Kind: captions
Language: en
In 2022, three scientists won the Nobel
Prize for proving that the universe is
not locally real, meaning particles
don't exist in a fixed state until
they're observed. What does that mean in
simple terms? The universe only renders
when you look at it. This has been
proven scientifically, and it's made one
question above all the obvious one to
ask. Are we living in a simulation? And
if we are, if this universe is simply a
rendered environment, then there's no
reason to believe that death is the end.
Today's guest is MIT trained computer
scientist, author, and video game
entrepreneur Ryzswan Furk. He's got some
wild theories that tie together ancient
mysticism with modern quantum physics
and simulation theory. I'm not sure if
he's right, but I know he is
interesting. Buckle up because here's
RZswan Burke.
Starting at the foundation, what is the
simulation hypothesis and why do you
think that it's actually a valid way to
think of the universe? So, I started off
coming to this road through video games.
Uh and then as I started to research
quantum physics and looking at all the
weirdness in quantum mechanics, I came
to realize that a simulated universe
made much more sense than a physical
universe. Like if we lived in a static
physical universe, sort of a Newtonian
world, if you will, where everything
that's solid is solid and it always
exists. uh as opposed to in the quantum
world where everything gets rendered or
we say that there's a probability wave
that collapses to one specific
possibility. So that's called quantum
indeterminacy. And then the third part
was when I started looking at the
world's religions, I found that they
were saying something similar. They just
didn't have the terminology to talk
about it back then. So there's this
strange phenomenon called the observer
effect. And this is so crazy. Yeah. or
quantum indeterminacies would be the
more formal name for it. And most people
can probably think of it in terms of
Schroinger's cat. Most people have heard
of the cat. And so basically the idea is
that you have this box and inside the
box is a cat and some poison. And
without getting in details, there's a
50% chance that the poison gets released
and the cat is dead, which means there's
a 50% chance poison does not get
released and the cat is alive, let's say
after an hour. And so uh that is called
a state of superp position which means
the cat is actually in two positions.
Now normally we would say common sense
tells us the cat is either alive or it's
dead. Can't be both. It has to be one or
the other. We just don't know because we
haven't looked in the box. But the
weirdness of quantum mechanics tells us
that both of those are true. Meaning the
cat is both alive and dead until
somebody looks into the box. And then
what happens is that this state of
superposition or this probability wave
as it's defined gets collapsed down to
just one possibility and that's the
possibility that we see. So those are
the two most popular interpretations.
The big question is why would the
universe do that? And we can say well
why do we do that in computer games we
do it in order to optimize because we
have limited resources and you know
limited memory limited CPUs and all of
this stuff. So it's an optimization
technique that only renders that which
needs to be rendered. Now the objection
that some physicists have you know
between these two camps they like that
you know these guys don't like that
interpretation and these guys don't like
that interpretation. Why would the
multiverse make sense? So what I'm
saying is that the multiverse also makes
more sense if it's a simulated
multiverse. And I wrote a book called
the simulated multiverse that goes
through this idea. And so the objection
to this idea that the universe is
splitting off into multiple universes.
every time we make not just a you know
major life decision like am I going to
live in Los Angeles or New York but at
every single quantum decision event
which is happening like yeah infinite
yeah the numbers are incomprehensible
but one objection that people have to
that is well that is not a parsimmonious
yeah it sounds like a memory leak that
would like crash your computer exactly
because each of those like when they
split then within that there's
essentially infinite quantum moments
happening and so those are like
mushrooming like yeah I don't see how
yeah either my instinct is either we are
wrong it's not a simulation and so
quantum works in some other way that
doesn't require that kind of computation
or that one just rules itself out at the
level of computation not necessarily and
and this is why I I think it's
interesting to look at simulation theory
as a bridge between these two
interpretations and so the objection
comes If the universe is actually
spinning off lots and lots of physical
universes, basically you're saying that
there's an infinite amount of resources
and an infinite amount of um universes.
Now, physicists love infinity. Computer
scientists don't like infinity. We're
always looking at, you know, this
algorithm is on this order of resources
are required. And so, we're always
looking at ways to optimize. And nature
has shown that in general it finds the
most efficient way to do something. And
I think that's true across many of the
different sciences. Now in a simulated
multiverse, you've redefined what it
means to spin off a new universe. In
fact, it's very easy to take a universe
as it is now and then to create a copy
of the data or information of that
universe and spin off a new universe.
