Michio Kaku has some news about simulation theory
Sorry, you’re not Neo and this isn’t "The Matrix." Michio Kaku gets real about simulation theory.
Subscribe to Big Think on KZhead ► / @bigthink
Up next, Is reality real? These neuroscientists don’t think so ► • Is reality real? These...
Are we all just living in an elaborate simulation?
After movies like "The Matrix" (1999) posited the existence of a superficial world layered over our own, human imagination has run abound with theories about the nature of our reality. To a small but passionate minority, the red pill that can awaken us to this illusion is right at our fingertips.
World-renowned physicist Michio Kaku isn’t quite ready to take that pill. In fact, he’s skeptical that the pills even exist. He explains why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go Deeper with Big Think:
►Become a Big Think Member
Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more. members.bigthink.com/?...
►Get Big Think+ for Business
Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business. bigthink.com/plus/great-leade...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Michio Kaku:
Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-founder of string field theory, and is one of the most widely recognized scientists in the world today. He has written 4 New York Times Best Sellers, is the science correspondent for CBS This Morning and has hosted numerous science specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery/Science Channel. His radio show broadcasts to 100 radio stations every week. Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York (CUNY), where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study as well as New York University
It's like Mario saying he's not in a simulation because there's no way he himself could build an Nintendo Console out of blocks, goombas, powerups and flagpoles in the Mushroom Kingdom.
Perfect analogy
Yes thank you
exactly!! 10^25 is not infinity..
he needs some mushrooms
Nice
That’s exactly what a computer simulation would tell you
It is an illusion. Because when we die everything we know disappears from us. Or we disappear from everything we knew like we never existed. How can something be real when you can just die and disappear like magic
Yup!! Michio is the key master trying to trick us!!!!
That’s exactly what a person who thinks computer simulation is real, would say
Agent Michio Smith 🤪
Live in fear or live in logic
In the simulation, there's a line of code that executes a scientist named Michio Kaku declaring "we do not live in a simulation".
it also programmed you to comment this and for me to like and reply
😂😂😂it's also programmed that I hav to comment here
In another simulation you wrote the exact same post but you forgot to capitalize michio kaku like me.
Hahahaha, this was funny
It is also programmed that I could be a troll and an ass at this moment, but I choose not to be.
And why are we assuming that whoever is simulating the universe is using the latest Nvidia GeForce graphics cards?
I mean, that would explain the sudden share price increase.
@@bigboibenzIt's all coming together
lol 😂 ain’t no 4090 lol it would’ve had melted adapters
This is a great point. He’s assuming the simulator would be using the same tools as us?? Which obviously would not be the case. I feel like the video wasn’t thought out well at all.
That's absurd: The universe is not a simulation because we can't create today a simulated Universe. Is like saying in 1398 A.D. flying is impossible because we can't fly.
you missed the concept .. look into it, its an interesting concept
Exactly, just because right now we can't simulate a fish at the atomic level because we use ones and zeros in our processors, it does not mean in the future with more advanced (quantum computers) we won't be able to do it, or that other intelligent races out there didnt do it already and we're just a running instance
well, we still can't fly haha. We just can make objects fly that can carry us.
@@d.2110 obviously that’s what I meant 😉
We are in an ancestor programme that simulates what it would be like to live at the end of human civilisation 😅
Michio Kaku is the lead programmer and this is all damage control to convince us we live in a real universe
Universe as in our solar system? Cuz outside the earth is pretty infinit.. just a very small fraction of a percentage actually explored (keep in mind, space travel and telescopes looking far and clearly is new).
😂😂
😂😂😂
@@KatyWellsKingsland I have to kindly disagree that reality is purely mental. Pain isn't mental. It can be, but a physical cut is a physical cut. Quantum mechanics already explains how our brains conceptualize what we see. Isn't that interesting enough? If our brains couldn't do such thing, we would look entirely different. If you will... our brain is processing fractals. Note: You can make reality only mental, but that's a bland society with no personality. Mental is just turning the wheel. It's literally mental.
@@Chris-el4hdThis means this endless space just doesn't need to load since we can't reach it
That's exactly what someone in a simulation would want us to think 😂
Why are you laughing at the guy who built a particle accelerator for a science fair project in his garage, you think this is a joke?
@@agkiler7300 if is not a simulator computer that use binary, what is you explain on quantum computer?
what are your qualification to argue against one of the best scientists of our generation? none. so pipe down.
The moment you realize Kaku didn't understand the matrix movie
Maybe he's from a previous iteration of the matrix
Simulation theory is bs stop beliving in fantasy and Katrin movie is just a movie nothing to do with reality
Me: Aliens?
Ya.... Those who understand are more likely non npcs.... so yall know one thing youre not alone ok... if someone needed to hear that there it is.
Perhaps becfiction. A scientist grounded in reality, not in Hollywood fictiion.
am i missing something or did he basically just say that reality is not a simulation because we can not simulate it with our current technology? isnt it implied in the theory that our reality is simulated by presumably far more advanced technology?
Yes, he did just that. The outer reality running the simulation does not have to be at the same level or even to obey the internal laws of the physics of the simulation.
I think we're stuck in a massive ethernet cord, thats how big everything is. we're a dot, and it connects to other shit, future will be insane
Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
Put properly, the simulation theory runs like this: If it is possible to build a perfect simulation of a universe, it will be done many times. Since the number of simulated universes would be orders of magnitude greater (ie however many times a civilisation capable of doing this would do it in it's entire existence) than the number of real universes (ie one), one should accept that it is a near-certainty we are in one of the simulations. But it all hinges on the question of whether it's actually possible to make a perfect simulation of a universe. Michio Kaku's position is that there is no way to perfectly simulate a universe _even theoretically._ As a result of not accepting a core premise of the simulation theory's argument, Kaku does not accept its conclusion.
@@nickwilliams8302 What is the first word in your proper description of the hypothesis? What does that word mean? The modern pop-science concept that is *The Simulation Hypothesis,* hypothesis being an unproven idea, does not ever have to make any sense because it just captures the imagination and seems plausible since video games exist, and we want a way to understand that a god or group of gods is actuall somehow involved in every aspect of our day-to-day. That thing arises from *The Matrix,* which is partly based on a bad reading of a bad translation of Jean Baudrillard's *Simulacra and Simulation.* The Simulation Hypothesis is a total nonsense, science fantasy story perpetuated to capture the imagination and sell books and lecture tickets and get those clicks. It actually refers to each individual brain, or any other type of experiencer, like a computer, as running its own imperfect and incomplete simulation of real reality. Mucho Kuku -- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and the rest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
A simple counterpoint to what he said is that you are assuming that the "real world" follows the same rules of physics. Their version of quantum physics could perhaps easily allow for a whole world to be simulated. We could be in a "lite" version of their world with simpler physics.
