... To try and figure out how to write more algorithms for our simulation??? To try and decode what makes up our bodies so we could live long???".......

This debate should have started with questioning what is meant by a simulation

We know they're in the Matrix, because they're wearing sunglasses indoors

If we are in a simulation, and that simulation is being ran inside an underlying universe, how could we tell what laws of physics are from the simulation or which are bleeding through from the underlying universe? Because wouldn’t both sets apply?

I'll second that; ' I wouldn't be surprised ,' Great panel and great conversation. Laws of physics, laws of nature, the quantum mechanics formulates meaning of the Universe.

Could they not get these lovely people more comfortable chairs??

No need for a simulation when society has most of us trained to do like the same 5 things everyday on repeat.

49:29 CHALMERS: "We just need to move that picture to the next universe up." That's actually next-level meta, and nobody talked about it. The hackers who simulated in the next universe up are, themselves, living in a simulated universe. I mean, why not? "People aren't ready for this."

Excellent debate. Thanks a 1,000! And greetings from Niterói, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil.

From a panel of brilliant minds that know a lot. The phrase that sticks out in my mind is "We don't know".

So If my life's just a video game simulation like they're suggesting , how do I find out my current score and does anyone know any good cheats?

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet." - Woody Allen

29:18 No. If randomness is already part of the model, then you don't need to change input parameters to get a different result.

When you leave autoplay on after you fall asleep.

Life is literally just a dream. It's a collective dream we have got stuck in for various reasons. When you die you wake up

A lot of this was over my head BUT Neil kept interrupting. He could not help himself. Wow.

I wear my "no I'm not a lizard" glasses so you can't see my slit pupils... At night

Yes but can it run Crysis?

A real shame they did not have a sophisticated game programmer or generally game developer in there. A lot of their theories or questions can easily be answered from the point of a game dev. They might have gotten much further in the discussion.

Simulatees: "I think this is a simulation" Simulator: "put a bunch of very intelligent people together in a video, all of whom they will believe, and tell them that it's not a simulation"

Wish we could hold more of this debates, If Zora finds an edge case which proves (some way to replicate and show that the edge case indeed happens) we are in a simulation then would we (as a community) then apply some rules and say we found another rule of science or accept the fact that we are in a simulation.

The guy on the left eluded to this, and I was thinking the same thing, that the universe appears to run as a simulation because of the codes or laws present in our universe. Whether these codes were predetermined/predefined is something altogether different. However, the fundamental question I had as a boy "how did everything begin from nothing" may be relevant here. How is it possible we're here, because that is impossible, yet not impossible because we are here. How can there be physical things around us that spawned from essentially nothing. Maybe it's not possible, and can only exist as an "idea" or "code", and that's what this whole thing is, a simulation that unfolds from a predetermined (or not) set of codes. Also, there are some anomalies that appear in our world that may indicate something strange is going on, such a the results of the double-slit experiment, where light changes from a particle to a wave if being measured by an outside observer. I used to believe that god did not exist. However, I have lately started to think that there may be a creator or designer or architect, not in the sense man has created, but something different. Everything appears too designed. From those exact numbers in nature that cannot deviate, to our own bodies. Look at some of the animations of DNA replication. It really appears as a designed biomechanical machine. How does taking thymine and connecting it to adenine, and guanine and connecting to cytosine, and put it together in a 6 billion strand specific sequence present a code to alter atoms to present themselves in a extremely complex structure that is in fact.....you. There is something going on here that is fantastic and beyond the confines of our human intellect. My 10-year-old son made a comment to me the other day that resonated, he said "Dad, maybe heaven is a real place, because we're here now, and that is impossible, but we are alive."

So...basically in the beginning god hit the enter key and then there was light?

I was at this talk I remember this. What a great talk.

Descartes already dealt with this question hundreds of years ago. It's the first supposition in his proof popularized as "I think therefore I am." This is better stated as "Cogito ergo sum" or "I doubt therefore I am." The self is a necessary being. Descartes's "Grand Deceiver" is the equivalent of the question "are we living in a simulation."

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar; and doesn't.

the simulation theory being fact is every high school kids nightmare math student : "when are we ever gonna use this in the real world?!" teacher "our world is math mf" *mic drop*

Love the Issac Asimov debates

I am an astrophilosopher. This topic is approached by thinking of the universe first, as a Metaverse, then as a mere verse of philopohical verse, quarks or liptons or Asimovs in the monster mashaverse.