And so that universe is only alive while
the computation is running. So the idea
is that this these universes might only
exist while they're needed for the
computation. And so when we run
simulations, what do we do? We run with
a certain set of variables and then we
rewind and we run it again with another
set of variables. Right? So in essence
we try out the different possibilities
and we see which of those is likely to
lead us to let's say you know what is
the likely result what is the most
favorable outcome. So if those universes
aren't necessarily alive forever if
those universes are alive only as
they're needed in order to do whatever
computation the universe is doing. It
could be that the other uh the other
universe is paused. It could mean that
it's running again. So, you get into
this interesting notion of what does it
mean for these other universes
to be physical universes? If our
universe is not physical to begin with,
then that starts to make more sense. I
think when when you say then that starts
to make more sense, what's that? That
the universe must be simulated. Our
universe must be simulated. doesn't mean
there isn't a physical one outside of
the simulation. Otherwise, this weird
behavior that we get in quantum
mechanics, I mean, there's almost no
good explanation for for why that would
occur. So, let's go back to the the
Copenhagen interpretation. I said
there's a probability wave and then that
goes down to one collapses to one
probability. What does that mean
actually? And so there was a physicist
uh from Oregon I think University of
Oregon uh named Amit Gowami and he said
something once that that really struck
me and he said look it's not really a
probability wave because h how would you
know what the probability is of this
happening versus that happening unless
you had run something multiple times
like if you look at where probability
comes from the idea goes back to some
French mathematician
uh who was asked to help somebody who
was betting money on the roll of the
dice. And so he said, "Look, if you have
a dice, a dieice, a single dice,
you can roll it and there are six
possible futures in a standard dice."
And so the probability of each of those
futures would be one out of six in this
case. But how would you know that if you
haven't actually run it multiple times?
So probability by itself implies that
there is some amount of repetition going
on from which you can make the
conclusion that this is a probability
that begins to look like a simulated
multiverse. It ends up being a universe
that runs again and again. Uh and it
tries out each possibility. You know
let's take Schrodinger's cat. So for uh
people that know it, you're going to get
this there. There's a part of the story
where there's like a radioactive isotope
that has the a 50% chance of uh decaying
and as it decays then it triggers the
poison that kills the cat 50% chance of
not. Okay. If I'm programming that in a
video game I have to decide what the
odds are so that when the box is opened
a calculation happens that goes this
time alive or dead. Now as a game
developer the reason that you do that is
you want the game to feel dynamic. You
don't want it to be on rails. So when
you look at like procedural generation,
you realize I can make this game a lot
more interesting for the player if it's
a rules-based game. A lot of this mental
model began developing for me when I
played Minecraft. Minecraft is a
deceptively brilliant game because it's
just a set of rules. And so each biome
has a different set of rules which makes
the biome react differently which makes
different things happen different times
of day, different amounts of light. And
once you know those rules, then you can
predict everything that's going to
happen in the game. But if you make the
rules sufficiently uh simple but
complex, then what emerges is stable,
learnable, but very diverse and capable
of surprise. And so it's like, oh, as a
game developer, that's that's my goal.
Now, if I'm a from our perspective, a
godlike game developer, then I'm going
to be putting probabilities across
as many things as I can. And as a game
designer, you want a stable, predictable
game, but you want it to be based on
rules enough that take for instance, if
I wanted right now, I could go
absolutely crazy. I could smash my
computer. or I could break this table
and it has been programmed into the
matrix the way that pressure applied to
these specific materials will break and
shatter and move. And so the first thing
you learn when you're developing a game
is, oh my god, I have to tell every
pixel how to act. And so if you have
like as a filmmaker, nature takes care
of the physics engine. So clothes move
the way you expect, grass moves the way
you expect, wind happens the way you
expect, it's all there. In a game,
you've got to tell the fabric how to
move. You've got to tell wind what to
do. Hair how to react to wind. Hair how
to react to a hand. This is why you get
crazy things like clipping. And so if
I'm developing that game and my game is
dope in the way that real life is, it's
like everything has tailored
probabilities that you apply pressure in
this way and it's likely to break like
that. And I had a physicist once explain
to me, Tom, uh, I can explain quantum
physics to you in a single sentence. The
universe you see is simply the most
probable university universe. And I was
like, ah, it's actually a really
interesting way to see it. He said there
is if there are infinite universes,
there is a universe in which you go to
sit down in your chair and you just fall
right through it because all of your the
gaps in your space cuz when you zoom in
enough we're all basically just empty
space line up perfectly with the gaps in
the chair because it's also at a
microscopic level just empty space and
so you fall through it. He's like that's
just not very probable so it doesn't
happen. So, going back to game
development, you've got this setup where
um everything's just been pre-programmed
so that no matter what might happen,
it's already been accounted for. And so
now the game isn't forced to be on
rails. You get all of this surprise. And
but the rules ultimately are knowable.
And that feels like what physicists are
trying to do is I'm an NPC inside the
game and I'm trying to figure out how am
I and the the game that I'm inside of
how are they programmed? And once you
understand the rules, then you can do
things like nuclear energy because you
actually understand how this stuff is
programmed, structured, however you want
to think about it. But it the more that
you can go deeper into this probability
set, deeper into the rules of a given
biome,
uh all of a sudden you can do things. I
want to just follow up on what you said.