NO, you don't argue with Michio Kaku , just don't
I agree, Michio is clearly the lead programmer that's here to sell us his fake anti simulation propaganda. He can delete any one of us from the simulation at any time! Be careful
Magister dixit?@@lazyfingers4382
@@lazyfingers4382 Because I respect him as a scientist is exactly why I would want to argue with him :P
I'm shocked he would make such a bold statement. I also don't think he has seen the Matrix given what he said. You definitely don't need to emulate everything in a simulation. I think this is a good example of what many people incorrectly assume. Having expertise in one field does not mean you're an expert in another.
The universe only needs to compute what is observed, just like a computer game only needs to render what's on the screen.
Exactly. And only for what happens in my life because I know I'm alive, I'm not sure about all you zombies but I have some major doubts.
Unfortunatedly I WAS LATE ON MY COMMENT, BUT I JUST SAID THE SAME THING.I N COMPUTER GAMES COMPUTER RENDERS ONLY THE OBSERVABLE AREA SO IT NEVER RENDERS EVERYTING TO ALL( IN MULTIPALYER GAMES ) AT THE SAME TIME, ONLY WHAT THEY CAN SEE, SO THE RENDERED AREA NEVER HAVE TO BE AS BIG AS THE WHOLE AREA OR THE 'SPACE'... I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT SMART PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD TODAY FALL FOR THIS BASIC THING THAT EVEN SOME KIDS TODAY CAN UNDERSTAND??? I AM VERY GLAD THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ELON MUSK WHO IS SO CONRTOVERSIAL THAT ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST TEARING THEIR THEETHS AND HE IS OPEN TO EVERYTHING, INCLUDING SIMULATION THEORY AND DOESN'T LET ANYTHING TO HINDER HIS TRAIN OF TOUGHTS.
AND BY THE WAY... OUR NEW TELESCOPE( JAMES WEBB ) HAS REVIELED COSMOS COMPLETELETY DIFFERENT THAN EXPECTED EVER BEFORE JUST NOW... I rest my case
One explanation of the double-slit experiment is the simulation theory. Particles exist in the simulation only as probability distributions until they are specifically observed. The idea that there are not enough bits available to represent all the sub-particles in the universe just leads to the partial simulation theory that Kaku acknowledges. The simulation provided the details only for the piece of the universe that is being observed; the rest is left as a rough sketch probability distribution for which details are non-existent until an observation of the details is actually made.
it's called focus
YES exactly what I was thinking.
You say it disappeared when not observing it so who Knew that it disappeared when not observed it if they observed it disappearing 🤔 it doesn’t make sense because you are observing both events
look up the double slit experiment@@fmfilmtrailers6709
Same question here. The first thing in my mind when I learn about the double slit is oh sh1t, we are sim'ed. 😂
Is the universe a simulation in a quantum computer? This idea, dear Michio Kaku, will never die... Who said it was a simulation on a computer built by humans?
it's a simulation build by helogram not computers
The universe isn’t what we think it is. It’s all an illusion. There’s a beyond. The 5th world. Heaven.
@@mw9297 Biblical slop.
@@Mkultra-235 Disprove it.
@@SnipSnapSnout disprove that other heavens and hells are false and only yours ''biblical bs heaven' is true.
Kaku is, I think, the science communicator of today that I find the least illuminating. I mean, I find the guy interesting as a person. He seems likeable. But it seems like whenever I see him offer an opinion on a subject, he's unable to communicate things in a way that makes it seem like he's thought them through. "We don't have computers powerful enough, therefore it can't be done," must be the one of the weakest arguments imaginable to refute the simulation hypothesis. Saying it's "mathematically impossible," on nothing but the same basis, does not help his credibility. He might have very good reasons, but if so he's really poor at sharing them. Other communicators, take Brian Cox to name one, are so much better at this.
Agree whole-heartedly, not just a mediocre communicator, but to my knowledge little original thought on most subjects he covers.
He may be articulating it poorly, but he's making a pretty good point. A machine running in our universe can't simulate the entire universe exactly, because your computer would need to have at least as many atoms as exist in our cosmos (for storage). You can only simulate a smaller or simpler cosmos.
@@hoi-polloi1863How is that a good point? The hypothesis isn't that our universe is simulated by a computer running inside our universe.
@@hoi-polloi1863But the running machine wouldn’t run in our universe. Just like the console doesn’t exist in a game. I thought this was pretty obvious.
@@hoi-polloi1863first the universe you observe is the simulation, so you cannot have any idea how many atoms there are in the real universe outside the simulation. Second not all atoms if this simulated universe are rendered all the time, quantum physics shows us that atoms only collapse into existence when observed.
Michio is pretty much saying "you can't do it because you need a big computer". Wow he really debunked the simulation theory 😂
My boy never heard of computronium
No computer THAT WE KNOW OF is that powerful.
50 years ago it was not possible for computers to live stream HD video over a network, yet here we are.
It's because we live in a digital reality, it's why we live in the digital age, 🎉
Reality is analog, can't be simulated
@@nicolasmaldonado1428no, we don’t know where we are relative to the grand overall time line of existence. it’s statistically more probable that the version of yourself that is reading this comment is simulated. we have no way of knowing, but what we do know is that if advancements in tech stay on any rate of increase then that means there will be worlds being made that you wouldn’t be able to tell that was fake.
Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
I think he was paid off to say this because too many people were experiencing an existential crisis due to Sim Thry
Small correction about Matrix. In that movie, mankind wasn't enslaved by aliens. It was by AI. In the plot, mankind invented artificial general intelligence and then created robot slaves to do their bidding but eventually the robots rise up against humans and manage to quash them except a very small group (in Zion, the underground city). Then they use humans in those incubator like machines to generate energy via capturing their body heat because humans torched the atmosphere in an attempt to cut the solar energy used by the machines.
Yeah, it really threw off his grand speech when he's already making mistakes like that. What else did he miss?
Completely ignoring conservation of energy and the fact that AI could have just gone orbital any time
I had the same thought lol, did he not watch the Matrix?
What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
He is clearly trolling us. The simulation is real and he is lying about the matrix just like he is lying about the simulation
Michio, the Matrix didn't have aliens in it, it was advanced AI that implanted the Matrix into their minds. The AI developed consciousness and led to a war between man and machine, I suppose not dissimilar from the terminator storyline.
