Speaker 1: This is Red Pilled America. This week America lost its
Speaker 1: Internet Dad, Scott Adams. The news was not a shock
Speaker 1: to any of us, because, just as he lived his life,
Speaker 1: Scott generously gave us the opportunity to prepare for his
Speaker 1: departure and say our goodbyes at Red Pilled America. We
Speaker 1: did that by producing a four part series on his
Speaker 1: life entitled The Internet Dad, which you can listen to
Speaker 1: on any audio podcast platform. What we learned from our
Speaker 1: interactions with him was that Scott Adams was an incredibly
Speaker 1: generous man. When we reached out to him about being
Speaker 1: on the show in early twenty twenty, he could have
Speaker 1: just ignored the message. We were a small, little anomaly
Speaker 1: of a podcast with not much history at the time,
Speaker 1: but instead of ignoring our message, he took the time
Speaker 1: to speak with us, time that we would later learn
Speaker 1: was precious. While the result was magical, our conversation led
Speaker 1: to this episode, Let There Be Light, which we first
Speaker 1: published on May ninth, twenty twenty. It would go on
Speaker 1: to become far and away our most popular episode, and
Speaker 1: to our pleasant surprise, it inspired Scott to create one
Speaker 1: of his most influential streams of all time. Which he
Speaker 1: opened with a message about this episode.
Speaker 2: So something happened today that was a very big deal
Speaker 2: in my life because it opened the door for me
Speaker 2: to tell you the next thing I'm going to tell you,
Speaker 2: and it was that there was a podcast by Red
Speaker 2: Pilled America on iHeartRadio with Patrick Kurelshi I hope I'm
Speaker 2: saying that right, and is a co host Adriana Cortez.
Speaker 2: You should listen to. This podcast is one of the
Speaker 2: best produced, written, directed, performed the thing I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is really high quality just as a production.
Speaker 2: So even if you the content didn't interest you, and
Speaker 2: believe me, it will. It's really interesting. The content is amazing.
Speaker 2: Part of it's about me, which is part of the story,
Speaker 2: but it's just really well done. So do yourself a
Speaker 2: favor and listen to it. It will be necessary probably
Speaker 2: for you to fully get this next part.
Speaker 1: Scott would go on to give his legendary stream the
Speaker 1: User Interface for Reality. To celebrate Scott's life, we thought
Speaker 1: we'd replay let There Be Light. It asked the question
Speaker 1: is science fiction bringing us closer to God? In it,
Speaker 1: we tell the story of the development of the simulation theory,
Speaker 1: a theory we believe played a role in leading Scott
Speaker 1: Adams to Jesus Christ. We already miss you, Scott, but
Speaker 1: we'll see you sometime soon. We promised to follow your
Speaker 1: mantra be useful. Now on with the show. Are we
Speaker 1: living in a virtual reality? It may sound far fetched,
Speaker 1: but this science fiction concept is seriously being considered by
Speaker 1: the world's biggest thinkers.
Speaker 3: This could be some simulation.
Speaker 1: It could do.
Speaker 4: You entertain that well.
Speaker 3: The argment for the simulation, I think is quite strong.
Speaker 5: Tonight's topic is the universe a computer simulation.
Speaker 1: The idea that we're living in a simulation is no
Speaker 1: longer just crazy talk, and the concept suggests something that
Speaker 1: makes most scientists uncomfortable. If we're living in a simulation,
Speaker 1: there must be a creator with this idea spreading It
Speaker 1: raises the question is science fiction bringing us closer to God?
Speaker 1: I'm Patrick Carelci.
Speaker 4: And I'm Adriana Cortes and this.
Speaker 1: Is Red Pilled America, a storytelling show.
Speaker 6: This is not.
Speaker 4: Another talk show covering the day's news. We're all about
Speaker 4: telling stories.
Speaker 1: Stories. Hollywood doesn't want you to hear stories.
Speaker 4: The media mocks stories about everyday Americans. At the globalist ignore.
Speaker 1: You can think of Red Pilled America as audio documentaries,
Speaker 1: and we promise only one thing, the truth. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Red Pilled America. One night in the early days of
Speaker 1: the quarantine, a thought popped into my head just as
Speaker 1: I was falling asleep. Is this real life? Have we
Speaker 1: really shut down the entire US economy? For a moment,
Speaker 1: as I laid there, I was convinced that I'd wake
Speaker 1: up the next morning and the entire quarantine mess would
Speaker 1: just be a bad dream. I think most of us
Speaker 1: have experienced this in their life, or something so unbelievable
Speaker 1: happens that you begin to question whether it's actually occurring.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's triggered by the death of a loved one,
Speaker 1: or when you're young and just becoming self aware, or
Speaker 1: maybe it's happened when you're in some kind of an
Speaker 1: altered state, like that kid who just got out of
Speaker 1: his dental surgery.
Speaker 4: Is its real life?
Speaker 7: Yeah, this is real life.
Speaker 1: At some point in life, we've all questioned reality. The
Speaker 1: surreal nature of the quarantine was one of those times,
Speaker 1: and it reminded me of a provocative concept that has
Speaker 1: been gaining steam throughout science circles for well over a decade,
Speaker 1: and that concept is the simulation argument, the idea that
Speaker 1: we are all not actually real life, flesh and blood
Speaker 1: human beings existing in a physical world, but instead we're
Speaker 1: living in a computer simulation like the matrix.
Speaker 5: Right now, we're inside a computer program.
Speaker 1: Is it really so hard to believe? The concept of
Speaker 1: living in a simulated reality may sound ridiculous to most,
Speaker 1: but it's occupied the minds of some of today's biggest thinkers,
Speaker 1: including tech mogul Elon Musk.
Speaker 8: How do you think we'll virtual reality tie in the
Speaker 8: future of the transportation which you've got working on, thank you.
Speaker 3: Oh maybe we're in a simulation right now?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, seriously, the popularity of this concept got me
Speaker 1: to thinking, can the simulation, this science fiction concept bring
Speaker 1: us closer to God. To find the answer, we're going
Speaker 1: to look at the origin of this fascinating idea and
Speaker 1: how our prediction by cartoonist Scott Adams would eventually help
Speaker 1: lead your humble code host back to God. Trust me
Speaker 1: when I say that you may not buy into this
Speaker 1: take on the world as a simulated reality, but you
Speaker 1: will undoubtedly see the profound shift it brings to the
Speaker 1: debate between science and faith, and the God fearing community
Speaker 1: could come out ahead.
Speaker 4: Scott Adams has a truly unique mind, as the creator
Speaker 4: of the Dilbert comic strip and the best selling author
Speaker 4: of Loser Think how untrained brains are ruining America. You
Speaker 4: may not have expected a cartoonist to be the kind
Speaker 4: of thinker that shifts the national narrative, but you'd be
Speaker 4: wrong in that assumption. For over three decades, Scott Adams
Speaker 4: has been impacting American culture in ways few can claim,
Speaker 4: whether through Dilbert, where he lampoons the absurdity of our
Speaker 4: American corporate overlords, or through his Morning and Show Coffee
Speaker 4: with Scott Adams, where he regularly picks apart media hoaxes.
