Are we living in a simulation? Neil deGrasse Tyson explains.

[johnperry]

Not sure why Neal spends time with people who have no clue.

[alyssaguzman]

Damn he hit her hard with that "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" N e i l i s s a v a g e

[emittlame]

If this is a simulation I believe it would not be a "video game" I think maybe the simulators put in specific rules and code in the beginning of the universe and they let it run it's course. They don't make every little piece of the simulation, the science did. We did.

[WaltCo]

The question is, what happens if this is a simulation and the programmer is aware that we've figured this out?

[Astrum]

Trust your own intuition, and don't let anyone tell you what to believe. There are a lot of people on this earth who don't believe in anything beyond the physical because it's beyond their ability to do so, and they will at every turn try to keep you stuck in their ignorance. Raise your vibration, raise your consciousness and open your mind!

[angerincarnate]

If we are in a simulation then how come I can't dodge bullets like Neo?

[Senedras]

His way of explaining it would make a child understand it. It's obvious when it comes to boundaries and a species curiosity to break rules and work around it. Scientifically possible. Hence he can't argue against the idea. Very plausible until proven otherwise.

[morigeshh]

Please find a smarter female host.
That woman is embarassing.

[guillermoa.nerygomez]

Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never, on it's own, separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals:
A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...)
When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again.
A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything.
Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives.
As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, law abiding universe?
Which brings us back to Occam's razor.

[insidiousfastidious]

I was waiting for the black woman to say “this ain’t no god dam game”

[brian]

Based on the incredible size of the universe, and how much of it we know is empty, and without life -- it seems improbable that much waste would be created in a simulation.

[tzaklau]

we are not in a video game, we are in an artificial universe that may predict the future and some possibilities of the superior universe

[e_crunchy]

Noooo I'm There's too many coincidences that happen in my life and now I'm actually believing this Nani Nanda korowua help mee nanai naoanankajanes kanai so no rostu koruwas orqed nananananananan

[TheYetixOUTx]

First time I've seen him open with a humble answer

[luvem]

They had no idea what he was talking about 😂

[fitsummelles]

Food for thought...when you through the dart are you throwing the dart from a stimulated world? When you are looking into this ripple down effect are you looking from reality into stimulation or from stimulation look on to other stimulations? Someone to say life is stimulated, the statement itself would have to come from stimulated mind so why should I believe that then...

[Boogieman]

What if taking psychedelics lets us peep through the system. The so called "Trippy visuals" Is really just glitches.😳 Alot of people including me see geometric patterns and feel like their in a CGI animation.

[srschriver]

Ah, when the highest order of society rubs elbows with the lowest...

[Curiune]

Can I have an upgrade and move into an apartment with a ten car garage then would be nice

[Doughboy_]

instincts are just the things we’re programmed to do