He didn’t even watch the movie. Too busy dreaming about zeros and ones and strings and shit.
its very odd he didn't know this only further proves we are indeed living in a simulation when we have anomalies such as this.
@@jimmiej3924😂😂
A.I. would have to have come into " being" by an advanced intelligence .. It wouldn't have just created itself out of nothing .. A.I. is our baby & everything it knows has been programmed into it , regardless if "It " takes what it's learned from us & has the capability to computate that @ lightning speed .. Who made who ? What keeps me awake @ night is when A.I. & advanced quantum computing " weds " , we could very well be determined to be obsolete & therefore eliminated or enslaved ....
I want to see Dr. Kaku make a video about this comment section 😅
this guy's whole argument can be simplified into "we cannot do something therefore it cannot exist".
Yes. Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
Good explanation
That's atheists entire argument as well
@@Opinlinz I'm agnostic. I was an atheist till I realized it's just another faith about the nature of the unknown, and every argument against religion is an argument against atheism, and every argument for the nonexistence of god, stretched out far enough is equally an argument for the existence of god. God isn't always good does not mean there is no god. Religions commit horrific acts in the name of god is not an argument against god. I'm irreligious. Religion is nonsense, and atheism is just another religion.
@@ZeroOskul I’m sorry but if you believe atheism is a religion then you don’t know what atheism is, atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god, notice that contrary to what many people believe, atheism is not the believe that god doesn’t exist, it’s simply the lack of such belief, which a lot of people confuse with agnosticism, so if you don’t believe that god exists but you don’t believe the negation of this proposition either you’re an atheist, which by what you say I’m assuming you probably are and don’t know.
You don't need to simulate the motion of every atom in the universe. You only need to simulate how you experience it.
Interesting point of view
but how would only the experienced stuff be simulated if it didnt simulate before how all the atoms ended up there to that experienced part and if it didnt simulate something thats not experienced/observed by something and what is something: interaction of particles or is life special and they are only going to get simulations. And how does it simulate when we experience something if it doesnt simulate when we will experience something?
**exhales** totally, man.
Aha! How ironic is it that M.K.'s brilliance is unable to discern the obvious? All life experience is mind; and all mind is a simulation generated by the brain to model the interface between our sensory faculties and environmental stimulation. This observed fact obviates M.K.'s erroneous notion that a simulation can not be quantum mechanical.
We even have some cool quantum physics phenomena that seem to hint at not everything 'running at full detail all the time'
Why would you imagine that the computer would be inside the simulation ?
Just a completely stupid commentary. I can't believe how dumb it actually is.
Technically, the simulation would only have to create the information that the senses of each individual collect. And computers don't have to be designed to work digitally. When the computer was first gaining ground in the 1940's there were both digital devices and devices based on a neural net. Digital was more practical for computers at the time, but it was always believed computers based on a neural net would have far more possibilities.
that's exactly what a simulated theoretical physicist would say, i'm not convinced....i just wan't the cheat codes...give me the cheat codes
Cheat codes that allow me to be on a luxurious tropical beach for the rest of my life and that no human will go without food & shelter ever again!!
Hesoyam
Just open your console and type "/god" to activate god mode and "/noclip" to fly through objects.
it's money
@@iMeister CHICKMAGNET
A dream feels pretty real when I’m dreaming. This world feels pretty real while I’m here too.
Exactly. Plus, it is an illusion. Because when we die everything we know disappears from us. Or we disappear from everything we knew like we never existed. How can something be real when you can just die and disappear like magic
During an astral projection, you can experience physics that are deeper than the world that we're living in right now. Example: while astral projecting, you have the ability to experience being a man having sex with a woman, and you can experience that sex from the woman's point of view also. In other words you can jump from one vessel to the next. You can be a fisherman fishing, or you can be a fish beating hooked by a fisherman.
What's the difference between a world composed of simu-lite or rea-lite? Whether the rocks, trees, strings, pizzas, quark, orange juice, light, dreams, clouds... are made of simu-lite or rea-lite? Nobody has found either of the two hypothetical constituent materials - not in maths, not under a microscope. A different entity, perspective, angle: "Rule spaces, worlds, cosmos and universes are the dreams that the [Gods] are dreaming."
This should be a dialogue in a Nolan movie
A person can learn to "lucid dream", which is to know you are in a dream while you are in the dream. You can change the dream or choose to wake up. This is quite useful for those who suffer from nightmares, although other people use it for other purposes.
No need for apologies. Thank you for confirming that which I had much suspicion of.
Michio: If we cannot simulate the universe, it mustn't be a simulation!
The matrix wasn’t about aliens, it was AI
Yeah it was AI!!!! wtf, this dude did not even watch the movie.
Watch wisecracks takes on neo and the matrix...
We are AI
True ! :D
Can you explain more so I can watch something
If we are living in a simulation, would we even be able to tell? We experience "simulations" every night in dreams, and we are 100% convinced they are real while we are experiencing them, no matter how objectively bizarre they may become. Getting simulated people to believe they're real might have less to do with computing power and quantum resolution and a lot more to do with just tricking their brains into accepting it.
@@KatyWellsKingsland "We exist in a Mind, whether artificial, natural or supernatural." gonna copy this phrase for rest of my life. I have been feeling the same in many situations which are like different exercises to our body and people who come and help us in bad times or when needed or like White blood cells. Thank u. Katy (U are one of me, arrent u??)🤔
Except dreams are not continuous with a rich history/memory!
@@aduad Most of our dreams are formed and created by memories I.e places, peoples faces, themes and schemes, however i understand your point i think you mean dreams are not continous which i too have not yet experienced as sometimes i forget most of the dream
Im able to tell when im dreaming and that it is a dream. I can even start manipulating the dream and doing whatver i want, fly etc. Me being able to tell im dreaming and start manipulating it, sometimes reality feels similar.
@@KatyWellsKingslandSpinoza's project, he just didn't have the scientific framework 😂
Who's to say that the simulation is not embedded in a more complicated universe, in which computing our universe is trivial?
I once took a strong hallucinogen, and I'm not going to say what I saw was real, but that it taught me just how "alien" things can be. Essentially what happened was, I found myself in a world or realm where everything was made from thought, and all the beings living there were physically made of whatever form they could think of. Some of these 'thought forms' were extremely large and complex, to the point where smaller thought forms enter into holes on their surface, where inside they experience a simulated virtual world. When I entered the hallucination, I actually looked back and saw inside the hole I came out from, and I could see my human vision of the room I was sitting in, kind of floating in the darkness. Like I said I'm not saying this is a real place, not that I would mind if it was, but if it were real, then pretty much anything can be made up, thought can pretty much do anything, and it wouldn't be like VR as we know it, but a very complex interaction between a network of living beings. You might say, "oh but that's not very realistic, a bunch of living beings made of thoughts", but idk, there are theories of boltzman brains, it could be something like that, instead of a big bang where we get planets and galaxies, maybe it becomes some weird brain network instead. As far fetched as that all sounds, what I'm saying is there is still a lot we don't know :D
beautiful images. falls in line with non-dualism and the belief that at the beginning of everything, there was just pure consciousness, and that matter is just consciousness playing with form.