Speaker 4: Scott Adams has a way of nailing predictions and riling
Speaker 4: up the masses all along the way. For people who've
Speaker 4: been following Scott, you may think that it was his
Speaker 4: analysis of Trump's historic presidential run that landed him in
Speaker 4: his biggest pickle, But it wasn't. It was actually a
Speaker 4: nineteen ninety seven prediction that seemed preposterous.
Speaker 2: I wrote the book The Dilbert Future that's Scott, and
Speaker 2: I tried to make a bunch of predictions that we
Speaker 2: could actually, you know, later test, and I intentionally picked
Speaker 2: what I thought was the most ridiculously impossible prediction. And
Speaker 2: then if you get that one right, you know you
Speaker 2: really got something the show. So I picked that the
Speaker 2: theory of evolution would be debunked in my lifetime.
Speaker 4: Now, at the time, Scott's Dilbert comic strip had already
Speaker 4: become wildly popular throughout mainstream America, but its core audience,
Speaker 4: the group that first adopt to Dilbert were techies, a
Speaker 4: naturally science heavy crowd.
Speaker 2: Now, imagine every scientist and biologist hearing that, Oh my god.
Speaker 2: You know, I was attacked for years, decades actually from
Speaker 2: people saying and the dumbest thing anybody ever said is
Speaker 2: this guy doesn't believe in evolution. Now they twisted that
Speaker 2: into I don't believe in evolution, which is not exactly
Speaker 2: what I was saying. I was making a prediction.
Speaker 4: His critics accused him of being a creationist and an
Speaker 4: apologist for intelligent design. He was neither, but that didn't
Speaker 4: stop the prediction from landing him in the crosshairs of
Speaker 4: the science world. Why would his readers be so triggered
Speaker 4: by Scott's prediction. Well, the best person to help answer
Speaker 4: that question is the man who has been the face
Speaker 4: of evolution for the past four decades, Richard Dawkins.
Speaker 9: I'm a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject,
Speaker 9: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in profess circles everywhere.
Speaker 9: It's of course, universally accepted.
Speaker 4: According to mister Dawkins, and pulls on this back him up.
Speaker 4: Those from the science, technology, engineering, mathematics, the STEM community
Speaker 4: overwhelmingly believe in evolution by natural selection, the theory popularized
Speaker 4: by Charles Darwin that all living things developed incrementally from
Speaker 4: a common ancestor. This explains why Dilbert's audience would disagree
Speaker 4: with Scott's evolution debunking prediction, but it doesn't totally get
Speaker 4: it why his detractors would react with such hostility. Well,
Speaker 4: the oracle of evolution can help illuminate that too. In
Speaker 4: a two thousand and two speech given it the Technology
Speaker 4: Entertainment Design Conference, or TED as it's widely known, mister
Speaker 4: Dawkins explained a core trait in evolution.
Speaker 9: But here I want to say something nice about creationist.
Speaker 9: It's not a thing I often do so listen carefully.
Speaker 9: I think they're right about one thing. I think they're
Speaker 9: right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion. I've already
Speaker 9: said that many individual evolutions, it's like the Pope, are
Speaker 9: also religious. But I think they're deluding themselves. I believe
Speaker 9: a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith.
Speaker 9: Now it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism,
Speaker 9: and I want to reassure you that that's not what
Speaker 9: I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as
Speaker 9: this one, that would be preaching to the choir. No,
Speaker 9: what I want to urge upon you. Instead, what I
Speaker 9: want to urge upon you is militant atheism. But that's
Speaker 9: putting it too negatively. If I was a person who
Speaker 9: were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very
Speaker 9: afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science. And it
Speaker 9: is science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and
Speaker 9: enthrall precisely because it is atheistic.
Speaker 4: Evolution is at its core atheistic, and its most vocal
Speaker 4: supporters are evolution zealots. Their belief in Darwin's theory is
Speaker 4: unshakable and perhaps more importantly, they roundly reject the idea
Speaker 4: of a creator. Mister Dawkins puts their position best.
Speaker 9: In practice, what is an atheist? An atheist is just
Speaker 9: somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian
Speaker 9: feels about Thaw or Baal or the Golden Calf. As
Speaker 9: has been said before, we are all atheists about most
Speaker 9: of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some
Speaker 9: of us just go one god further.
Speaker 4: However, an astonishing thing began happening shortly after Richard Dawkins
Speaker 4: gave his two thousand and two speech. Many influencers within
Speaker 4: the same techie crowd that mocked Scott Adams's prediction began
Speaker 4: to align with the concept that flips the theory of
Speaker 4: evolution on its head. The concept is known as the
Speaker 4: simulation argument, which argues that it's more likely than not
Speaker 4: that you are living in a virtual reality again Scott.
Speaker 2: Adams simulation theory for those who very few of you
Speaker 2: who haven't heard it, is the idea that our reality,
Speaker 2: as we experience it might be a computer type simulation
Speaker 2: designed by a higher level species, and we think we're real,
Speaker 2: but we're just created in a virtual reality kind of way,
Speaker 2: and we're just programs.
Speaker 4: Just imagine that someone wanted to create a computer simulation
Speaker 4: of the real world. They first designed virtual people seeing
Speaker 4: artificial intelligence that believe they're alive. The creator then places
Speaker 4: those virtual people in a computer model that is an
Speaker 4: exact replica of the physical world. This proposed simulated world
Speaker 4: would be so real that the virtual people within it
Speaker 4: believe they are in the real physical world. The simulated
Speaker 4: world follows the same laws of the physical world. Computers
Speaker 4: would just need to be powerful enough to perform the computations.
Speaker 2: So the theory comes out that if it will ever.
Speaker 4: Be possible to create a simulated world.
Speaker 2: It's obvious that it is possible already, then it will
Speaker 2: be done more than once, and it will probably be
Speaker 2: done lots of times.
Speaker 4: Some argue that once computers become powerful enough to make
Speaker 4: simulated world, a bunch will be made, perhaps a billion
Speaker 4: more simulated world than the one real, flesh and blood
Speaker 4: based reality world. We'll explain why that would happen later.
Speaker 2: So the thinking is that there will always be way
Speaker 2: more artificial worlds than there will ever be original worlds.