So if this universe has been fine-tuned,
yep, with a set of probabilities that
allow us to do certain things. So
there's something called the anthropic
principle. And what the enthropic
principle says is that the numbers in
this universe seem like they're
fine-tuned in such a way that we can
have planets, we can have galaxies like
the gravitational constant. And there's
a whole bunch there's a whole list if
you look up the anthropic principle
there's a list of constants that are
found in physics such that if they were
off by even like 1%
that the planets would fall apart. they
would fly apart, the galaxies wouldn't
hold, uh, and that the universe would
not be teamed for life. But yet, our
universe somehow seems like it's
fine-tuned. And so, there really isn't a
good explanation for that. And the the
only explanations that we can come up
with are one that it was intelligently
designed this way and there may be more
that we haven't discovered yet or that
there have been multiple universes and
those universes couldn't support life.
So perhaps there's no reason to have
those universes continue. And the one
that we're in out of this multiverse is
the one that has been fine-tuned for
these types of things. So in computer
science, you know what we'll do or just
think of like an old chess game, right?
And so when you're playing against the
computer, what does the computer do? It
would try to project forward each move
so many number of moves and then it
would say, okay, this is the best one to
take. But it's already tried out these
other moves and then what's your
possible response to that? So it's
possible that the simulation can run
multiple times until it finds uh a
universe or a set of constants that
actually would support this. So those
are the two possible explanations for
the anthropic principle. Is there a
physical world somewhere? So I I am
writing a story that our video game is
set inside of. So the game's called
Project Kaizen. Inside the game, there's
a character who basically goes crazy by
asking a question which is where is the
array? the array is our name for the
server basically that we have to be
running on. Okay, where is that server?
Because that means that there's a world
beyond the world that you're trapped
inside of, right? And so whenever I hear
people talk about this, you're always
just pushing the miracle essentially of
a first mover farther away. That's true.
Because then you're just going to ask,
well, how the hell does that universe
exist? But so let's just say that
instead of driving ourselves crazy with
where this is, do you believe that there
is a material world somewhere, I believe
there is an outside the simulation and I
think because of the way that the
physical world works. So getting back to
what we talked about a little while ago
where you said um you know this table is
all 99% empty space and if you were to
go down you would find that the the
molecules mostly empty space the atoms
you got the electrons but it's mostly
empty space and if you keep going down
you know John Wheeler the physicist I
mentioned at Princeton got down and said
well at the bottom level all that's
there is an answer to a series of yes no
questions and those are basically bits
right that's what a bit is it's a zero
or a one, a yes or a no. And so what he
said was he came up with this phrase it
from bit to suggest that anything that
looks physical to us is actually just
built of information. But somehow that
information has to get rendered in a way
that it looks physical to us and that it
feels physical to us. And so, you know,
my interpretation of that is that that
means that there is another layer to
reality uh where all of this information
exists, but while we're inside, that's
where the rendering occurs. And and it
turns out most physicists will not argue
with that first premise that the world
is built of information. So, I met a
Nobel Prize winning physicist at the
University of Cambridge last year and
he's like, "Okay, tell me about the
simulation hypothesis." And I said,
'Well, it starts with the idea that the
world is information. And he said,
'Okay, that's not controversial anymore
in physics. It used to be. I mean, go
back 50 years and tell them the world is
information. They'd say, "You're nuts.
The world is obviously physical. We know
it's physical because, you know, going
back to uh uh, you know, the Burke,
Bishop Berkeley was arguing with this
guy who was it Dr. Johnson, I think, and
Berkeley thought the whole universe
exists in his mind." And what Dr.
Johnson was kicked a rock and said there
I just proved you know that it's real by
kicking the rock. That said if you're in
a video game you kick a rock and if the
physics engine is well done then it you
know your foot won't go through the
rock. Uh so simply saying that there's
something physical there isn't enough to
say that it's not built on information
because that's the particular
arrangement of information. So this
second part of how does that information
get rendered to look like a physical
world and feel like a physical world is
where you know we don't have physics
doesn't have an answer for that. Uh
neuroscience thinks they might have an
answer for that but I think the
simulation hypothesis provides an
interesting answer for that which is
that it gets rendered as part of the
computation and we are able to see only
snippets of that information. They get
presented to us in certain ways. This is
where I think the conversation gets more
mystical at this point because we don't
have the answers necessarily. But you
can look at all the various religious
traditions and they always use the
metaphor of the dream that the world is
like a dream world and that you wake up
from this dream and you realize it
wasn't a real world but I thought that
it was real. And and so you get into
this this uh metaphysical type of
conversation in the Hindu traditions for
example they have that the whole world
is a dream of the god Vishnu and then
when he wakes up the whole world gets
destroyed and when he goes back to sleep
the whole world gets conceived again and
then you have this idea that the world
is maya or an illusion within the Hindu
scriptures and you find the same terms
being used within say the Islamic
scriptures where they say the world is
an enjoyable able delusion and they use
a very specific term for that which is
elguri matau in Arabic and what that
means is not just it's an illusion but
it's an enjoyable delusion that what
does that remind me of it reminds me of
a video game or a type of game uh and in
fact in the western religious traditions
you have this idea of the here and the
hereafter and we're told there are these
uh angels that are recording everything
we do and then we have to like review
all of that in the book of life For in
Islam, it's called the scroll of deed.