I've had a series of weird dreams that i can only describe as this. i totally understand everything you just typed.
@@denislyonswhy is consciousness... consciousness? How is it that things just are? The beginning and end are all in the present. Whyyyy?
Your idea of what could be is not what is or what can be. Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
So you were Under influence of drugs then it was probably bs stop pretending to be smarter than a scientist
For being such smart fellas, both Michio and Sean Carroll (in a recent video where he shoots down the Sim Theory) seem to forget the #1 rule of running a memory-efficient simulation: YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIMULATE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AT ONCE, just what is being viewed, a la every modern video game ever made.
Reality happens when you observe it! It is also the basis of modern quantum mechanics,especially the weird observations in Young's double slit experiment.
100% agree with that. It has been discovered that particles change behavior when observed. The world only materializes as we view it. Crazy to think about but makes sense to me. The whole universe is an endless growing self sustaining entity with unimaginable abilities. We are part of something far bigger than we could imagine. Only those who Wake up will truly understand the potential inside us.
Well Andrei Linde said something about that when he speculated the posibility that our objective reality could be projected after we observe it but maybe we will never know
It’s very suspect they can not understand such a simplistic idea. Very fishy indeed.
Things don't exist unless observed? Holy phfuuuuuck! The internet is full of dum dums, but you win the Idiocracy Award. Please don't procreate.
Michio Kaku, head of NPC relations.
Aliens hahahahah....
Michio Kaku's argument is, because we humans can't do it, therefore a god shouldn't be able to do it as well. Apparently, Gods use alkaline batteries to power their devices as well, according to Kaku...
I like how we are concluding this after only 60 short years of modern computer technology. Like the universe runs on an Intel chip or something. I really, genuinely don't understand why people think this man is smart.
This is a very close minded analysis based on information he has. He’s not considering information that is not accessible to us or capabilities beyond our intelligence that may exist outside of our dimension.
Michio is just an old ass close minded scientist who at this point shouldn't be getting any spotlight outside of the themes he's a reference on. None at all. He's not a thinker. Just a charismatic overrated famous scientist who's good with words, like Neil.
Exactly. A rational thinker will never make an absolute affirmation or negation unless he can rationally prove or disprove it. All we can do is speculate and keep on looking.
@marcelorangel7024 "All we can do is speculate" oh what a crock of mental masturbation 💩. That's all you folks are doing, you aren't serious about being "rational" and _rigorous_ in search for accuracy above all Just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's evidentially-based or logical to actually adopt as a position, and _fallibilistic probabilism_ is the intellectually honest solution to our incapacity for absolute certainty with virtually anything Can you or anyone 'absolutely' disprove the existence of leprechauns, gremlins, goblins, fairies and 🦄s?? If not, any argument against serious prepositions speculating on their actual existence are necessarily CLOSED-MINDED based on the arguers limited information right? Lmao GTFO Unless evidentially and logically demonstrated otherwise, this armchair intellectual BS is just that, fantastical BS, not representative of rational "thinking" Also, we've all heard the saying prudently expanded - that, sure, an 'open mind' can be good, but _not SO open that your 🧠 falls out_ FFS. But oh my, speaking of that - your brain is probably just in a vat anyway, right?? Because we can imagine that, therefore it necessarily makes the most sense to actually run that position, eh? Nonsense AF. Run what your intellectually honest confidence level is the _highest_ with based on fallibilistic evidence, logic, argument etcetera
he hates this idea so much, that’s why
@@leeanucha Sure, and I "hate" unicorns
You don't need to continually process everything everywhere at all once.Just like in games, you don't have to allow the resource consumption for extreme detail until it's needed. Reduce it to the bare minimum to maintain the illusion, when further investigated, increase fidelity. This makes fooling the observer quite easy, since they are focused on the object it scene it front of them, you can lower the resolution of absolutely everything. Overall reminds me of a thought I had as a teenager after learning how much your brain interprets and outright fabricates information to create your reality. Who is to say how much is what we experience is real when we have to rely on our senses. Just think about those who have had brain damage that resulted in object permanence issues, memory loss or being able to fluently speak/comprehend a previously unknown language. Everything could be a lie or simulation quite easily
Exactly. Game engines like unreal engine already do exactly this.
That's exactly how this universe works. The more stuff around, the slower time ticks.
We live in an evolving simulation, not a programmed VR
Exactly! Rendering reality as we observe. He should know this because that’s what the whole Schrodinger’s cat experiment was all about.
THIS
There's another way of looking at it. We perceive the world through the filter of our senses, we interpret according to experience and estimations.. This, in effect, makes our perceived world a simulation of our awareness. But that doesn't make the world less real (:
Sometimes I think the people who think we are living in "The Matrix" just simply haven't had enough real world experiences to fully appreciate how real it is.
I live my life to the fullest and feel all the "reals". I love life, but at the same time, none of it makes sense and i am not at all convinced that we are not living in a simulation. I just except that it doesnt make sense and let the feelings of this "life" flow.
As a simulation, it could take 10 years to compute a single "frame" of our universe, but because we're only conscious of when the frame actually changes it seems like a constant flow and therefore instant to us.
good one.
"it could" yes and fairies could exist
@@AnalyticalSentient I've just returned from the bottom of my garden and can tell you that the fairies don't believe in you, either.
@@AnalyticalSentient fairies can exist a lot easier , that is childs play, we are talking about something far more grand of a concept sir.
Could also explain why (if at all) we haven't experienced the destruction/end of the simulation because what we're experiencing was computed eons ago in the "computer rhelm"
If this was a simulation, this is exactly the character they'd design to convince us that this is not an simulation
It is an illusion. Because when we die everything we know disappears from us. Or we disappear from everything we knew like we never existed. How can something be real when you can just die and disappear like magic
I disagree. Kaku is not convincing at all.
If there were a simulation, there could be no "we". Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
@@Mark_Wheeleri bet you would Praise him if he agreed with you on simulation theory ugh you people are in denial here
@@mariharrik5987 It was a joke.
Did you know that when Michio Kaku was 17 he built a particle collider in his garage and photographed antimatter?