Speaker 4: And if that were the case, that there were a
Speaker 4: billion simulated worlds, each populated with seven billion virtual people
Speaker 4: that think they are alive, but then just one real
Speaker 4: physical world. It would be much more likely that you
Speaker 4: are actually living in a simulated world because there are
Speaker 4: just way more simulated world by a factor of a
Speaker 4: billion to one. If this is the first time you're
Speaker 4: hearing the simulation argument, I'm sure it sounds crazy, but
Speaker 4: stay with us here, because this science fiction concept is
Speaker 4: one that even God fearing Americans should understand. And why well,
Speaker 4: because the simulation argument is creating a shift in science
Speaker 4: and technology circles that can profoundly benefit people of faith.
Speaker 4: Humans have actually been contemplating the possibility that we exist
Speaker 4: in a simulated reality since at least the time of
Speaker 4: the classical Greeks ty four hundred years ago, when followers
Speaker 4: of Plato discussed it in the Academy in Athens. In
Speaker 4: the Allegory of the Cave, Plato describes a scenario where
Speaker 4: prisoners have been shackled in a cave since birth and
Speaker 4: are forced to only look forward at a wall with
Speaker 4: no knowledge of the outside world. They cannot move their
Speaker 4: heads to look to their sides or behind them. They
Speaker 4: can only look forward at the wall. A fire behind
Speaker 4: them gives off a faint light, and occasionally people walk
Speaker 4: by the fire with animals and various other objects, and
Speaker 4: their shadows are projected on the wall. The only thing
Speaker 4: the prisoners know are these shadows, and they give them names,
Speaker 4: thinking that they're seeing real entities. Then one prisoner is
Speaker 4: suddenly released and brought outside the cave for the first time.
Speaker 4: The sun hurts his eyes and he is confused by
Speaker 4: what he sees. All he's ever seen are shadows, not
Speaker 4: these strange color shaped things. When he's told that everything
Speaker 4: he sees is real and the shadows are just their reflection,
Speaker 4: he has a hard time believing it. His mind is
Speaker 4: still seeing the familiar shadows clearer than the actual objects.
Speaker 4: But over time, his eyes adjust and he begins to
Speaker 4: see the many objects around him and the sun, a
Speaker 4: source of light that also creates the shadows that he's
Speaker 4: witnessed his entire life. The prisoner returns to the cave
Speaker 4: to inform the others about the shadows and the truth
Speaker 4: behind their origin, but the prisoners violently resist his attempt
Speaker 4: to free them, thinking that his journey has made him
Speaker 4: lose his mind. Plato's Cave allegory suggests that what we
Speaker 4: see in the physical world, like the shadows on the wall,
Speaker 4: are flawed projections of reality. In other words, Man twenty
Speaker 4: four hundred years ago was questioning the nature of reality itself.
Speaker 4: Plato's concept was taken up again roughly two thousand years later,
Speaker 4: when French philosopher Reneea Kart wrote.
Speaker 6: There are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being
Speaker 6: awake from being asleep.
Speaker 4: But it wasn't until the nineteen hundreds that a science
Speaker 4: fiction writer began popularizing the idea of living in a
Speaker 4: virtual reality, and he became so obsessed with the theme
Speaker 4: that it appeared to drive him mad.
Speaker 10: The subject of this speech is a topic which has
Speaker 10: been discovered recently and which may not exist at all.
Speaker 10: I may be talking about something that does not exist.
Speaker 10: Therefore I'm free to say everything or nothing.
Speaker 1: Licorice, licorice? Where art thou licorice? If you listen to
Speaker 1: Red Pilled America, you know that I love licorice. And
Speaker 1: there's no licorice in America better than the delicious gourmet
Speaker 1: licorice made by the licorice Guy. The licorice Guy is
Speaker 1: simply the best. What sets their licorice apart is its
Speaker 1: flavor and freshness. They have a great selection of flavors
Speaker 1: to choose from, like red blue, raspberry, black, and green apple,
Speaker 1: just to name a few. The freshness of the Licorice
Speaker 1: Guy is unlike anything you've ever tasted in licorice before. Seriously,
Speaker 1: if you haven't tried licorice from the Licorice Guy yet,
Speaker 1: then you ain't living life right. Trust me, you will
Speaker 1: not regret it. It's time to dump that store bought
Speaker 1: liquorice but so hard it'll break your teeth and get
Speaker 1: yourself the soft, fresh stuff from the Licorice Guy. What
Speaker 1: I also love about the Liquorice Guy is that it's
Speaker 1: an American family owned business. It's made right here in
Speaker 1: the beautiful US of A. We are big proponents of
Speaker 1: buying American and supporting American workers. Right now, Red Pilled
Speaker 1: America listeners get fifteen percent off when they enter RPA
Speaker 1: fifteen at checkout, visit Licoriceguy dot com and n RPA
Speaker 1: fifteen at checkout. That's Licoriceguide dot com. A ship daily.
Speaker 1: Treat yourself and those you love and taste the difference.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Red Pilled America. So the idea of
Speaker 1: humans living in a simulated reality goes back at least
Speaker 1: twenty four hundred years to the times of the classical Greeks.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't until the nineteen hundreds that a science
Speaker 1: fiction writer began popularizing the idea of people living in
Speaker 1: a virtual reality, and he became so obsessed with the
Speaker 1: theme that it appeared to drive him mad. Science fiction
Speaker 1: author Philip K. Dick began writing about simulated realities in
Speaker 1: the early nineteen fifties, delving into the topic with his
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty three short story The Trouble with Bubbles. From
Speaker 1: then on, simulated realities became a recurring theme in his
Speaker 1: writing for the better part of the next twenty five years.
Speaker 1: When in nineteen seventy seven, he gave a speech at
Speaker 1: a sci Fi convention in France.
Speaker 10: We are living in a computer programmed reality, and the
Speaker 10: only clue we have to it is when some variable
Speaker 10: is changed, and some alteration in our reality occurs, we
Speaker 10: would have the overwhelming impression that we were reliving the
Speaker 10: present deje vous, perhaps in precisely the same way, hearing
Speaker 10: the same words, saying the same words. I submit that
Speaker 10: these impressions are valid and significant, and I will even
Speaker 10: say this such an impression is a clue that at
Speaker 10: some past time point a variable was changed, reprogrammed as
Speaker 10: it were, and that because of this an alternative world
Speaker 10: branched off.
Speaker 1: At the time, Philip K. Dick was already a prolific
Speaker 1: writer with a cult following, but shortly after his death
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty two, his work would become fodder for
Speaker 1: some of the biggest films of all time, including Blade Runner,
Speaker 1: The Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the
Speaker 1: High Castle, The Adjustment Bureau, Screamers Paycheck. In a nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety film adaptation of his short story we Can Remember
Speaker 1: It for You Wholesale, better known to the world as
Speaker 1: Total Recall, what do you want?
Speaker 11: This is going to be very difficult for you to accept,
Speaker 11: mister quaid. I'm afraid you're not really standing here right now.
Speaker 1: In it, the main protagonist is wrestling with the possibility
Speaker 1: that he is living in a virtual reality.