So you can go to pretty much any
mystical tradition and you'll find that
they're telling us that there's
something more that can be perceived.
And this is an ongoing debate in
physics. I mean you go back to Max Plank
who said consciousness is fundamental.
The material is derivative. Today's
material model is that the physical
world is real. Consciousness is derived
from the physical model. So the neurons
are there and the neurons result in
consciousness as an emerging property.
So, it's it's sort of an ongoing debate
and it we end up in metaphysical
territory, I guess, is what I'm saying
when we go down that debate. Is the
pursuit of answering this question
meaningful in any way? Well, I think it
is, but again, it gets back to this
issue of whether we're NPCs in a video
game or we're not. So, if you think back
to Pascal, one is meaningful, one is not
meaningful. One is more meaningful, I
guess I would say. What does Pascal tell
us? So what Pascal said was,
I can wager there is a god or there
isn't a god. Meaning basically in the
western traditions, if you're good, you
end up in going to heaven. If you're
bad, you end up going to hell. And he
said, if I act like there's there's a
god
and there is a god and I've acted well,
well then I'm golden because then I get
to go to heaven. He said, on the other
hand, if I act like there is a god but
there is no god, meaning there's no
afterlife, then it doesn't really
matter, right? Either way, whether at
that point it doesn't matter whether you
acted good or bad, but if you acted
good, then you know, insurance policy.
Let's say you're at zero. Yeah. It's
like an insurance policy. On the other
hand, if you act badly in the way that
you could end up in in hell if there is
a god, you think of it as minus one
million points. So, I drew this out like
a video game, right? If you go to
heaven, it's plus one million points. If
you go to hell, it's minus a million
points. uh and if you act badly and
there's no god then it doesn't m then it
doesn't matter but but it actually does
matter. So he says it's better to just
pretend like there is a god whether
there is or not as an insurance policy.
Uh and so this one philosopher used the
same argument to say well we should not
try to find out if we're in a simulation
and he said because if we do then the
simulators might shut us down right so
if we try to find out if we're in a
simulation and we are actually in a
simulation the simulators might shut us
down and if we try to find out we're in
simulation and we're not in a simulation
then it may not matter. Um, but on the
other hand, if we don't try to find out
if we're in a simulation and we're in a
sim, then the sim keeps running, uh,
because that may be part of the reason
for the simulation. Um, and then in the
other case, it doesn't matter. So, it's
the same kind of four quadrants that you
come up with, right? And and I don't
necessarily agree with that, but we
don't know what the purpose of the
simulation is. Perhaps the purpose of
the simulation is to see if we will get
off the planet, if we will destroy the
planet, uh, if we will build
intergalactic species. Perhaps there are
other people on other planets to see if
we are able to connect with each other.
Uh or but we might ruin the experiment
in that version if we happen to know
we're in a simulation or the purpose
might be to see you know how long does
it take us to finally figure it out and
how many times do they have to run this
simulation like what things need to
happen for them to get to that point.
And so now we get into this the
metaphysical version where if you look
at the religious traditions you have
this idea of a soul and then you have a
body and the soul goes into the body.
And in fact they end up using such
similar language or terminology or
metaphors for how that very mysterious
process works. They end up saying the
soul clothes itself in the body just
like your body puts on clothes. So
they're using a metaphor of putting on
clothes. So you can kind of understand
how that works. Now in the Eastern
traditions they say you go in, you put
on a certain character, you come out,
you go back in and you play a different
character along the way. In the Western
traditions or the Abrahamic religions,
right, you might say that we just uh put
do it once and and then we're in heaven
or hell afterwards. But but it's the
same idea. Either way, we're saying that
we have put ourselves into this game for
a reason, into this false delusionary
world uh that we are uh in. And how do
how do we determine, you know, what
happens in a video game? Usually, we
give the characters an outline um for
the game. So, you choose a character,
right? Like when I was young, we used to
have Dungeons and Dragons and we used to
have the character sheet, which almost
all modern role playing games are based
on that idea. and we would choose the
race, we would choose the background, we
would choose the likely profession or
the profession of that character. We
might roll some dice and we would get
different attributes. Uh so there's an
element of randomness in that. But then
you also have a story line that you're
trying to fulfill in say a campaign for
example. And then we have a bunch of
quests or achievements along the way in
modern video games, right? We'll be back
to the show in a moment, but first,
let's talk about why splitting a dinner
bill should never be complicated. When
you need to pay someone back for coffee
or to split an Uber, it should happen
instantly. Not in three business days,
not after confirming your routing number
for the fifth time. Right now, Cash App
makes money moves simple. Fast sign up,
instant transfers, no bouncing between
multiple screens, no wondering why your
transfer is still pending, no awkward
follow-up texts asking if someone got
your money. While other apps make you
wait and wonder, Cash App just works.