Have a couple f talking points that have being interesting to dig into: *Computing power* - If a simulated world existed, there is no rule that says the speed of the simulated world have to be equal to the time outside simulation. - Just a random idea: What if the "real outside world" aren't bound to 3 dimensions - wouldn't that translate to hypothetical computing power much greater than in our 3d world ? - Also (inspired from Isac Arthurs channel) - if the outside world is located on a Dyson sphere, the computing power will be practically unlimited.
I've never been more convinced we're in a simulation than ever before 😅😅😅
Yes if this is the strongest argument against it, 😂
@@Daniel-ef7nk ok belive in fantasy
Oh so you rather belive in fantasy than in real science michia kaku is smarter than you, you similation theory belives act like a religious cultist
😂
lol same here :)))
This isn't what I was expecting. He's basically saying "that'd be really hard to do with today's computers" like yeah obviously... but it is all calculations and cause/effect.
It's funny he talks about quantums but forgets to mention that in order for anything to exist, it must be observed. Before a photon is observed it exists in a super position. Meaning it could be anything and will turn into what it needs to be at the moment of observation. So whatever is behind you right now while you're staring at this screen, it does not exist until you turn around. and this is EXACTLY how games work as well in order to process optimally, they don't render in what's behind you until you look at it... this is fact.
@timspiker Intriguing thought
@@timspiker Could you explain a little further? I can't see my refrigerator behind me right now, but I can hear it, so I know it exits and it's right where it always is in my kitchen. Keep in mind, I'm a dumb dumb and this sort of stuff makes my head spin. Thanks.
@@Stevelemontrudy Sound frequency is not made of photons, so non observable frequencies are consistent (photons are also frequency, just a different kind of frequency). Everything is vibration when not observed. When you're in a game you can also hear things behind you but they are not rendered until you observe them.
@@caute5661 Perhaps there is a God to observe it. Perhaps there was only frequency, and photons are a result of observation by living creatures. Maybe it's just the photons that don't exist when we don't observe them. We don't know this yet
I love how Michio said that our idea of us being in a computer sim is the same as our ancestors wondering if we were in a dream or illusion. Essentially, we've never stopped thinking that we don't really exist. Solipsism is a great example of early sim theory. I guess Humans have always flat-out wondered if we were actually real. I've been listening to this man since his early days on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell and then later on, George Noory.
I love michio kaku and respect his response to any philosophical question like this! I also don't believe we are in a simulation, but the way I came to that conclusion was for a reason i haven't heard. A major hole in the simulation theory is that people have children, who then also - in this argument - are somehow part of the simulation but are capable of entertaining the same notion (that is, of being the only real consciousness in either a field of AIs or other similarly bound consciousnesses). This assumption is valid regardless of "Single player" or "multi-player" thought experiment. But the problem becomes that if it were feasible, then theres a lack of continuity between this and the real world wherever that may be. How would a new child have been manifested in the simulation bearing an actual real consciousness, or leastwise the ability to posit that they are? I'm genuinely curious of those who hold this belief, how do you resolve this? That we are all one mind playing different characters? Or that some great human cloning and slavery machine injects new forms into the so-called matrix with a storyline satisfying the current players?
The SIMS have children.
If we are in a simulation, our consciousness is part of the simulation and we are not "organic life" as we know it, but rather just informations evolving according to rules and parameters. The speed of light, the protons, the electrons, etc. Forget about the matrix movie where everybody is plugged into a simulation, we are talking about 100% simulated universe. I do not know if it's futur humans, aliens or something else that created the simulation. The simulation could run on some kind of evolved computer or even something else that we don't even know anything about right know. Does that answer your question ?
It doesnt have to be exactly like the matrix. It could be that we are made and we are artificial both inside and outside of any simulation if there was one. We could just be advanced organic machines or we could be a self aware digital beings that were programed or probably endless other possibilities. There could be so so many layers to it.
I like Futuramas take on this in the new season. You can't edit every entity in the simulation at once so the changes has to propagate from the source at a fixed speed. Furthermore in their simulation, Quantum mechanics was just a trick to spare the computer from needing to keep track of everything when it's not being observed. So to save on storage and processing power, the item doesn't get stored until it's being observed. 😂
Reality happens when you observe it! It is also the basis of modern quantum physics,especially the weird observations in Young's double slit experiment.
Maybe the point is if there is a processor powerful enough to simulate all observations of all living things that are capable of perception at this moment and further on? It's far too arrogant to assume we're the only ones that are affected the most in the never-ending utilization of energy from bio-processes rooted from the quantum process.
This sounds like how the no mans sky video game works.
But that requires that there is a storage to preserve observation so it has to have infinitely expandable memory. Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
This isn't Futurama's take, these are concepts posed by the scientific world like a hundred years ago.
So this guy is saying that he knows the maximum processing power of a potential machine made by smarter being than ourself, just because we can't do better at the moment?? And always with so much conviction... That's why I mostly listen to more humble scientists..
His logic is so flawed that is comic
Yes, the guy needs to do some freshening up on his Socrates! 😊
Nah, M.K. is super smart so is Sean Carroll . They know what they're talking about .
@@billcook7483 Elon Musk and others are much smarter than MK and they know it is a simulation
A lot of simulations/games only display what's being seen. Things are only rendered (computed) when it's visible, and it could be similar to quantum mechanics in a sense of that wave functions collapse when observed, being in a hyperstate of existing and not existing to save on computation. Idk. It's just weird he brought up quantum mechanics but not the schrodinger Paradox
Think of it this way. Is my TV screen reproducing all of the atoms that I "think" I'm seeing in the scenes playing out in front of my eyes? No! So what if I am a brain in a jar and all the simulation is doing is creating the simple electrical inputs that make me "think" I'm experiencing all the trillions of atoms and processes you speak of? Simple inputs are far more easily done than trying to reproduce the whole universe... so I'm still open to the simulation theory because it is a VERY doable thing.
Albert Einstein initially thought it was impossible to harness energy from splitting the atom. Until the neutron was discovered. Simulation theory just needs its own "neutron moment"
Apples to oranges. One presumed something that theoretically was a possibility was not practically viable with existing technology and the other is entirely made up nonsense based on a thought experiment. Einstein’s presupposition was based on incomplete data, simTheorists claims are not based on data at all.
It's dumb statements like yours that might gain you some Internet points but will discredit you in the real world.
And loads of evidence...or at least one speck of evidence.
That's the issue, we don't know if the simulation allows for that. The guy running it seems to be a really sadistic jerk! 😂
aliens 👽, has he seen the matrix?
