Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation

Business Insider ^ | 04/22/2016 | Kevin Loria

[SeekAndFind]

We trust the scientists around us to have the best grasp on how the world actually works.

So at this year's 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether the universe is a simulation, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses from others.

Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said that she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero."

A satisfying answer for those who don't want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.

But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

Uh-oh?

The question of whether we know that our universe is real has vexed thinkers going far back into history, long before Descartes made his famous "I think, therefore I am" statement. The same question has been explored in modern science-fiction films like "The Matrix" and David Cronenberg's "Existenz."

But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.

Tyson agrees, but says that he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe.

One of the main arguments that physicists use to talk about what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" is that if we can prove that it's possible to simulate a universe — if we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works, which physicists are trying to do —

[RC one]

we see only what our eyes allow us to see.

[Delta 21]

[5th MEB]

Hey Tyson, you ignorant ass; somebody else is responsible for the universe, that somebody else is GOD.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Wow yes I heard of that, his short term memory is gone. I wonder how he views time.

[5th MEB]

I thought it was entertaining, course I could just have a thing for Scarlett Johansson.

[bkopto]

Ahh yes, our affirmative action physicist. No thanks.

[Dr.Deth]

Time for the Masons to update their higher power to “The Grand Programmer Of The Universe”

[grey_whiskers]

Unfortunately, the Universe is running Windows 95 (unmatched).

[dfwgator]

What Language Does God Code In?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Physics is getting goofier and goofier, i.e. quantum mechanics and relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics.

If we are a simulation we could be a simulation in a universe with completely different laws that aren't so goofy, i.e. where what the beings see in that universe is exactly that which is there.

Maybe our laws are so freaky because in order to get a simulation as complicated as ours running, the beings in the real universe had to modify the laws to cram them into the simulation. Maybe this is why things are quantized, i.e pixelated.

[grey_whiskers]

Unfortunately, the Universe is running Windows 95 (unmatched).

Proof of this is the seemingly ubiquitous and iniquitous autocorrect, which, without telling me, in between typing the word and hitting "Post" changed "unPatched' to "unmatched".

It's a CONSPIRACY, I tell you!

[ozzymandus]

This clown is more of an astrologer than an astronomer. ‘Course, he’s black, so nobody can call him out.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"What Language Does God Code In?"

In the 50's and early 60's God coded in COBOL. Things were a bit boring, but worked out rather well.

Recently he converted everything to Java...

[dfwgator]

God has root access to the universe, when someone dies it’s because he types “sudo kill -9 {your pid}”.

[Aria]

I owe the IRS therefore I am? LOL!!!

[Charles Martel]

What Language Does God Code In?

Perl (of Great Price), perhaps...

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Even if you could prove to yourself beyond a reasonable (or even shadow) of a doubt that you were simulated, I don't know if that would completely answer any ethical questions:

1. Nihilism: You're not really a being with a soul or conscience so there is no meaning or purpose. Why waste any time? If the simulation allows you to off yourself, then go ahead.

2. Existentialism: You're in a Sim. If the simulation allows you some ability to decide your fate, then adopt some reasonable goals and philosophical positions and go for it. If other sims choose other goals or philosophies well then bully for them.

3. Psychopathology: Everyone else is just a sim. You seem to be able to feel pleasure and avoid pain. Do whatever it takes to grab all the stuff and experience all the pleasures you can do whatever is necessary (ethical or otherwise) before the simulation shuts you down. Do everything with a smile that appears sincere.

4. Live a virtuous life: You are a simulated being that appears to be able to have free will and can make choices. Even if you don't exist on the highest level of reality, you exist at some level of reality. You could still be held accountable for your choices either by yourself, the other sims, your creators, or The Creator. You should make good choices, i.e. ethical choices that respect the other sims and honor the ultimate Creator.

[Tammy8]

he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe

I agree, stunningly stupid.

[Repeal 16-17]

Computer, end program.

Whew, still here.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.

As such, what possible difference could it make? It seems to me that this is more a matter for philosophers than for serious physicists.