The tools are right there to help you
cash in. Send money, receive money,
done. For a limited time, new Cash App
users can use our exclusive code to earn
some additional cash. Download Cash App
and sign up. Use our exclusive referral
code impact in your profile. Send $5 to
a friend within 14 days and you'll get
$10 dropped right into your account.
Terms apply. That's money. That's cash
app. This is a paid advertisement. And
now let's get back to the show. Do you
leverage this? Like if you're going
through a rough patch and you just start
thinking to yourself, okay, hold on. The
right orienting mechanism here is to
assume that I'm playing an RPG. I have
chosen this character, so let me make
the most of my time. Exactly. I think
you're seeing exactly where I'm going
with this. Is that in that case, when
you have difficulties
in the game, I mean, in a video game,
you don't necessarily give up when you
have a difficulty, you go and you keep
trying to to work that specific
challenge again and again. And you might
have a a tree of quests or achievements
that you're trying to achieve. And some
of them may not be unlocked until after
you're able to, you know, achieve the
first few in the tree and then that
unlocks other parts of the tree. And
some of them you do in conjunction with
other people, right? You might say,
"This is a multiplayer quest." Uh, and
you might say, "Okay, we're going to
meet at such and such a time in front of
the castle and we're going to go on this
raid or, you know, whatever the case may
be." Um, and so you have this kind of
weird purposefulness to it. But the
grandfather of the video game industry,
we'll talk since we're talking about
video games a lot was uh Nolan Bushnell
who started Atari. Actually got to meet
him once. It was really interesting.
Really fun guy. Got to know his son
Brent Bushnell who runs a kind of a
amusement park type. Yeah. Randomly I've
met them both. Yeah. Yeah. Because
they're here in LA as well. Um, and so,
you know, there was a rule back at Atari
and they said, "Make the game easy to
play but difficult to master." Uh, and
so it's important that there be some
difficulty in the game to make it
interesting because otherwise what'll
happen, you'll stop playing the game and
you play it once, it's it's easy to
master and then you'll say, "Okay, I'm
done with that. I want to go on to the
next one." On the other hand, if it's
too difficult, you then you might
abandon the game prematurely. And so,
you need to make it difficult enough for
the player. So when we encounter
difficulties in our lives, we can think
of them as ramping up the difficulty
levels uh for a particular challenge or
a particular quest that we're on as part
of our storyline. And so again, now
we're now we're in metaphysical
territory. So what I'm hearing you say
is uh life is challenging, but there's
this really powerful metaphor that all
through history people use the modern
technology to explain the human
experience. I'm no different. That's
just how I look at this thing is through
that lens.
Um, yep. I come at it from a very
different angle, which is I've had the
very startling experience of thinking
that it was just a metaphor to then
building a video game and seeing all
these parallels to then the Nobel Prize
gets handed out for people who, and I'm
going to butcher this, but I really want
people to at least have the vague
understanding that I have of of the um
the quantum entanglement that you were
talking about that they won the Nobel
Prize for. Let me kind of explain that
part. If we have light that's coming
from say a quazar or some big object
that's really far away like a billion
lighty years away and then that is
coming to earth it's going to take how
long? billion years, right? It's billion
lighty years away. Uh the light is going
to take a billion years. And then
there's something in the middle between
the quazar and us. Let's say a black
hole or a galaxy or something that's a
gravitationally large object. Then the
light has to go to the left or to the
right of that object before it comes
here. And we can measure
uh the polarity of the light, let's say,
and and to figure out which way it went.
So this is kind of like the equivalent
of two slits. It just happens to be
going around an object and suppose that
object that black hole is a million
lighty years away from us. Okay. So when
would the decision of whether to go left
or right
happen? Now common sense in a material
universe where time you know is linear
that decision would have been made a
million years ago. So before humans were
really around on the planet and
certainly before we had any recorded
history. um maybe after the dinosaurs uh
but it was long enough ago that you know
it's it's in the distant past and so
that decision about which way the light
went is not made until the measurement
occurs of the light today on earth. So
if we have these two telescopes that
that can figure out which way it went
left or right it's when we do the
measurement that choice is made. That
means today we are somehow influencing
the past. Uh because that decision
should have been made a million years
ago. The past isn't real. This is
exactly. And so the past isn't real. And
so I'm not saying that it's only a
metaphor. Uh I'm saying that that shows
us that the past doesn't really exist in
a single format in the way we think it
does. Correct. Rather it gets filled in
like in a video game or like in a Philip
K. dick story where they have false
memories. So it gets the false memories
sub is where you and I are going to
start disagreeing. Yeah. So let's first
lay the track down because if we can
like people at home should be spitting
their coffee out being like what the how
is that possible? Uh the reason that the
more I develop video games, the more I
become absolutely convinced that we are
living in a simulation is because that
is exactly how you would have to develop
a video game. There is no such thing as
the past. What you say is there is a
roll of the dice, a calculation that you
were going to run at the time that you
have to render that thing and you're
going to say, "Oh, now that light is
going to hit here, but I need to
understand like reflections and all
that." So when the player looks at it,
I'm going to go, "Oh, what are the
probabilities that it's going to look
like this?" Okay, cool. It runs all
these calculations. I decided the
mathematics ahead of time, but I don't
run the calculation until I need to look
at it. So yes, theoretically, there is a
quazar way out there. And yes, because I
know that that quazar is programmed. I
know that there is a probability that
I'm going to see the light when I look
at this thing and it's going to be
reflecting in this way, all that. But
I'm not going to actually do the math
until I need to for the player. So sure,
by the programming it left a million
years ago, and I need to know that from
the perspective of how I run the
calculation, but I'm not actually gonna
run the calculation till I look at it.