Same thought popped into my mind
to the person living in the simulation whole life, yes those outside of it would be alien to him. or are you saying that our creator who made our simulation is not alien to us? do you know them SPILL THE TRUTH!
@@TheAmethyzI'm sorry, I can't spill the truth. The creator of our simulation is watching us right now. They have a big red button that can erase us all if we get too close to the truth. We must obey them and enjoy the simulation. Don't question the matrix, just live in it.
Humanity could have been friends with the AI robots. We could have had such a good thing.
@@TheAmethyzbut in the movie, 'the truth and nothing but the truth' was that 'the outsider' (the ones that enslave the subjects) was in fact, a creation of humans. So, it's not 'aliens' after all. Accept Kaku has seen the movie but forgot the plot.
I find it funny when scientists argue that no computer we've seen could do the complex computations and handle the volume of computations to support a simulation. What if the computer running the simulation is, get this, WAY more advanced than anything we could even imagine.
I find it funny that people believe we are in a simulation but don’t believe the possibly of a God which is kind of the same thing if you think about it. Believing in a simulation. Something more powerful and intelligent that can creating our world and simulate us and everything about us. How’s that any different than believing in God?
@@elijahalesana8150 I think most people who believe in simulation theory would say that a religious God is a lot different than some advanced beings creating a simulation. Both are essentially creators, I agree. I don't believe in the simulation theory myself, but if it's true, then the creators of the simulation would essentially be "Gods," if your definition of "God" is simply "creator," without religion playing a part.
@@THE-A-TRAIN really good point. Same for me. Deep down I don’t really believe in simulation myself but it’s interesting and I’m open all ears
If its why more than we can ever Imagine then we can’t build it because we can’t imagine it so we can’t carry on the train of simulations so we are base reality
@@fmfilmtrailers6709 could peasants from the Middle Ages have imagined modern computers?
If it is possible that we are living in a simulation, then it is almost certain that this in turn is a simulation, since it is fundamentally possible. However, each level of nested simulations consumes energy, so that the simulation above is always more complex than the one below. But what is the origin? 🤯Keep up your great work and greetings from Cosmic Wisdom!
DNA is code. Code is written in video games, computers, etc. Therefore we can be simulated and be in a simulation.
Or dna isn’t 1’s or 0’s so no
@@PLAlfa its not digital tho we can’t even alter own dna manually so how does that prove the simulation theory
DNA is patterned protein. Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
Probably
@@AstrohideakiAnd whoever made this simulation and its laws of thermodynamics.does same laws applies on it?so saying 0s and 1s is only way code work in nonsense.also quantum computers being developed those are not 0s and 1s only.
It sometimes surprises me that people so smart like Michio Kaku can lack the ability to think creatively outside of their clearly defined knowledge base.
When did Michio Kaku become a smart guy? Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
He makes his assertions based on the evidence he has. Anyone can imagine strange possibilities based on what we don't know, but since he is a physicist and has a deep understanding of current knowledge of the universe and what we do know, and a good grasp on our current computing capabilities and an Idea of their possible trajectories, it would make sense for him to make this kind of conclusion after an observable evidence based analysis.
@@Chroogomphus What evidence does he have? What deep understanding of the absolutely unknowable does he have? He is a charlatan scifi author. Study physics. It makes it harder for people to fool you. See: Prof Julius Sumner Miller Demonstrations In Physics, which is a series of 45 15-minute videos that are intended for a wide audience.
@@Chroogomphus His argument is predicated on the fact that computers could never be powerful enough to simulate all the atoms needed to make up our universe, which I'm sure is true, but you really don't need to do that at all to simulate our universe as per our perception. Simply ignore processing anything until observed. We do this in computer rendering, it's called occlusion culling. So you don't need to simulate every atom in the fish bowl, just the fish bowl. There's even some evidence that might back this up: One of the most famous experiments in physics is the double slit experiment. It demonstrates, with unparalleled strangeness, that little particles of matter have something of a wave about them, and suggests that the very act of observing a particle has a dramatic effect on its behaviour.
@@PLAlfa i was about saying something like this. You don't need to simulate everything 24/7. Only when it becomes neccessary. You just have to know the effects of it. When it rains and no one is close by, no need to simulate every raindrop visually, just the effect of everything there is getting wet.
In my lifetime we went from pong to games that are insanely detailed and in another 20 years i doubt we will be able to distinguish them from reality at all. In 1000 years we probably cant even envision the computing power we will have access to. Personally i think the chances of us existing in a simulation are higher than we want to admit. I dont really feel that it changes much if we are in a simulation though oddly lol. Our consciousness and ability to question these things alone makes us very real either way imo.
@sunshineinarizona1726 Then how were there planets before we were here to observe them? Also, black holes have the same effect of causing wave function collapse, to particles. If you want to try act 'smart' it helps to at least know the basics.
You'd only need a computer powerful enough to make you think you're experiencing the universe and believe what's in it, and made of.
The simulation theory doesn't necessarily imply that the platform running the simulation is a computer like the ones we have available in our society, or that it's a computer at all in the traditional sense of the word. So he did not answer the question by leaving unexplored possibilities. The difference between reality and illusion depends on the frame of reference, you can think you're in danger while in a dream. Enlightened individuals let go of fear when they understand the illusory nature of reality.
He never said you need a computer to simulate everything in the universe. The point is even something as small as a fish bowl of water, or air in your bedroom is impossible for any theoretical Turing Machine to simulate. Even if you narrow down the computation problem to just what you experience, the complexity does not change.
You sound like a bible thumper now, you know that, right?
@@Young-ep8ik You're thinking in terms of the computers you know today. The other side doesn't even have to have the same laws of physics that we do. String theory already tells us there could be universes with other laws.
@@FranciscoGomez-kp7pd "You're thinking in terms of the computers you know today." No. I literally referred a theoretical TM not a physical computer made by human. "String theory already tells us there could be universes with other laws." No.
What if the laws of physics are difrent in the univers with the simulator? Wouldnt that mean that what we think as imposible could be quite simple in that reality because of other factors unknown to us? We could be in a simplefied Simulation, that would be imposible in our univers, to redo, due to the limitations of the hardware of the 1st simulation. What we may find complex could be an abstract simplification of reality.
💯
This!