Speaker 12: You know, Doug, it could affooled me.
Speaker 11: I'm quite serious, You're not here, and neither am I.
Speaker 11: It's amazing, Well are we at Recall? You're strapped into
Speaker 11: an implant chair and I'm monitoring you from the psychoprobe console.
Speaker 1: It was around the time of Total Recalls release that
Speaker 1: I was in college and was personally wrestling with the
Speaker 1: nature of reality. I was raised culturally Catholic, but for
Speaker 1: various reasons, our family had spent very little time attending
Speaker 1: church or analyzing the Bible. So while studying evolution in
Speaker 1: college with no theological base, I briefly flirted with atheism.
Speaker 1: But as I dug deeper and deeper into applied physics,
Speaker 1: my chosen field of study, I was in awe by
Speaker 1: the beautiful patterns found in nature. Of the same mathematical
Speaker 1: equations could be found in completely different scientific fields. The
Speaker 1: order of the world seemed like the craftsmanship of a designer.
Speaker 1: It's why I loved physics, because it was helping me
Speaker 1: find meaning in the world. I was on a personal
Speaker 1: exploration for the truth. When I went on to get
Speaker 1: my master's diving even deeper down the physics rabbit hole,
Speaker 1: the beautiful patterns persisted. The hand of God appeared everywhere,
Speaker 1: But having no familiarity with theology, I had nothing to
Speaker 1: build upon. Then I read a book called Hyperspace by
Speaker 1: theoretical physicists Michi Okaku, and in it he paraphrases a
Speaker 1: short story entitled The Last Question by science fiction writer
Speaker 1: and professor of biochemistry Isaac Asimov. The story oddly moved me.
Speaker 1: We'll paraphrase it here.
Speaker 4: The story begins in the year one. A massive computer
Speaker 4: called AC has solved Earth's energy problem by designing a
Speaker 4: solar satellite that harnesses the Sun's energy and shoots it
Speaker 4: back to the Earth. Two half drunk technicians monitoring the
Speaker 4: computer start arguing about the eventual end of the universe.
Speaker 4: One believes that it will go on forever. Another thinks
Speaker 4: its end is much more finite, So on a five
Speaker 4: dollars bet, they turn to AC to mediate their dispute.
Speaker 4: Can the death of the universe be avoided? They ask AC.
Speaker 4: After the computer considers the question, it returns with the.
Speaker 1: Answer insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Centuries go by, and in that time AC grows ever
Speaker 4: more powerful in size and computational capacity, becoming so complex
Speaker 4: that it maintains itself. AC solves the problem of traveling
Speaker 4: faster than the speed of light, and humans began colonizing
Speaker 4: other solar systems. As a family traveled to another solar
Speaker 4: system with AC, guiding their vehicle, The father nonchalantly mentioned
Speaker 4: that the son that powers AC will one day burn out.
Speaker 4: His children, startled by this notion, began to cry, begging
Speaker 4: their father not to let that happen. Attempting to calm
Speaker 4: them down, the father asked AC if entropy can be
Speaker 4: reversed so that the universe can avoid its slow death.
Speaker 4: But as the answer is ejected from AC, the father
Speaker 4: cut the thin strip of cellufilm carrying the response so
Speaker 4: that only he can see the answer. C said the father.
Speaker 4: The AC says it will take care of everything when
Speaker 4: the time comes, so don't worry. But as the kids
Speaker 4: looked away, the father read the message one more time
Speaker 4: before destroying it. It said insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Thousands of years pass and the AC has solved the
Speaker 4: problem of immortality and is now harnessing power from the
Speaker 4: entire galaxy. AC is constantly modifying and redesigning itself. It
Speaker 4: has become so complex that no one even remotely understand
Speaker 4: stands how it works. With everyone now immortal, people are
Speaker 4: filling galaxies in record time, so AC is on the
Speaker 4: constant hunt for new galaxies to harness energy from and colonize.
Speaker 4: Two members of the Galactic Council, each hundreds of years old,
Speaker 4: openly wonder if the universe is burning out and ask
Speaker 4: AC if entropy can be reversed to save it.
Speaker 1: AC responds, insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Millions of years pass and humans have colonized innumerable galaxies.
Speaker 4: AC has solved the problem of releasing the mind from
Speaker 4: the body, and the minds are free to roam the
Speaker 4: universe as their bodies are safely stored on some insignificant planet.
Speaker 4: Two minds meet by accident in space and ask AC
Speaker 4: from which galaxy did humans originate. AC immediately beams them
Speaker 4: to their origin galaxy, where they see that the sun
Speaker 4: has long burned out. Concerns for the fate of the universe,
Speaker 4: the two minds ask AC if the death of the
Speaker 4: US universe can be avoided from hyperspace.
Speaker 1: The AC responds, insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Billions of years go by, and now there are trillions
Speaker 4: upon trillions upon trillions of immortal human bodies, the collective
Speaker 4: minds of humanity, which are now free to move anywhere
Speaker 4: throughout the universe. It will eventually fuse into one single mind,
Speaker 4: which in turn connects with the AC itself, asking how
Speaker 4: AC operates or where it resides. No longer makes sense.
Speaker 4: The complexity is unfathomable. Man looks on as stars and
Speaker 4: galaxies one by one burnout. The universe is dying, thinks Man.
Speaker 4: Countless stars cease to generate energy, and temperatures throughout the
Speaker 4: universe approach absolute zero. In desperation, Man turns to AC
Speaker 4: and asks if what it's witnessing is the inevitable death
Speaker 4: of the universe.
Speaker 1: The computer responds, insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: When Man tells AC to collect the necessary data, the
Speaker 4: computer responds, I.
Speaker 1: Will do so. I have been doing so for a
Speaker 1: hundred billion years. My predecessors and I have been asked
Speaker 1: this question many times. All the data I have remains insufficient.
Speaker 4: When will you have enough data to answer the question?
Speaker 4: Ask Man.
Speaker 1: AC responds, there is as yet insufficient data for a
Speaker 1: meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Will you keep working on it? Ask man. AC responds
Speaker 4: I will. Then we shall wait, responds Man. After ten
Speaker 4: trillion years, space grew black as stars and galaxies were
Speaker 4: each burned out one by one. Man fuses with AC,
Speaker 4: each physical body losing its mental identity in a way
Speaker 4: that was somehow again not a loss. The last remaining
Speaker 4: mind of Man paused before fusing with AC and looked
Speaker 4: around at the darkness engulfing the entire universe. This last man, concerned,
Speaker 4: looks to AC and ass is this the end? AC responds,
Speaker 4: it is, as.
Speaker 1: Yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
Speaker 4: Man's last mind fuses into the AC, leaving the computer
Speaker 4: alone in hyperspace. AC was now only existing for the
Speaker 4: sake of the one last question first asked by two
Speaker 4: half drunk technicians ten trillion years earlier. All other questions
Speaker 4: have been answered, all data had come to a final end.