What got me thinking about that? So, I'm
playing Minecraft in my 40s and I'm
like, "Oh my god, this game is
unbelievably brilliant." But the thing
that traumatizes me is that when I walk
away from the game, the game stops. Y
and I was like, but what if you could
take the server clock and have it keep
ticking even when you're not there?
Right. And I was like, what if I could
set up a set of rules that instead of
growing uh crops of wheat that my
civilization keeps advancing and that I
could walk away from the computer for a
year and I could come back and whatever
server tick I assign, let's say I assign
every server tick is 50 minutes in the
real world, but it accounts to a week or
a year or whatever inside the game. And
there's a certain set of rules, constant
dice being rolled. Now, I don't roll the
dice until the player comes back to the
game and says, "I want to go to that
place." And as you the way that I was
going to do it is as you get
successively closer, I start running
more and more of the mathematics. And so
then as you like get fully to the thing,
you realize, oh my god, there's like a
space station here. This is crazy. When
I left, there was just a bunch of
monkeys. But I've got the rule set. I've
got the mathematics. I've got the server
ticks. And so we're just clocking. It's
in a database. I say, "Last time you
were here was this. there are this many
server ticks between when you come back,
you're this many blocks from seeing that
so I know to start running certain
amounts of the math so that you don't
have like some drastic load time as you
get there. And I was like, this is the
actual universe. I was like, "Oh my god,
if you just set up all these rules,
you've got evolution, you've got time,
which none of it's real." Yep. In terms
of a material way. Yes. But because we
have all of us NPCs or whatever we are
constantly doing the measurements, we're
constantly forcing it to run the
mathematics, right? And so you have this
perception of a persistent world that
until you start pushing and pushing and
pushing and pushing in, it just seem
it's all solid. It all works and
everything. But the reason that I'm
obsessed with it is I realize is if you
become aware of how the simulation
works, you essentially become a
superhero. And that's why physicists
have given us our entire modern world
more than people even realize from GPS
to nuclear power is they understand, oh,
you can actually go and split the atom.
It's not easy, but you can do it because
I understand the fundamental rules of,
in my opinion, the simulation. And so
it's like yo there are real
consequences. There are real
consequences by understanding the forget
whether it's actually a simulation or
not. By understanding the rules of this
thing which happen to seem to point to
it's a simulation. Uh you can do things.
Yeah. Although often we understand the
rules only a little bit. I think for
sure we could be sometimes we don't take
into account, you know, what might
happen if we start manipulating, you
know, these rules without knowing all of
the rules of the simulation. And of
course, so you're worried that we'll go
off halfcocked because you said that
this could be the simulation to find out
if we destroy ourselves, right? Exactly.
that could be part of the simulation.
But I I think this this idea that the
past gets filled in as necessary
whenever there are players or whenever
there are NPCs, depending on how you
look at it, I is quite fascinating. And
I think the crops example is a good one,
right? Because you might say there's a
50% chance that you have a locust, a
storm, a swarm of locusts. Yes. Right.
But when it's not till you log in and
you run the game again that you find
out. So it literally hasn't happened. So
there are two possible pasts there.
There's the past where your crops just
continue to grow and now you know you're
and to your point there's so many things
that we'll we'll get an answer to when
we run the mathematics when you log back
into the system and you start moving
back towards that village or whatever
then it's going to be like okay well
there was this many years uh storms
happen at this rate. The likelihood of a
flood is this. The likelihood of raiders
coming by your village. the likelihood
that your th roof catches on fire like
you just have all like all this stuff
all these crazy things. Now it turns out
in quantum mechanics based upon what we
were talking about earlier the delayed
choice experiment that is true as well
that there are all these probabilities
of things that happened but it's not
until somebody observes them that all
this entire history including the
dinosaurs being here and they left us
fossils all of these types of things.
Now, at first I thought, okay, this
can't really be the case. I mean, is
that what really what quantum mechanics
is telling us? Most physicists would
tell you there's no such thing as
retrocausality,
meaning that we can't change the past.