The simulations sent us all together once again at 3 am when we’ve fallen asleep...

a Monk once told me: "What we feels, see, hear etc is only reflections of reality, and reflections is not the same as reality"

To me, if I imagine the universe as a simulation, that would require 3d pixels. If you imagine a computer creating those pixels, they would have a finite refresh rate. This refresh rate would explain the speed limit on light traveling.

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

26:40 "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" (Opens door to Eternal Life and Resurrection) 29:14 Value of Parameters, 30:14 Multiverse, Probability (needs a well-defined meaning) 34:07 Simulation breaks down, multiple unique universes do not 35:44 Any evidence against a simulation could be simulated 37:59 Super Mario Laws of Physics (How could inside understanding lead to outside understanding?) 38:22 Simulator cuts corners 40:40 Physical reality to Quantum Level (higher resolution, higher resolution, pixels) 42:17 Screen-Door Effect

Oh my! I just thought of a really outstanding theory, what if our universe was a simulation! me at 12 playing the sims: What if we're the sims in an alien computer?

Dimensions of being and consciousness used interchangeably as perceived simulation is interesting. Sci-Fi influencing so many 19th and 20th Century theory makes a nice cozy mechanistic warmness. Reaching in the dark for a handshake as they come out into the light is not creepy either. Haha. Good stuff.

When I wake up in the morning I see a strange codes running just before I fully become awake. But I somehow can't remember how the code looks. It is always in a strange language that is continually changing. Happens to me about 3-4 mornings each week.

So the conclusion is that we can't really prove anything

Space time can be continuous and only appear discretized because of our limited information and Zoreh’s point about Feynman asking why discretized space would require infinite degrees of freedom was definitely my favorite moment about this.

1:50:00 i was listening to sean carroll talking to antonio padilla about "big numbers" and padilla suggested that if you go far enough in one direction in the universe you will eventually encounter another milky way galaxy, slightly different, but very similar, just statistically, not a replica or duplicate, but just an arrangement that is similar and maybe this is what an infinite universe would be like, not that you eventually return to the point of origin, but there are just endless variations of the universe we can "explore", that seems more comfortable (?) to imagine than a universe without end or borders or is infinite. that the multiverse and the many worlds is a tangible thing and part of the "overall" universe.

The fact that roughly 0.0007% of the world population have seen this video on this channel and I happen to be one of them, coupled with the fact that I am able to comprehend and understand damn near everything contained within it at my "young" age leaves me wondering where do I even go from here? Perhaps I need to pursue a career in psychology or physics or quantum theory or something because this all resonates so strongly with me. I'd love to have a sit down with each and every one of these individuals. I want to be surrounded with the thinkers. For as much understanding as I have, I would love to continue my wonderings and delve even deeper into this deeper side of existence. Whilst watching I jotted down (in a very barebones format) a bunch of relative areas to this discussion (and areas that aren't necessarily relative to the content here) that I love exploring and I'd like to put them forth here. -Quantum physics -String theory -Consciousness -Solopsism -Déjà vu -A.I. -DNA -Chaos theory -Butterfly effect -Pre big bang and post life -Reincarnation -Multiverse and how it is like a choose your own adventure story (I feel like this is similar to a save state in a game. Progress, or the opposite of, made after a save state can be simply undone by returning to the save state and continuing with a tweak, patch, or something of the sort. Which could explain why we can't find anomalies or corruption in the universe) -Foundational building of knowledge (think of how far we've come since Galileo and the other big thinkers of the past were here pondering life and existence)

They need to fix the code on that lighting so they don't have to use the sun glasses mod

Kind of hard watching this with Morpheus in the centre, Julian Assange on the far left, Fonzie and Steve Harvey with hair and not laugh

Change the playback speed to .5x and the debate sounds like 6 people stoned out of their minds

Could the Matrix not please simulate the sunglasses off of those rockstar scientists whilst indoors? 🙂

The panelists sometimes surprised me with basic questions/discussions among themselves: Not all simulations are interactive, like a game. Suppose a physicist simulates the evolution of galaxies in his computer, he will set the inital conditions and the rules for the state change. He will not interfere, while the galaxies evolve! Likewise, a far distant future intelligent beings that evolved technologically so well, can simulate us to see how their ancestors evolved, behaved, survived and innovated. While doing so, they'll not interfere with us, even if we attacked each other with nuclear bombs!