Speaker 4: There was nothing left to collect, but all of the
Speaker 4: collected data had not yet been processed and put together
Speaker 4: in every possible combination. So AC, whose consciousness now encompassed
Speaker 4: all of what was left of the universe, spent the
Speaker 4: entirety of its time working through the combinations. And then
Speaker 4: suddenly the moment arrived that ABA had the answer. It
Speaker 4: learned how to solve the problem of entropy and reverse
Speaker 4: the dying of the universe, But there was no one
Speaker 4: left to receive the answer to the last question. So
Speaker 4: the AC carefully crafted a program to reverse the process
Speaker 4: and then just as it started the program from hyperspace,
Speaker 4: ac thundered, let there be light, And there was light,
Speaker 4: and on the seventh day he rested.
Speaker 1: When I initially read this short story, I wasn't expecting
Speaker 1: that final moment. I still remember my eyes welling up
Speaker 1: with tears when reading those last few lines. Not only
Speaker 1: was it the first time that I'd heard a human
Speaker 1: origin story, but it resonated with me by building on
Speaker 1: my education in physics. Even after years of the intelligenzia
Speaker 1: carefully pushing me towards atheism, the patterns I'd seen throughout existence,
Speaker 1: the chaos brought to o order by the laws of physics,
Speaker 1: wouldn't allow me to let go of the idea that
Speaker 1: there was a creator. But it wasn't until I read
Speaker 1: this simple piece of science fiction, ironically first published by
Speaker 1: an atheist in nineteen fifty six, that I was able
Speaker 1: to recapture the possibility that there was a god. What
Speaker 1: I hadn't realized at the time, though, was that the
Speaker 1: short story introduced a form of a simulation argument, where
Speaker 1: a computer creates a platform for humans to exist and
Speaker 1: then reignite the universe with a program that reboots the system.
Speaker 1: Let there be Light. A few years later, an extraordinary
Speaker 1: science fiction movie hit the big screen.
Speaker 5: Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because
Speaker 5: you know something. What you know you can't explain, but
Speaker 5: you feel it. You felt it your entire life, that
Speaker 5: there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what
Speaker 5: it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind,
Speaker 5: driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought
Speaker 5: you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: The Matrix?
Speaker 5: Do you want to know what it is?
Speaker 1: The Matrix introduced, like nothing else before it the idea
Speaker 1: of humans living within a simulation. It was this movie
Speaker 1: that also popularized the idea of the red Pill and
Speaker 1: inspired the name of this show.
Speaker 5: Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is.
Speaker 5: You have to see it for yourself. This is your
Speaker 5: last chance after this, there is no turning back.
Speaker 1: You take the Blue Pill.
Speaker 5: The story ends, You wake up in your bed and
Speaker 5: believe whatever you want to believe. You take the Red Pill.
Speaker 5: You stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep
Speaker 5: the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth,
Speaker 5: nothing more.
Speaker 1: The science fiction movie seemed to trigger a global interest
Speaker 1: in the concept of a virtual reality. Because, just as
Speaker 1: Richard Dawkins was attempting to inspire atheists to get militantly
Speaker 1: vocal about their belief that there was no creator, a
Speaker 1: Swedish born philosopher named Nick Bostrom was getting ready to
Speaker 1: publish his two thousand and three paper entitled Are You
Speaker 1: Living in a Simulation? And with it he accomplished what
Speaker 1: traditional religion had been failing at for decades. He reintroduced
Speaker 1: the possibility of the creator into the world of science.
Speaker 4: Do you want to hear Red Pilled America stories ad free?
Speaker 4: Then become a backstage subscriber. Just log onto Redpilled America
Speaker 4: dot com and click join in the top menu. Joined
Speaker 4: today and help us save America one story at a time.
Speaker 1: Welcome back. So, just as Richard Dawkins was attempting to
Speaker 1: inspire atheists to get vocal about their belief that there
Speaker 1: was no creator, a Swedish born philosopher named Nick Bostrom
Speaker 1: was getting ready to publish his two thousand and three
Speaker 1: paper entitled Are You Living in a Simulation? And with
Speaker 1: it he accomplished what traditional religion had been failing at
Speaker 1: for decades. He reintroduced the possibility of a creator into
Speaker 1: the world of science. In the paper, Bostrom introduced the
Speaker 1: simulation argument. To understand the significance of the argument, you
Speaker 1: first need to accept two possibilities that we discussed earlier. First,
Speaker 1: imagine a point in the future that computers are powerful
Speaker 1: enough to create virtual worlds that are so real that
Speaker 1: they are indistinguishable from reality. To most, this doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like an outlandish assumption, right We've seen how quickly some
Speaker 1: technologies have advanced and how powerful our computers have become.
Speaker 1: Video games are incredibly realistic, and so have film graphics.
Speaker 1: Just watch the Iron Man movie, where the visual engineers
Speaker 1: have made Robert Downey Junior look twenty years younger. The
Speaker 1: computer generated imagery of our films have at times become
Speaker 1: breathtakingly real. Compare today's sci fi graphics to let's say,
Speaker 1: the first Star Trek TV series from the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: and you see how far we've come. Another example of
Speaker 1: the power of today's computers watch a friend put on
Speaker 1: a virtual reality headset for the first time, and you'll
Speaker 1: see someone that believes they're entering into another reality. They stumble, laugh, fall,
Speaker 1: and sometimes even scream in reaction to what they're seeing
Speaker 1: on the screen. That's where we are now. Think about
Speaker 1: where our computing power will be one hundred, two hundred,
Speaker 1: even one thousand years from now. It's not a far
Speaker 1: leap to believe that our computers will become strong enough
Speaker 1: to create realistic simulated worlds.
Speaker 3: Forty years ago, we had pong, like two rectangles on
Speaker 3: a dot.
Speaker 1: That was what game is? That's tech entrepreneur Elon Musk
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: Now forty years later, we have photo realistic three D
Speaker 3: simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting
Speaker 3: better every year, and soon we'll have virtual reality of
Speaker 3: wigment and reality. If you assume any rate of improvement
Speaker 3: at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality.
Speaker 1: But it's not just computing power that is needed in
Speaker 1: order to create a simulated world. The world that you
Speaker 1: are simulating needs to be computable. And as it turns out,
Speaker 1: our physical world is computable.
Speaker 12: Our universe has got a very very peculiar property. That
Speaker 12: property is that it conforms to mathematics.
Speaker 1: That's Rich Terrell, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Speaker 1: Rich has had an interesting career in physics and astronomy.
Speaker 1: He's discovered a few moons around Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune,
Speaker 1: and along with a colleague, he uncovered one of the
Speaker 1: first pieces of evidence that other solar systems exist. In
Speaker 1: addition to conforming to mathematics, our universe is also made
Speaker 1: up of a finite number of components, very small things
Speaker 1: like atoms, which are made up of smaller elementary particles.