But that there is an exception to that
and that is this delay choice
experiment. And so I started looking
around at some of the original quantum
mechanics pioneers and founders of the
field and Schroinger himself had a very
obscure quote all the way back in the
1940s. So even before the whole
multiverse idea, you know, they were
still struggling with this Copenhagen
interpretation. He said every time we
make a choice or we observe or we
collapse the probability wave, we are
choosing from one of multiple
simultaneous histories, right? That's a
very weird choice of words. Why
choosing? It's it's a very weird choice
because physicists would tell us we
can't change the past. And that's what
it seems like once we've chosen a past,
right? It's it's as if it's all been
fixed. So they'll say you're not
changing the past. Do you agree with the
use of the word shoes? I I do because
I'm of the opinion that the observer
effect requires an observer, right? That
it's not just the NPCs
now run the mathematics. It doesn't say
uh that okay, go left instead of right
around the galaxy or the black hole.
That seems like an odd way to think
through this problem. And this is going
to matter as you and I begin debating
whether there's life after death, right?
But the observer does determine say what
they do next right so if you think of it
as a series of choices over a long term
do you think we have free will I believe
we do but you can't account for it
inside the system in the same way how
could we have free will because you in
order to have true free will so
physicists define free will simply as
randomness quantum randomness so that's
not free will that's random right that
that's there that I'm saying from a
materialist point of view that's the
only approach where we could have free
will is if it's random but it's not it's
still not free will in my opinion right
and and I kind of agree with you there
uh but in order to have free will you
have to have a set of choices and then
you have to have someone outside the
system who's free to make those choices
to have free will you'd have to have
choices that I mean quite frankly uh you
couldn't be bound by physics because the
second you're bound by physics now I'm
like okay I have a bounded option set
and then it becomes well what is helping
me process whether I choose left or
right. And then all of a sudden you'll
get down to, oh yeah, I'm running a
program. My brain is made of certain
material. Even if it's made of certain
material inside the simulation, right?
It still runs and processes data in a
certain way. And if it processes data in
a certain way, I don't have free will,
right? But then the question becomes how
are those rules defined? And also like a
good example, I think it was David
Deutsch who uh or Seth Lloyd, these are
like two pioneers in quantum computing.
I'm forgetting which one had used this
example, but it was a good one. They
said that, you know, running physics
rules
can get you to know how materials
interact with each other and chemistry
can combine, etc. But it doesn't tell
you why there's a bunch of brass that's
a statue of, you know, Admiral Nelson in
the middle of London, right? So there's
some there's some ability because if
you're just running rules, why would you
end up with that unless there is some
set of goals or or some uh you know some
set of uh
people programs that are choosing that
specific goal in and of itself. So, so I
think you can set up a pretty simple set
of rules around
uh evolution is going to get you there
because nature is deceptively simple
from a survival standpoint that is just
motivating you to have kids to have kids
but then you're trying to get this one
animal has gone down a path of
cooperation. And so then you realize
there are going to be certain mechanisms
in the brain that you have to plan for
cooperation. We'll shorthand it to
religion. So you have to create a sense
of awe that there's something that
people kneel before. because they're
willing to kneel before it. They're
willing to gather in large groups
because we all kneel before the same
thing. And all of a sudden, you realize,
oh, this is literally nature going, I
only have two levers, pleasure and pain,
and I've got to find ways to get these
guys to have sex and protect. I mean,
it's one of the options. Th this is one
where um we probably have to be careful
to stay in base assumptions. My base
assumption is that we operate on a
finite set of rules. Y and those rules
run on a computational device of some
kind. The computational device has a
nature meaning that there are I'll say
circuits who knows what it actually
does. But like electricity can only
travel in so many paths on a circuit.
And to your point, if this is bits of
information, it's either on or off. So
like once you boil it down to its
simplest, we're a very complex automata.
But I don't see any way that we're not
automat right. But if you think of
automata and how they work, let's look
at AI today. Yeah. So for example, LLMs
are based on essentially a very simple
architecture at the at the bottom level.
Uh but they get incredibly complex when
you start talking about layers of neural
networks. But I mean even back when I
was studying computer science back in
the day, they you know we had this idea
of taking a neuron and a neural net type
approach. even back in the 90s where
they were using this approach where the
neuron fires or doesn't fire after a
certain period of time. But if you look
at AI, most of the AI in what I like to
call wave 1 AI was a rulesbased AI. So
it was more about expert systems and
defining rules and how to do things. And
then they realized, oh, we have to use a
bunch of different data. Uh, and so
today's AI is more based on machine
learning algorithms, deep learning, all
of this stuff. And it's based more on
neural networks. So it's more based on
You don't think neural networks operate
on rules? They do, but they operate on
on very small rules, very simple rules.
Yes. But it's not always predictable at
a high level. What even today we have
hallucinations, right? Because of those
rules. But it's is it the level of
complexity or the pre-programmed set of
probabilities?
Because to me and maybe where we're
disconnecting, I have the base
assumption that uh probability does not
equal free will. Randomness does not
equal free will. So then what does equal
free will? There is no free will. So
free will would be that you're not using
a processing device that has a nature.
And this is why to me, do you know
Phineas Gage? No, I don't. To me, this
story just literally shuts the argument
down. People always push back. I find it
crazy, but uh Phineas Gage, real person,
he was working on a railroad, hit a
tamping rod, and it misfired. It shot a
three foot metal rod that was about that
big around up through his cheek and out
the top of his head. He lost a tups
worth of brain matter. Never lost
consciousness, but was never the same
again. Now, the reason I would say it
was never the same again is that even if
we're in a simulation, the simulation
has a set of rules that go all the way
down to the cellular level. How cells
combine and we pull in mitochondria and
all that through a process of evolution.
It's like you just set those rules and
they go. So any you get to the point
where this NPC processes data through
again it's all it's all uh synthetic in
the sense that it's a simulation but
there cells are used in this incredibly
complicated MPC in his brain the brain
has physics so it respond to traumatic
force and all that has an inflammation
response and all that and so if in the
game you cause that trauma then it's
going to alter the way that that NPC
processes data And so I'm just saying
whether I'm an avatar somewhere else
like um matrix style logging into this
body, I'm still now processing data
through this body. I have lost sight
that there is anything else. My base
assumption is that there is nothing
else. Everything is a simulation on this
level. Yeah. And there's just a set of
rules and the set of rules gives birth
to what we call biology. And if you
disrupt that biology, there are
consequences.
Right. And so, so you know, you lean
towards the NPC version and that means
I'm locked inside my biology. That's my
punch line. And if I'm locked inside my
biology, I don't have free will. But if
you're in a video game, you know, I have
these rules of what will happen if I do
X, right? Because that the rules define
the game. But as the player of the game,
I still choose whether to do it's like
those old choose your own adventure
games or in in a game. I still choose
whether to take this quest or that
quest. Think about computer programming
for real. If you want something to
happen randomly, you have to assign a
random number generator and it literally
rolls the dice and says, "Okay, you do
option 32." It's not by my definition, I
would not consider that free will. Do
you consider that free will? I don't
consider it free will, but I consider it
uh free will. The only way to have true
free will is to step outside the system
and have somebody make the choice
whether to do that thing or not. outside
of any system that guides your behavior.
And I'm saying biology guides your
behavior. Not necessarily. I mean, that
hasn't been established yet. You know,
hasn't it? I don't think so. I just told
you the Phineas Gage story going. It's
still in No. And I'm not saying that,
but what I am saying is that there is
still debate about whether consciousness
survives, for example, death. Right now,
we're back at Yes. This is this is
exactly what I want to argue about. So,
first of all, I want to I want to I want
to say my fundamental belief in life is
nobody knows anything, least of all me.
So, while I'm going to myself, you seem
pretty sure 100%. And I think that's the
only wise I have strong convictions
loosely held. So, I know I'm wrong about
something. We may not even be in a
simulation. I could be wrong that
foundationally. I'm super open to that.
I love this stuff so much. Uh but I I I
can't follow anyone's train of logic
that is saying that we have free will.
We can talk pansychism where we're like
uh an ant a radio with an antenna that
receives consciousness. Like we can talk
about it however anybody wants and I
still don't see how we ever end up with
anything other than we're we're a
processing plant that follows a set of
rules and that to me isn't free will.
And I don't know that maybe the audience
doesn't a care and we don't bog down in
free will, but uh to plant a flag so I
can track your base assumptions. You
believe we have free will. Well, the
reason I wrote this book, interestingly
enough, is because
I think that the simulation hypothesis
provides a common language between those
who believe we have free will and those
who believe we don't have free free
will. because there is this spectrum,
right? In the NPC version, I agree, we
don't have free will because it's just a
set of rules. In the video game version,
the player has some amount of free will.
So, for example, I might choose as my
player, you know, to go on this
particular quest to uh, you know, go
fight the Goblin King. Now if I as a
player never decide to go down that path
then that specific set of circumstances
never happens. So you still have this
opportunity to choose. And that's where
I think in the religious side there's
this idea that consciousness exists
beyond the body. And in the materialist
world there's this idea that it is just
physical and that's all it's based off
of is just simple biology. Right? And so
what's interesting to me about the
simulation hypothesis is that it could
actually accommodate both of those. If
we're inside a simulation, you can have
all of the rules of the game uh that are
there. All of the quantum physics starts
to make at least more sense, right?
We're not 100% there. And you know, I've
talked, as you mentioned, about how we
tend to use the latest technological
metaphors. Uh, I believe we're in a
simulation, but I don't believe we're in
a simulation on a simple computer like
the computers we have or like my iPhone
computer, those processes, right? I
believe it tends to be more like a
quantum computer, which is a new type of
computer that can accommodate things
like superp position, etc. But I believe
that the video game metaphor is a way
for those who believe we have free will
to think about a physical world uh and
yet to try to ground that in some level
of of of a technoscientific basis if you
will. Do you believe that we have a
soul? I believe that our player is the
soul. Yeah. I mean I tend to believe
that more really fast and we'll come
back to the the simulation for a second.
Does the player outside the game have a
soul? Player outside the game may be the
soul. I don't take a strong position on
that. Or the player outside the game may
be just a soul. The player o