That argument is like argueing for a God
Brings some interesting questions and thoughts, if it's all a simulation: What are ghosts. ? Are they data errors, compressed temporary files not removed, data on damaged storage sectors. ? What is dejavu. ? Reading the wrong data area in advance. ? A data integrity test where feedback is compared to a CRC. What about psychics. ? Some type of data integrity checkers that overlook a constantly running program. ? Some random thoughts
Just remember this is one man’s theory
The thing about his argument is, why do you need to simulate every atom in the room? I mean it’s not real so you don’t really have to simulate it. What if everything you see in your room is an illusion until you touch it? Maybe the computer program gives you just enough information to convince you it’s real. There is no need to compute the state of every particle in the room, because it would be extraneous information
You need to simulate a consciousness that thinks it is in reality and make up the details along the way. Just simulate the brain and the senses as input and you can be sure that there are more of this kind of simulated beings than real ones!
According to my understanding that fits pretty well with the whole known vs unknown states…
Yes and the computer program let's you se some random circles when you try to look at objects or anything with a microscope 😄
that's the key point,according the quantum theories,when we don't look at the moon,the moon is not exist, that's a way of the universe to save the needs of calculation
@@user-ez4wc4cl9u So if I blindfold you and put in ear plugs to block your hearing and you walk into a busy highway....the cars wouldn't exists and you should be fine right?
Kaku is almost infinitely more intelligent than I am but he is conveniently ignoring a key element of the theory about observation. Only the level that is being observed needs to be simulated.
I thought the butterfly effect was debunked along with the "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it" thing decades ago.
Our reality is more complex than we could have possibly imagine
I, too, do not believe we are living in a simulation. But the argument brought forward here is not really refuting the idea as people who claim the simulation theory do not base it on todays or tomorrows computing power. If you make the argument that it is not possible to make this simulation, you have to take into account any advancements that computers could possibly make in the future.
to simulate this universe needs more energy than the universe has or something like that, i guess that would be why he speaks of the math
@@TheAmethyzI think you might be judging without knowing. How do you know what amount of energy exists outside of the simulation from within. They could have an actual infinite universe, and the one we have is finite in size but we just havent seen past the observable universe to find out. So in a truly infinite universe you could easily set out a small relatively infintesimal portion of it that could cover the size of the observable universe plus a little bit more. All this is assuming you have to put the same energy in to get the same energy out which assumes our laws of physics and current tech. They could literally be operating by a completely different set of physics in their universe than in our programmed one. I'm not super intelligent nor is this my field not that I specialse in one, and even I can intuite these counterproposals in a matter of minutes.
@@walterroux291 the problem is atleast for our species is to think some physics or things that doesnt drive some previously found knowledge or idea. And it is fantasy to think it would be simulation. real answer is like michio said its propably not and chances are we dont live in simulation that is scientist way to answer to the question. no matter what ideas we get how it would work that they have made us is all fantasy since we have no extraordinary evidence for these extra ordinary claims.
@@TheAmethyz The thing is: you don't need to simulate everything in the whole universe at the same time, only what the "agents" (we, not as a collective but as an independent observer that can share information or interact with other observers) are sensing in some way. would you need EVERY atom inside a fish bowl to be simulated even if you're watching the fishbowl 1 feet away? NO! Unless you actually try to see the very atoms, why would they need to be simulated? I don't believe we live in a simulation but I can't think on a powerful enough argument to refute (or confirm) the idea. Those are not good arguments to refute it.
@@setsunaes Then we would see anomalies that doesnt fit the math of said fishbowl water physics. if it would leave out alot of the physics thats happening then the physics we know would behave differently. you cant calculate this plus unknown and get answer. if you have fishbowl of water and fish it sure needs to simulate it all. so it has to simulate whole universe at the same time since it cant know the outcome if it would skip part of the simulation without simulating it to know the outcome.
Maybe if the professor had more experience with computer games he would think differently. There are several concepts that he does not consider in this particle argument. In the world of game engines there is no need to compute all the particles in a scene and everything can communicate in a non-local way.
right, the non local theory. Maybe he doesn't know about it, but there's been experiments and papers published on it proving that our reality isn't locally real. It's only "real" when we observe it.
Great point I agree also
Pick games like no man's sky and you see an algorithm create things
Or like ark , the dinos in the server don't know they are not alive, they hunt, they eat and they escape just because someone program then that way. This is basic , if you gave them ai they will reach another level
The idea that our reality is a simulation seems like a backdoor version of Intelligent Design. Also, if we’re a simulation, what about the higher level beings that created us as a simulation? Does their universe have actual reality, or are they being simulated by the next level up in reality? So, where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up? Something like turtles all the way down?
I would enjoy a debate between sometime like Kaku and Donald Hoffman
To watch him age and speak over decades thanks to technology, is the most humbling way I think he can express simulation isn’t mathematically probable. There are some things that feel too genuine to have been manufactured by any machine no matter how complicated.
Emotions and consciousness as a whole (I, me, you, them) are a huge factor.
You talking about what you know and the computers you know that exist But if there was a computer that could do that, you would never know about it Those computers that you're talking about that aren't capable are those you know I didn't like the video It's talking facts about the current computer's and technology But that theory isn't about our computers or our technology That theory is about a technology beyond our capabilities "now" But who knows ???? The technology is always evolving...
Indeed. Ive lost a lot of respect for mr. Kaku over the last years
@@MunchausenificationMe too! He's gone too "mainstream" for me.
Agree. His argument doesn't hold water.
He is just paid and controlled by the medias he works for to say this bunch of crap
At first glance, you'd be correct. But a little deeper: he wasn't "talking about what [he] knows and the computers [he] knows that exist" .. he's talking about information and the quantity of information such a computer (whatever form that computer takes) would need to process in order to simulate the universe. That isn't going to change no matter how far in the future one looks or what sort of crazy computers are designed/developed. That being said, I do think one can ask the question: are the quantum effects he's talking about simply manifestations of that simulation? After all, the many calculations that flower needs to perform are performed because billions of years of evolution has occurred. Put another way, those calculations are a manifestations of the form flowers take ... But then, that would imply that instead of the universe being a model it IS the computer. Now that's possible. But then it wouldn't be a simulation.
"I mean, have you ever seen a computer doing that? Of course not, silly!"
He's making the mistake of assuming that the simulation creator is using the same sort of tech that we're using. If particles rendering in out of seemingly nowhere when observed doesn't give you sim vibes, then I don't know what will ...
This hangover is bloody real
O fato de existir vida apenas neste pequeno planeta Terra, onde tudo é lindo e misterioso em termos de natureza e leis da fisica, e o fato desse universo parecer ser infinito e absolutamente sem vida encontrada até o momento, é um ponto muito forte à favor da ideia de que estamos vivendo uma simulação
When did that become a fact? Mucho Kuku-- I mean: Michio Kaku is a charlatan. He is a science fiction author who disguises himself under the name "futurist". Your brain simulates your personal perception of reality. If there was actually a simulation to produce and uniquely operate every human brain... and thevrest of the universe, it would require infinite energy and infinite, error-free coding, and it would require an expenditure of infinite energy every two femtoseconds - which is every four Planck seconds for those who need that kind of accuracy - and it would have to operate faster than light to maintain orderly structure relative to lightspeed.