Speaker 12: And that property of conforming the mathematics and having a
Speaker 12: finite number of components means that the universe is computable,
Speaker 12: and that property is phenomenally interesting because now I can
Speaker 12: simulate the universe at any depth of level that I
Speaker 12: need to see it, and I can simulate that universe
Speaker 12: in a computer smaller than the universe. In other words,
Speaker 12: I don't need the universe to make a simulation of
Speaker 12: the universe. The other interesting thing is about we as
Speaker 12: human beings, is we never observe the entire universe at once.
Speaker 12: We can't experience the entire universe. We only experience a
Speaker 12: piece of it what we're looking at. And that means
Speaker 12: that very very economically, I can create a simulation of
Speaker 12: the universe which is absolutely identical in fidelity to what
Speaker 12: we're seeing in reality.
Speaker 1: Other scientists have found oddities in our physical world that
Speaker 1: show that our world is computable.
Speaker 13: In my research, I had found this very strange things physicists.
Speaker 13: I'd like to say, where we all belong to. A
Speaker 13: company called equations are us.
Speaker 1: That's James Gates, a theoretical physicist, speaking at the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.
Speaker 13: Because that's how we make our living. As my solving equations,
Speaker 13: and so I was just going through solving equations, and
Speaker 13: I was then driven to things that Maximos is about.
Speaker 13: These things called error correcting codes. Air correcting codes are
Speaker 13: what make browsers work, So why were they in the
Speaker 13: equations that I was studying about quarks and eleptons and supersymmetry.
Speaker 1: In other words, equations that are used in internet computing
Speaker 1: are also found in the elementary particles, again underscoring that
Speaker 1: our physical world can be computed, just as you'd expect
Speaker 1: if we were living in a virtual world. So conservatively,
Speaker 1: we can agree that our physical world is computable, and
Speaker 1: as a result, very powerful computers will be able to
Speaker 1: create simulations that will look indistinguishable from reality. If we
Speaker 1: can agree on that stipulation, we can move on to
Speaker 1: the next hurdle that you need to overcome to believe
Speaker 1: we're living in a simulation, and that is that once
Speaker 1: we reach the point where these supercomputers exist, future humans
Speaker 1: will have a desire to use them to create virtual
Speaker 1: worlds or what Nick Boston refers to as ancestor simulations.
Speaker 1: As the argument goes, once future humans have developed the
Speaker 1: capability to create virtual worlds, they actually will create simulated
Speaker 1: worlds and populate them with virtual people that think they
Speaker 1: really exist. And with advances in artificial intelligence, this too
Speaker 1: is completely within the realm of possibility in the not
Speaker 1: too distant future. In fact, we already have conversations with
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence without even knowing we're speaking to a computer program.
Speaker 7: It turns out a big part of getting things done
Speaker 7: it's making a phone call.
Speaker 1: That's Google CEO Sundar Pichai discussing his company's Google Assistance
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence at a twenty eighteen developer conference.
Speaker 7: You may want to get an oil change schedule, we
Speaker 7: call a plumber in the middle of the week, or
Speaker 7: even schedule a haircut appointment. You know, we're working hard
Speaker 7: to help users through those moments. We want to connect
Speaker 7: users to businesses in a good way. Businesses actually rely
Speaker 7: a lot on this, but even in the US, sixty
Speaker 7: percent of small businesses don't have an online booking system
Speaker 7: set up. We think AI can help with this problem.
Speaker 7: So let's go back to this example. Let's say you
Speaker 7: want to ask Google to make you a haircut appointment
Speaker 7: on Tuesday between ten and noon. What happens is the
Speaker 7: Google assistant makes the call seamlessly in the background for you.
Speaker 7: So what you're going to hear is the Google assistant
Speaker 7: actually calling a real salon to schedule the appointment for you.
Speaker 1: Let's listen.
Speaker 8: So happening out here. Hi, I'm calling Abo's Haircut for
Speaker 8: our client. I'm looking for something on May third. Sure,
Speaker 8: I give me one second.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: Sure. What time are you looking for a round at
Speaker 8: twelve pm? We do not have a twelve pm available.
Speaker 8: The closest we have to that is a one fifteen.
Speaker 8: Do you have anything between ten am and twelve pm?
Speaker 8: Depending on what service she would like? What service is
Speaker 8: she looking for? Just a woman's haircut for now? Okay,
Speaker 8: we have a ten o'clock ten am is fine. Okay,
Speaker 8: what's her first name? The first name is Lisa. Okay, perfect,
Speaker 8: So I will see Lisa at ten o'clock on May third. Okay, great,
Speaker 8: Thank great, you have a great day.
Speaker 11: Bye.
Speaker 1: We're getting closer and closer to simulating intelligence, so the
Speaker 1: capability to produce ancestor simulations is not too far off.
Speaker 1: But you may ask why would future humans want to
Speaker 1: create these ancestor simulations. Well, maybe future lawmakers want to
Speaker 1: use them to devise policies. They could do this by
Speaker 1: creating a simulated world of virtual humans who go about
Speaker 1: their life as they do in the real world. These
Speaker 1: policymakers can learn from their interactions, see what causes war,
Speaker 1: analyze how infectious diseases spread, and watch how virtual humans
Speaker 1: respond to any number of crises. Or maybe these virtual
Speaker 1: worlds will be created as educational exhibits where kids learned
Speaker 1: about the past by watching it play out through ancestor simulations.
Speaker 1: Perhaps future humans want to experience what it was like
Speaker 1: to live in the past. Or maybe they create these
Speaker 1: ancestor simulations as video games. And of course, as we know,
Speaker 1: we've already done something like.
Speaker 2: This Horble Unpredictable Programmable, it's the SIMS.
Speaker 1: The SIMS is a life simulation video game launched in
Speaker 1: early two thousand, where characters pursue the same things that
Speaker 1: humans do. They work, build homes, they have personalities, moods, aspirations,
Speaker 1: they look for love, they form families, and they can die.
Speaker 1: The SIMS is one of the most popular video games
Speaker 1: of all time. So, as we can see, we already
Speaker 1: have a natural desire to create human simulations. Now imagine
Speaker 1: sometime in the future artificial intelligence advances to where a
Speaker 1: video game like The SIMS includes characters that actually believe
Speaker 1: that they exist. This future video game would just be
Speaker 1: a new, more realistic version of today's The SIMS. It's
Speaker 1: not hard to believe that future humans will likely have
Speaker 1: a desire to create ancestor simulations. So if we can
Speaker 1: accept these two conditions, one that sometime in the future,
Speaker 1: incredibly powerful computers will be created, and two that future
Speaker 1: humans will be interested in using these computers to create
Speaker 1: ancestor simulations, we can finally explore the argument that you
Speaker 1: are likely living in a simulation. The simulation argument proposes
Speaker 1: that once you agree with these two stipulations, it becomes
Speaker 1: more likely than not that you are living in a simulation.