Well, I -WAS- about to go to bed, however it looks like am going to be up at least 2 more hours, longer if I continue to fall down this rabbit hole. Led here from the Riddle youtube channels video.

Why would it even matter if the Universe were a simulation? Keep doing what you're doing.

I really like the point made @ 26:00

Morgan Freeman looks great.

His gray afro is immaculate

In defense of indoor sunglasses, especially here: those stage lights blind tf out of you.

Oh this was a tremendously beautiful and enchanting debate. Awesome 😃👏👍

Deja vu is from the simulation crashing and being rebooted and we're resuming from an older save and reaching the point right before we crashed.

At the minute 15:10, where the subtitles go [unintelligible], he said René Descartes. "René Descartes said how do you know you're not being..." Amazing talk btw.

Chalmers made a brilliant point. They just simulate as much as needed.

Check out the incremental compression conjecture

A thing I'd like to mention is that we run highly realistic simulations everynight in our own brains. They're called 'dreams'. I think it's very likely that what we call reality is a more 'stable' simulation with more rules. And perhaps it too is running inside our higher brains.

Suppose you were a mean kid with a laptop, and wanted to design a version of Hell. Imagine a world populated by creatures who had to eat each other to survive. - like Earth, for instance. That would do nicely.

What computer is used by whom to implement this simulation.

Strong hints that we live in video games or the matrix or simulation 1. Everythings on nature are based on math, algorithm and constant. Striking intention so it can be run on some kind of computer device 2. Everythings on fundamental level are quantized, other means of digitized. Striking intention so it can be run on specific kind of computer device, which is digital computer 3. It has distinct smallest unit of measures, not indefinately smaller. Similar to pixel in digital computer. 4. It has efficient rendering technique. Which is only render things when it being observed by the player. Once player is not observing, it going back to code and algorithm without need to be materialized 5. It has universal 'server tick' to synchronize everything and to avoid inconsistency around the simulated world. which is speed of light. 6. Since space and time are the output of algorithm, Anything unrelated to wolrd rendering algorithm, are not bound with space and time and can communicate instantly since it run outside the rendering algorithm. Such as quantum entanglement 7. Since almost everything is centered around the player, and almost everything is being rendered as per the player pbservation, not only future, but also any past time event is still on a form of code, and being rendered once the player is observing it. Thus, quantum delayed choice was happened 8. When the player dies, it could goes to spectator mode. Since the player viewport is not necessarily hard coded to the rendered body. 9. The player could go to different realm or mini games during sleep 10. There are millions of account and eyewitness, testimoning about them being experiencing some kind of glitches in the matrix 11. There are literal source code of higher level programming language, written and stored in every living things. That when compiled and run, it will create chemical nano machine that run autonomously based on previously written code. 12. Religious text that literally said "surely, this worldy life is just a game play, and the hereafter is better for the piety, dont they think it?"

36:11 "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't simulate that."

25:38 He took a nerd joke and one-upped it with a joke so nerdy only a tenth of the crowd caught it.

Pretty cool that these people came out of the matrix just to do this debate.

For an ‘open minded discussion’ there is a lot of “we can’t”, “we won’t”, “we’ll never know” coming out of the “experts” (sunglasses lady mostly) I find particularly interesting. Such a perspective of ‘let me explain’ instead of ‘what if’ which seems counter intuitive to the nature of science - almost like being right is more important than finding truth

The big bang was the simulator being powered on. We think the universe is expanding but it is being created at the speed of light, hence the speed limit. Black holes are lines of code being deleted to keep the simulation program running without stalling.

I think Lisa Randall was killing it. Always grounded to real physics.

Have you guys ever considered adding Nikola Tesla‘s theory of the universe being in a time loop plus the theory of the key to the universe: 369 (plus the meaning in Numerology) into this Debate? I was taking notes while listening and added his theory and it actually fit really well with all the debates spoken about on here. It also combines all together with all the religious books and beliefs! I hope my opinion/perspective was useful 😅