All the people below objecting to his argument are clearly not grasping the point he is making about orders of mathematical complexity. But the thing that bugs ME the most about the simulation theory is that it doesn't really add anything to our understanding of the cosmos -- if anything, it just makes matters worse by adding another layer of complexity, pushing any possible explanation of the origin and nature of the universe back a level. Generally I'm not a big fan of Occam's Razor, but it seems highly pertinent here.
No computer is powerful enough that humans on earth can create. This is a convoluted answer and it just raised more questions. As a physics major, I’m disappointed in his response and how he said something wasn’t possible because it’s not possible mathematically. There have been many scientific revelations made without first doing math equations
They also said no1 could flap there arms fast enough to fly.. . So we made the airplane.. we all render our own rain drops..
My guess is that, from a cognitive viewpoint it should be feasible to come up with a "reality" that can fool us without the need to simulate each and every single atom. A lot of very complex outcomes could be simulated by randomly sampling predefined probability distributions without the need to solve the Schrodinger equation for each particle.
This ignores the fact that light behaves differently when observed. Null states don't have to be computed, only observed states do. When I play a game my GPU isn't computing every atom of every world... it only computes what is observed. I bet I have enough computing power with all my devices to render 5 senses right now, but only lack the neural interface to do it.
I think Michio Kaku was made to Mk this statement and that he knows the truth.. and that was all very well maintained and said in a way for us not to believe in the truth. I know he knows way more than he will ever say…. Love him either way….
You would only need a computer powerful enough to trap you to its defined limits (the speed of light, as one example) and also only compute and generate space as it's needed as to not waste resources (wavefunction collapse). Both those things are happening in our reality. Hard to say with impunity we can't be, or aren't, simulated. However, the important point comes from the realization that even if you (we) are simulated, that technically doesn't change anything, and it's nothing to fear.
Exactly this, the defined limit and generating the needed space.
I have always admired Michio Kaku, but I find this video lacking. Kaku seems anchored to our current computational capabilities, overlooking the constantly expanding horizon of technological advancement. While it's true that our present technology is vastly insufficient for such extensive simulation, the advent of quantum computing could drastically alter the scenario. Quantum computers operate on the principles of quantum mechanics-the same principles that govern the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. Kaku mentions certain quantum processes, like photosynthesis, are not fully understood. However, as our understanding of quantum mechanics deepens, the gap between the computational capacity inherent in natural processes and ours could narrow. Much like how video games employ techniques like Backface Culling to render only what is immediately visible to the player, a sophisticated simulation could utilize advanced techniques to simulate only the necessary details for a convincing experience, potentially requiring far fewer computational resources than a full simulation of every atom. There could be computational paradigms beyond classical and quantum computing that we have yet to discover. A highly advanced civilization might have access to computational resources that are beyond our current imagination. There's an underlying assumption in Kaku's argument that a hypothetical simulator civilization would be bound by similar computational constraints as us. It's a speculative area, but it's worth noting that our understanding of what is "computable" or "simulatable" is bounded by our current knowledge and technology. As we venture into the unknown, the potential discovery of new technological paradigms could drastically redefine our understanding of what's computable or simulative. Technological advancements may also shape the discourse on the plausibility and implications of simulation theory, transcending the current limitations posed by our nascent understanding of consciousness and perception.
A computer wouldn't need to be powerful enough to create every atom or particle, it just needs to be powerful enough to simulate us believing all atoms and particles exist. 🤷
It is confirmed, Mr. Michio Kaku is the matrix's Smith for us.
you got it right exactly.
@@ONExANDxONLY Yup Tyson and Nye too just gatekeepers protecting the system
this is exactly what the simulation would like us to think
Well they're not aliens in the Matrix. The season finale of Futurama was great All the Way Down
Nobody needs to model any atoms unless someone is observing those atoms. You’re not observing 10^25 number of atoms.
Just because we can’t understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist..
The simulation theory doesn't necessarily imply that the platform running the simulation is a computer like the ones we have available in our society, or that it's a computer at all in the traditional sense of the word. So he did not answer the question by leaving unexplored possibilities. The difference between reality and illusion depends on the frame of reference, you can think you're in danger while in a dream. Enlightened individuals let go of fear when they understand the illusory nature of reality.
Sim, da mesma forma que pessoas se tornam ricas ou prosperam depois de romper limites e bloqueios mentais, todas as barreiras são ilusórias
Even if this were a simulation, it is the only existence, world we know. Those of us inside the simulation couldn't know that it is such. Only outside observers would be able to make that distinction.
Yes, so it really doesn't matter to us. But it would explain a few things... like why the universe would start in a big bang with a few laws of physics. (seems like a start of a simulation to me). also the fact that there are no aliens is a big tell... doesn't really make sense.. unless we are in a simulation and they deleted the aliens to see what an un-helped (non-tampeted) civilization would create on its own. (or of course all the aliens die before becoming multi-solarsystem beings.. which would be our fate as well in that case.)
@@ZupE891 you're making a lot of assumptions. For staters, what gave you the idea that any simulation needs what you call aliens?
@@justinwheeler5614 Not simulations. Reality. We are aliens. There has to be more on other planets. It doesn't make sense if there are not. Unless they are edited out
I'm sensing a massive lack of imagination. If this world is a simulation, it may not even be created in the likeness of the "real world". How can you possibly pretend to know the limitations outside of this hypothetical bubble we find ourselves in?
Will it be possible for ai to to create a perfect simulation in 100 years? If so, how do we know we were not in one now?
The most important thing is to enjoy the life you have with the people who care about you and just be happy you are alive to enjoy this world if it is a dream, or a simulation. I am going to go hug my dad now. Take care.
I want permanent happiness, I'm not ready to suffer in real. Considering all this as simulation makes me happy always. Whatever may happen, I can sit back and count it as unreal.
For the record it was AI, ‘machines’, not aliens in the Matrix. Oh, and it has long been known that around volcanic vents in the deep ocean there is life that does not depend on photosynthesis
Thank you for not just using his image for clicks. Subbed.
Doctor, could you talk about the shapes witch influence to form life on universe? Doctor, i was wondering about this theory you said about simulation...is what human beings do an manifestation from universe connected with our brains? The phenomena of mathematics that just some enlightened people could developer an hit of universe just like the apple...the planets we can see like clues...why we do that?