Speaker 1: Why is that, you ask, The answer is found in
Speaker 1: probability of the argument is quite simple. Once humans reach
Speaker 1: the threshold of being able to create simulations, the vast
Speaker 1: majority of thinking beings that ever existed will be simulated
Speaker 1: beings rather than the actual flesh and blood humans. Therefore,
Speaker 1: it is much more probable that you are simulated than
Speaker 1: actually in the material world. Think about this for a second.
Speaker 1: Let's assume you are one of the first human beings
Speaker 1: that develop the computers capable of creating virtual worlds. No
Speaker 1: other civilization before you has reached that threshold. Then someone
Speaker 1: within your community using these supercomputers begins creating virtual worlds.
Speaker 1: They can create these simulated worlds for any number of
Speaker 1: reasons that we've already discussed, but for now, let's say
Speaker 1: they create a popular video game like The SIMS, with
Speaker 1: thinking virtual humans within the game. Since the SIMS launched
Speaker 1: in early two thousand, the makers have sold nearly two
Speaker 1: hundred million copies of the game, and every time they
Speaker 1: were downloaded to somebody's computer, they created a new virtual world.
Speaker 1: So future humans begin making similar popular simulation games like
Speaker 1: the SIMS, but with virtual humans that believe they are alive,
Speaker 1: and the makers of that game and its competitors continue
Speaker 1: creating new versions of this simulated world for hundreds or
Speaker 1: even thousands of years. The number of thinking virtual humans
Speaker 1: that ever existed will eventually vastly outnumber the real human
Speaker 1: beings that ever lived. So using probability, it will be
Speaker 1: much more likely for you to be one of the
Speaker 1: virtual humans living in a simulation than the few actual
Speaker 1: humans that lived before simulations existed. Again, Rich Terrell.
Speaker 12: So the fundamental question you ask in simulation theory is
Speaker 12: are we the first generation? Are we the alpha generation
Speaker 12: that has come out of the primordial ooze and evolved
Speaker 12: from chemistry of all, from biology of all, tue intelligence,
Speaker 12: become self aware and now have the technology to build simulations,
Speaker 12: or are we some subsequent generation shortly after that ability
Speaker 12: that threshold, and we are living in a simulation. And
Speaker 12: the thing is that if there are numerous civilizations anywhere
Speaker 12: in the universe, the first one to reach that stage
Speaker 12: of technology where they can create simulations very very economically,
Speaker 12: and once that happens, then there are far more opportunities.
Speaker 12: If you wake up in a universe, it's far more
Speaker 12: likely you'll awakened in one of these simulations than to
Speaker 12: be that first alpha generation.
Speaker 1: This may be a hard argument to swallow for most
Speaker 1: of course, I'm real your thinking. However, if you are
Speaker 1: living in a simulation, you'd likely never know it. Because remember,
Speaker 1: as long as we've agreed to the two assumptions that
Speaker 1: computers will one day be powerful enough to simulate reality
Speaker 1: and that our descendants will create ancestor simulations. As the
Speaker 1: argument goes, you will likely be living in a simulation
Speaker 1: because it is statistically improbable that you were part of
Speaker 1: the first generation that were actual, flesh and blood people
Speaker 1: that started it all. The simulation argument may sound preposterous,
Speaker 1: but the reason why many scientists are embracing it is
Speaker 1: one the argument is hard to refute using reason, and two,
Speaker 1: it resolves many of the mathematical oddities in the universe. Take,
Speaker 1: for example, the Big Bang. Many logical thinking human beings
Speaker 1: have had a hard time buying that something came from nothing,
Speaker 1: but in the case of a simulated reality, the Big
Speaker 1: Bang becomes more plausible because every virtual system needs to
Speaker 1: be booted up, which resolves the idea of something coming
Speaker 1: from nothing. Another oddity of our universe is that we've
Speaker 1: never seen anything travel faster than the speed of light.
Speaker 1: Why living in a simulation can answer that question as well.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it's the maximum processor power of the simulation computer.
Speaker 1: Scott Adams identifies another odd reality of our universe.
Speaker 2: If we were a simulation, you would never be able
Speaker 2: to travel to the boundaries of it. You couldn't get
Speaker 2: outside of it as sure enough, our physical laws don't
Speaker 2: allow us to travel fast enough that we could ever
Speaker 2: get to the edge of the universe. Oh what a coincidence,
Speaker 2: exactly the way you'd program it.
Speaker 1: For decades, physics has had a problem reconciling Einstein's theory
Speaker 1: of relativity with that of quantum mechanics. A simulated world
Speaker 1: can help resolve this and any number of other mysteries
Speaker 1: found in physics and astronomy.
Speaker 12: Again, Rich Terrell, this has happened before in physics, as
Speaker 12: in science. We have gone through periods of time where
Speaker 12: we have a fundamental assumption that is so fundamental it
Speaker 12: is not even assumed to be an assumption. Incidents. Five
Speaker 12: hundred years ago, everyone believed the universe the Earth was
Speaker 12: the center of the universe, and this was so fundamental
Speaker 12: that you didn't even question it. Of course, I mean,
Speaker 12: why would it be anything different.
Speaker 1: Stars were far enough away where their motions didn't immediately
Speaker 1: debunk this model of the universe.
Speaker 12: Now, the stars they execute these nice little circles in
Speaker 12: the night sky, but the planets they do these little
Speaker 12: loops because well, because we're not at the center of
Speaker 12: the universe.
Speaker 1: But even with this clunky, obviously false, Earth centric model
Speaker 1: of the universe, scientists could still predict the weird motions
Speaker 1: of the planets in our Solar system.
Speaker 12: That was explained as some theory that the planets do
Speaker 12: this thing called epicycles, circles within circles, and the mathematics
Speaker 12: was worked out. Instruments were built, things called equatoriums were built,
Speaker 12: these little instruments that predict the motion of the planets.
Speaker 12: Everything worked out fine, but the theory seemed kind of
Speaker 12: clugey until Copernicus came around and decided to, well, you
Speaker 12: know what, if we transfer our coordinate system so that
Speaker 12: the Earth is not the center of the universe, the
Speaker 12: Sun is the Sun is the center of the Solar system,
Speaker 12: then things suddenly become more explainable. This epicycle theory goes away.
Speaker 12: This has happened before in science, it happened in Copernicus.
Speaker 12: In the Earth being the center of the universe. It
Speaker 12: happened with Darwin, with humans being somehow fundamentally different than animals.
Speaker 12: It happened in plate tectonics where somehow solid rocks aren't
Speaker 12: solid rocks and the Earth is very, very fluid. We
Speaker 12: have these breakthroughs, and I'm wondering, and have wondered for
Speaker 12: many years, whether simulation theory is one of these ideas
Speaker 12: like the Copernican Revolution, where where we've really been under
Speaker 12: the wrong assumption, this idea that everything in our origin
Speaker 12: theory happened to us. We assume that we have evolved
Speaker 12: from from chemistry and biology and intelligence. But if we
Speaker 12: are not, if we are a subsequent simulation, then some
Speaker 12: of these very very peculiar theories that we have placed
Speaker 12: on ourselves to explain some of the peculiarities. Quantum mechanics
Speaker 12: maybe have a different explanation.
Speaker 1: And that's where Scott Adams nineteen ninety seven prediction comes
Speaker 1: back into the story. If we are living in a simulation,
Speaker 1: as many big scientific thinkers are beginning to embrace, an
Speaker 1: evolution is merely a computer program in the simulation, in
Speaker 1: a way, it doesn't really exist again, Scott Adams.
Speaker 2: So if that's true, and let's say that the math
Speaker 2: says it's two thousand to one a trillion to one,
Speaker 2: that we're probably a simulation. Then it also stands to
Speaker 2: reason that whatever we thought was evolution is probably just
Speaker 2: programmatically our history is being written for us on demand.
Speaker 2: In other words, if you go in the backyard and
Speaker 2: start digging, if we're a simulation, there might not be
Speaker 2: anything there until you dig, and then you go down
Speaker 2: as well, there's some dinosaur bones. And then somebody else,
Speaker 2: somewhere else is digging and they find some other dinosaur.
Speaker 2: And now the simulation has to explain it, because not
Speaker 2: only is it creating history, but it has to keep
Speaker 2: making it consistent. And if it finds a place it can't,
Speaker 2: it makes one of the people change their memory. It's
Speaker 2: cognitive dissonance. So you see, the simulation would be continuously
Speaker 2: adjusting the history but also adjusting our memory of it
Speaker 2: to try to keep it so it all holds together.
Speaker 2: And then we see a million cases a day where
Speaker 2: you and I have the same experience, and then we
Speaker 2: talk about it a year later and I say, no,
Speaker 2: we were both petting a dog, and you say, Scott, Scott, Scott,
Speaker 2: that was a giraffe, but neither of us took a picture.
Speaker 2: So those worlds can live together even though they conflict
Speaker 2: until we're forced to. Somebody produces the video footage, and
Speaker 2: then the other person has to adjust their memory.
Speaker 1: In other words, simulation theory is in the process of
Speaker 1: debunking evolution in Scott's lifetime. I was first introduced to
Speaker 1: Scott's commentary through his Gilbert cartoons in the early nineteen nineties,
Speaker 1: but rediscovered him during Trump's presidential run, and in twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen I began to notice him discussing the simulation argument.
Speaker 2: You know, regular readers of my blog and followers of
Speaker 2: my periscope that I sometimes talk about plus for Nick
Speaker 2: Boskrum's idea that we are a computer simulation.
Speaker 1: I'd heard a little about the concept before, but Scott's
Speaker 1: persistence on the topic made me give it a deeper look.
Speaker 2: I got into it a little bit on Twitter yesterday
Speaker 2: with somebody who was accusing somebody else of claiming that
Speaker 2: intelligent design was real, and I mentioned that simulation theory
Speaker 2: is already, in scientific terms, largely in my opinion, debunked evolution.
Speaker 2: Now I know you hate it. Seventy five percent of
Speaker 2: the people on here just went.
Speaker 1: What it reminded me of the Let There Be lighte
Speaker 1: short story I'd read in the late nineties. It was
Speaker 1: easy to see that by accepting the simulation argument, you
Speaker 1: must acknowledge that there is a creator, and its popularity
Speaker 1: in the science community was a massive development. It moved
Speaker 1: the atheist community closer to God. Scott's discussions on the
Speaker 1: topic came at just the right time for me. Our
Speaker 1: family was going through a serious trial and we were
Speaker 1: missing something in our life to help us deal with it.
Speaker 1: The simulation was the trigger for me, among a few
Speaker 1: other factors, to continue my search for God that I
Speaker 1: first sensed through physics, and I ultimately found him. And
Speaker 1: one of the unexpected surprises of this process was to
Speaker 1: see how this science fiction concept was forcing the intellectual
Speaker 1: community to reconsider the possibility of a creator.
Speaker 13: And so one of the first non physicists that I
Speaker 13: talked to or that I read, reflected on my comment, said,
Speaker 13: if the simulation hypothesis is valid, then we open the
Speaker 13: door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formerly
Speaker 13: have been discussed in the realm of religion. So it
Speaker 13: starts to break down a very funny barrier between what
Speaker 13: people often think is the conflict between science and the
Speaker 13: conflict between faith, which.
Speaker 1: Leads us back to the question is science fiction bringing
Speaker 1: us closer to God? The answer is remarkably yes, and
Speaker 1: the vehicle is the simulation. This concept, first popularized through
Speaker 1: science fiction, has the power to reintroduce the idea of
Speaker 1: a creator into communities that have long rejected the notion
Speaker 1: of God as foolish. Today, largely because of the simulation,
Speaker 1: some of the world's biggest thinkers are openly discussing the
Speaker 1: possibility of God.
Speaker 11: Do you weave in God?
Speaker 3: I believe, I believe there's there's some explanation for this universe,
Speaker 3: which you might call God.
Speaker 6: I think there's the question of what's outside. Simulation is
Speaker 6: really interesting. That's the other way of because like what
Speaker 6: created us? What started the whole thing? It's the modern
Speaker 6: version of asking what is God? What does God look like?
Speaker 6: What you know? It's it's asking what does the programmer
Speaker 6: look like?
Speaker 1: So do all you Americans of faith out there, the
Speaker 1: next time an atheist or an evolution zealot mocks your
Speaker 1: belief in God, let them know that. Even their militant leader,
Speaker 1: Richard Dawkins, the face of modern evolution is beginning to
Speaker 1: entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe there is a creator.
Speaker 6: The world is a simulation. If we're living in a simulation,
Speaker 6: that there's a programmer like creature that we can ask
Speaker 6: questions of this.
Speaker 9: Okay, let's pursue the idea that we're living in a simulation,
Speaker 9: which is not totally ridiculous.
Speaker 3: By the way, there we go.
Speaker 4: Red Pilled America is an iHeartRadio original podcast. It's owned
Speaker 4: and produced by Patrick Carrelci and me Adriana Cortez of
Speaker 4: Informed Ventures.
Speaker 11: Now.
Speaker 4: You can get ad free access to our entire archive
Speaker 4: of episodes by becoming a backstage subscriber. To subscribe, visit
Speaker 4: Redpilled America dot com and click join in the topmenu.
Speaker 4: That's Redpilled America dot com and click join in the topmenu.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening.