Musk's intelligence is nowhere near as high as it's hyped up to be. Much of what he has achieved is impressive, of that there is no doubt, but the bulk of his success is down to all the talented people who work for him - coupled with his knack of cranking up the hype machine to 11 by making ridiculous claims that are never fulfilled eg. 'All Teslas will be self-driving hovercrafts with laser beams by the end of 2023'.
Someone posted a link (on the reddit page) to a channel on YT (Common Sense Skeptic) a while back which debunks in great detail most of Musk's claims and current projects - Starlink, for example, will never be a viable business self-sustaining business model without constant funding - the numbers just don't add up; and Tesla's full self driving tech is a long way behind it's competitor's (to the point where it can be life threatening) despite regular claims to the contrary.
As to the possibility that we're living in a simulation - it suffers from the same issue as the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that it is unprovable ... we can no more escape the confines of a 'Matrix' to prove it exists than we can leave our universe to prove the existence of parallel universes. You might as well believe in god (the lead programmer?) - another theory that can never be disproven.
Not to mention the resources required to generate and maintain such a simulation - using his 10,000 years with decreased rate of advancement as an example. Really, what of this world will exist in 10,000 years?
Nobody understands how matter arranged in such a way gives rise to qualia. This is know as the "hard problem of consciousness".
I wish we lived in a simulation. Because a simulation has not only solved the Hard Problem, but it's clever enough to construct phenomenal experiences in a creative, infinitely complex way. The simulation is able to stimulate heaven, utopia, nirvana -- why couldn't it? It's just currently stimulating the 20th and 21st centuries fo whatever reason. The simulation is the most powerful tool ever created!
If this is a simulation, the deepest mystery of human consciousness has been penetrated. The Simulators understand consciousness so thoroughly that they're currently playing with the fruits of their discovery. What we think of as "life" is their program, their experiment. Surely no being would make a simulation for no reason at all! Thus, there is a reason.
The ability to stimulate an entire universe as convincingly as the Simulators have, surely means that they have achieved our highest ambition. The only thing left to understand after consciousness would be the motive behind existence itself: Why something, rather than nothing? The only reason to run a reality-simulation would be to know the mind of God. Therefore, YOU are a participant in the grandest, most noble scientific exploration in the history of all existence!
The acceleration of technology (Moore's law) is a reasonable thread to follow; developing better technology allows us to develop more advanced technology ad infinitum until you get to the hurdles of energy production and physics.
I don't get the idea that if you can speculate along that thread that your speculation is theoretically already a certainty. I also don't get the fascination with the simulation theory as a certainty. Does Musk and others think that since they "broke the game" that they'll somehow reverse engineer the system we're supposedly plugged into to break the game of our existence?
Our existence could be called a simulation if you consider that it is our brains experiencing the simulation of the physical world through sensation translated to electrical signals by our sensory nerves, but even if you have that experience duplicated artificially you still cannot argue that that is what we are experiencing as an existence. But to say that proof of concept is a direct relation to a proof of theory, " if we have done it then it's already been done, and we're living in that end result right now!", is just a leap in logic that overlooks the idea of actual proof that comes from testing.
I think Elon Musk suffers from the same trap that has afflicted most people who are known for their ideas; since he has had some good ideas then all of his ideas are good, and that extrapolates into the idea he has only good ideas. It's a very "emperor's new clothes" mentality that sees him and others(Trump) who gather cults of personality in their wakes, who are certain of their infallibility.
"and I have no doubt that his IQ is close to twice what I'm working with"
I don't think so dude. He's smart in areas he has focused his attention upon, but what he has focused on has no heart or wisdom to it. That focus is not intelligence, only a subset of skills developed primarily related to marketing and image creation. He's Trump style smart.
Also, he's not sitting lab or doing much of anything on a daily basis that requires a high degree of technical prowess.
- the growth of tech is not comparable to growth of a biological being (the environmental constraints of growth in this case are not the same... However, if the universe is accelerating in its expansion, then we are all growing non stop :D)
- air travel is heavily impeded by security protocols so advancements that we're used to with not so dangerous stuff, like phones, can't be realized easily.
- Space programs too, laden with safety issues and it's not very easy to justify a budget to get up there with so many wars here to pay for.... however (warning, conspiracy trigger lol) some would say we did expand on the space programs, they are just carried out but the $35+trillion dollar black budget operations in secret cos why should the public / our enemies be up to speed on such an important (for resources and tech) venture.
- human machine interface is not limited to eyes on a screen, see again Musk's neural net project or eg:
'Soon enough' we will be able to plug ourselves in to a machine that will manipulate all physical senses. Maybe 50 years but that's really nothing in this context.
And in terms of progress over 'the uncanny valley', it's only going to take another few leaps to get there, the difference between pong and now was the hardest part, the last steps are much easier.
The only decent argument I've heard against Bostrom's Sim-theory is that the energy it takes to compute a simulation is larger than the amount of energy in the universe (or similar arguments that there's not enough particles etc).
But that's assuming it would run in a basic, Newton-ion, marco style 'mechanical' way, and ignoring a bunch of science's (current) understandings.
Like, majority of the universe is not understood (dark energy/matter), so how can we say how much energy/matter limits there are...
Also, that we only need to render a tiny percentage of the universe at a time, which is normal practice in tech (also note, quantum mechanics showing us that measurement - ie observation is needed to determine matter's state, either by human or machine). In fact there is a game out there (No Mans' Sky) that is apparently the size of our actual universe, and it only renders what is observed by the players (and what is rendered is done so 'procedurally', so it's based on some simple code commands).
Also, look deeper into what Quantum mechanics tells us about matter, energy and time. No need to get woo-woo, take a look at the serious science. How we experience the universe at our macro scale IS NOT the nature of matter and energy, not even close...
Interesting how this theory exists at a time where the word simulation is in societal lexicon. The next "genius" will use his lexicon to explain his reality for all of us. I can't wait
Hi Chris, This is a subject I've been fascinated with and have spent probably too much time thinking about. I first picked up the concept from Rogan and have heard him bring it up from time to time. One of the more compelling bits I've heard about it goes like this. Neal deGrasse Tyson was having a conversation with a physicist and he mentioned that after someone took a deep dive into highly complex math that they have found computer codes at the base of our reality. (I may have butchered that a bit, but you get the idea). And Neal follows up with, "You mean, like computer codes". And the guy answers, No, computer codes. That is an over simplified version. Here's a link to what really happened
I had heard another conversation with a very advanced physicist and he was talking about how little there actually is in what we think is so real and solid. And I'm pulling a number out of my ass right now but it's not that far off. Because of the size of our basic building blocks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc and their distances from one another, that which seems so real and solid is .9999999% (or something to that effect) empty space. Understanding this leads to what spiritual masters have been saying for years, "We live in an illusion". Which is not to say that it isn't there, just that we are not perceiving it as it actually is. This physicist went on further to say that every time they do an analysis they keep finding that there's less there than the last time they checked. And, since he was a firm believer in trends, he hypothesized that it could keep trending in that direction and get to the point where our 3D reality was all just information. Of course I know that this proves absolutely nothing but it does supply fuel for thought on such a provocative subject. It all comes down to the amount of data we have and which data we choose to believe as well as assuming we have enough accurate data to draw logical conclusions from. In my experience, we rarely have enough data to draw conclusions from but we do it anyway. At least I do anyway, but with the caveat that I don't really know, just a high tech belief. I think that Musk and Rogan are highly likely on to something. The minimum for me is that we are just as likely as not living in a very, very advanced computer (or artificially derived) simulated reality based on pure information that is somehow made to seem real. But in no way shape or form subtracts from the experience we have of being alive. It's just a deeper way to look upon creation and how it originated while simultaneously opening even more WTF type questions.
The idea of this being a simulation means either we are part of the simulation which has become conscious, or we are separate consciousnesses experiencing - via advanced VR headsets. The former idea is far away from being proven even in theory. There is no theoretical understanding of what consciousness is, so assuming it could emerge in a complex simulation on some advanced alien PC is purely speculative. We don't believe Teslas are conscious, and they are pretty damn complex.
If the idea is we are consciousnesses experiencing this world as an advanced VR game, I question that deeply! The reason we like computer games and movies so much is precisely because they aren't real - so they don't hurt!
I don’t quite follow what Musk is saying. He seems to be arguing that it is probable we already live in a simulation of “base reality” (whatever that means - a problem he seems to have breezed past) because of certain reality simulation capabilities that have been achieved, which we’ve lived through at a certain rate of development over the last forty years, that thus promises to continue at a certain projected rate of development (give or take 10,000 years) until what we now call reality becomes indistinguishable from its simulated version.
If I have this right, then I think Musk needs to explain how one gets from the hastening future he describes, where “reality” is no longer distinguishable from reality (again, whatever that means), to the proposition that such a “reality” likely has already obtained - or, in his inverse formulation, that the odds that we now live in a “base reality” are vanishingly low.
Chris’ description of reality as containing more than light and sound is true, but Musk is saying that even this reality that consists of more than light and sound is most likely a simulation. I do not see how this argument is not logically incoherent, and there is no way Musk can know this supposition is true otherwise. Seems like a hazy, stoned thought project from the Donald Sutherland-Tom Hulce “fingernail universe” scene in Animal House.
I see myself as something of a Gnostic and hence conceive this reality as a small subset of a unimaginably larger super-reality --people who survive near death experiences refer to them as "hyper-real" or "super technicolor" compared to the dullness of waking life-- but somehow I doubt Musk's logic is influenced by the Cathars and the library of Nag Hamadi.
I suspect the idea of us living in a simulation is so appealing to the likes of Musk, because that gives them in their minds free range to do what they please and damned be the consequences of their actions. Fire 100 Tesla employees during the pandemic? It doesn't matter because it's all a game anyway, man!
You see, Musk's arguments go counter with the "it's just a ride" argument Bill Hicks used to compel us not to take life so seriously, and the biggest evidence for this is the fact that Musk is still so hard-pressed in continuing the race to become the richest man in the history of the world. Why keep trying to reach all the gold achievements if it's just a dumb simulation anyway, Elon?
But it's not *just* a dumb simulation. It's everything. Apparently one can colonize Mars in it, so why not? It still matters, because we have no knowledge of what's on the other side of the simulation, so this is all we got.
And besides, I don't think Elon does any of what he does for wealth. You're thinking of Bezos. Elon is motivated by actualizing his ideas. Wealth is merely a requirement to that end.
Per these comments, you have very brainy subscribers, Chris! Elon? I am completely fascinated by One-Offs like him. Utterly unique minds make the world go 'round...and I'm rooting for Space-X.
its veracity is ultimately meaningless for how we live our lives. Even those that believe in an ability to consciously manifest reality don't require simulation theory as their canvas. So there's no great reason to care. Unless we're to fear negative outcomes from any segment of the population believing in it, a potential which no doubt could be explored.
Your dismissal, however, seems to be presuming unrealistic expectations of pace, but Musk pre-empts such with, "If you assume any rate of improvement at all". Does your 14 year old nephew not continue to expand in mind and experience beyond physical growth? Do his children and theirs not have opportunity to build upon this? While a simulation of the quality we experience might seem improbable, it would be illogical to dismiss it as impossible.
I dunno, man. The Dimitri experience apparently 'reveals' something both wildly foreign and realer than real, a realm from which our mundane, daily reality seems as relatively simplistic as stick figures on 2D paper seem from here. So shit, anything is possible and knowing reality to relatable completeness is likely beyond us gnats.
Musk's intelligence is nowhere near as high as it's hyped up to be. Much of what he has achieved is impressive, of that there is no doubt, but the bulk of his success is down to all the talented people who work for him - coupled with his knack of cranking up the hype machine to 11 by making ridiculous claims that are never fulfilled eg. 'All Teslas will be self-driving hovercrafts with laser beams by the end of 2023'.
Someone posted a link (on the reddit page) to a channel on YT (Common Sense Skeptic) a while back which debunks in great detail most of Musk's claims and current projects - Starlink, for example, will never be a viable business self-sustaining business model without constant funding - the numbers just don't add up; and Tesla's full self driving tech is a long way behind it's competitor's (to the point where it can be life threatening) despite regular claims to the contrary.
As to the possibility that we're living in a simulation - it suffers from the same issue as the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that it is unprovable ... we can no more escape the confines of a 'Matrix' to prove it exists than we can leave our universe to prove the existence of parallel universes. You might as well believe in god (the lead programmer?) - another theory that can never be disproven.
Not to mention the resources required to generate and maintain such a simulation - using his 10,000 years with decreased rate of advancement as an example. Really, what of this world will exist in 10,000 years?
Your final comment was the only one I thought of. It is typcal for prognosticators to neglect our dozen or more other senses, focusing onl on vision.
Nobody understands how matter arranged in such a way gives rise to qualia. This is know as the "hard problem of consciousness".
I wish we lived in a simulation. Because a simulation has not only solved the Hard Problem, but it's clever enough to construct phenomenal experiences in a creative, infinitely complex way. The simulation is able to stimulate heaven, utopia, nirvana -- why couldn't it? It's just currently stimulating the 20th and 21st centuries fo whatever reason. The simulation is the most powerful tool ever created!
If this is a simulation, the deepest mystery of human consciousness has been penetrated. The Simulators understand consciousness so thoroughly that they're currently playing with the fruits of their discovery. What we think of as "life" is their program, their experiment. Surely no being would make a simulation for no reason at all! Thus, there is a reason.
The ability to stimulate an entire universe as convincingly as the Simulators have, surely means that they have achieved our highest ambition. The only thing left to understand after consciousness would be the motive behind existence itself: Why something, rather than nothing? The only reason to run a reality-simulation would be to know the mind of God. Therefore, YOU are a participant in the grandest, most noble scientific exploration in the history of all existence!
IF, this is a simulation, that is.
Boy, I sure hope so!
The acceleration of technology (Moore's law) is a reasonable thread to follow; developing better technology allows us to develop more advanced technology ad infinitum until you get to the hurdles of energy production and physics.
I don't get the idea that if you can speculate along that thread that your speculation is theoretically already a certainty. I also don't get the fascination with the simulation theory as a certainty. Does Musk and others think that since they "broke the game" that they'll somehow reverse engineer the system we're supposedly plugged into to break the game of our existence?
Our existence could be called a simulation if you consider that it is our brains experiencing the simulation of the physical world through sensation translated to electrical signals by our sensory nerves, but even if you have that experience duplicated artificially you still cannot argue that that is what we are experiencing as an existence. But to say that proof of concept is a direct relation to a proof of theory, " if we have done it then it's already been done, and we're living in that end result right now!", is just a leap in logic that overlooks the idea of actual proof that comes from testing.
I think Elon Musk suffers from the same trap that has afflicted most people who are known for their ideas; since he has had some good ideas then all of his ideas are good, and that extrapolates into the idea he has only good ideas. It's a very "emperor's new clothes" mentality that sees him and others(Trump) who gather cults of personality in their wakes, who are certain of their infallibility.
Meanwhile here is a software guy who claim the Tesla uses hackable junk.
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/self-driving-tesla-it-will-try-to-kill-you/
"and I have no doubt that his IQ is close to twice what I'm working with"
I don't think so dude. He's smart in areas he has focused his attention upon, but what he has focused on has no heart or wisdom to it. That focus is not intelligence, only a subset of skills developed primarily related to marketing and image creation. He's Trump style smart.
Also, he's not sitting lab or doing much of anything on a daily basis that requires a high degree of technical prowess.
And, all good points around declining utility.
Interesting counter points but:
- the growth of tech is not comparable to growth of a biological being (the environmental constraints of growth in this case are not the same... However, if the universe is accelerating in its expansion, then we are all growing non stop :D)
- air travel is heavily impeded by security protocols so advancements that we're used to with not so dangerous stuff, like phones, can't be realized easily.
- Space programs too, laden with safety issues and it's not very easy to justify a budget to get up there with so many wars here to pay for.... however (warning, conspiracy trigger lol) some would say we did expand on the space programs, they are just carried out but the $35+trillion dollar black budget operations in secret cos why should the public / our enemies be up to speed on such an important (for resources and tech) venture.
- human machine interface is not limited to eyes on a screen, see again Musk's neural net project or eg:
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/23/1048699230/scientists-used-a-tiny-brain-implant-to-help-a-blind-teacher-see-letters-again.
'Soon enough' we will be able to plug ourselves in to a machine that will manipulate all physical senses. Maybe 50 years but that's really nothing in this context.
And in terms of progress over 'the uncanny valley', it's only going to take another few leaps to get there, the difference between pong and now was the hardest part, the last steps are much easier.
The only decent argument I've heard against Bostrom's Sim-theory is that the energy it takes to compute a simulation is larger than the amount of energy in the universe (or similar arguments that there's not enough particles etc).
But that's assuming it would run in a basic, Newton-ion, marco style 'mechanical' way, and ignoring a bunch of science's (current) understandings.
Like, majority of the universe is not understood (dark energy/matter), so how can we say how much energy/matter limits there are...
Also, that we only need to render a tiny percentage of the universe at a time, which is normal practice in tech (also note, quantum mechanics showing us that measurement - ie observation is needed to determine matter's state, either by human or machine). In fact there is a game out there (No Mans' Sky) that is apparently the size of our actual universe, and it only renders what is observed by the players (and what is rendered is done so 'procedurally', so it's based on some simple code commands).
Also, look deeper into what Quantum mechanics tells us about matter, energy and time. No need to get woo-woo, take a look at the serious science. How we experience the universe at our macro scale IS NOT the nature of matter and energy, not even close...
Sorry Chris, going with the Musk on this one.
Interesting how this theory exists at a time where the word simulation is in societal lexicon. The next "genius" will use his lexicon to explain his reality for all of us. I can't wait
Hi Chris, This is a subject I've been fascinated with and have spent probably too much time thinking about. I first picked up the concept from Rogan and have heard him bring it up from time to time. One of the more compelling bits I've heard about it goes like this. Neal deGrasse Tyson was having a conversation with a physicist and he mentioned that after someone took a deep dive into highly complex math that they have found computer codes at the base of our reality. (I may have butchered that a bit, but you get the idea). And Neal follows up with, "You mean, like computer codes". And the guy answers, No, computer codes. That is an over simplified version. Here's a link to what really happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NkFemtrRZs
I had heard another conversation with a very advanced physicist and he was talking about how little there actually is in what we think is so real and solid. And I'm pulling a number out of my ass right now but it's not that far off. Because of the size of our basic building blocks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc and their distances from one another, that which seems so real and solid is .9999999% (or something to that effect) empty space. Understanding this leads to what spiritual masters have been saying for years, "We live in an illusion". Which is not to say that it isn't there, just that we are not perceiving it as it actually is. This physicist went on further to say that every time they do an analysis they keep finding that there's less there than the last time they checked. And, since he was a firm believer in trends, he hypothesized that it could keep trending in that direction and get to the point where our 3D reality was all just information. Of course I know that this proves absolutely nothing but it does supply fuel for thought on such a provocative subject. It all comes down to the amount of data we have and which data we choose to believe as well as assuming we have enough accurate data to draw logical conclusions from. In my experience, we rarely have enough data to draw conclusions from but we do it anyway. At least I do anyway, but with the caveat that I don't really know, just a high tech belief. I think that Musk and Rogan are highly likely on to something. The minimum for me is that we are just as likely as not living in a very, very advanced computer (or artificially derived) simulated reality based on pure information that is somehow made to seem real. But in no way shape or form subtracts from the experience we have of being alive. It's just a deeper way to look upon creation and how it originated while simultaneously opening even more WTF type questions.
The idea of this being a simulation means either we are part of the simulation which has become conscious, or we are separate consciousnesses experiencing - via advanced VR headsets. The former idea is far away from being proven even in theory. There is no theoretical understanding of what consciousness is, so assuming it could emerge in a complex simulation on some advanced alien PC is purely speculative. We don't believe Teslas are conscious, and they are pretty damn complex.
If the idea is we are consciousnesses experiencing this world as an advanced VR game, I question that deeply! The reason we like computer games and movies so much is precisely because they aren't real - so they don't hurt!
I don’t quite follow what Musk is saying. He seems to be arguing that it is probable we already live in a simulation of “base reality” (whatever that means - a problem he seems to have breezed past) because of certain reality simulation capabilities that have been achieved, which we’ve lived through at a certain rate of development over the last forty years, that thus promises to continue at a certain projected rate of development (give or take 10,000 years) until what we now call reality becomes indistinguishable from its simulated version.
If I have this right, then I think Musk needs to explain how one gets from the hastening future he describes, where “reality” is no longer distinguishable from reality (again, whatever that means), to the proposition that such a “reality” likely has already obtained - or, in his inverse formulation, that the odds that we now live in a “base reality” are vanishingly low.
Chris’ description of reality as containing more than light and sound is true, but Musk is saying that even this reality that consists of more than light and sound is most likely a simulation. I do not see how this argument is not logically incoherent, and there is no way Musk can know this supposition is true otherwise. Seems like a hazy, stoned thought project from the Donald Sutherland-Tom Hulce “fingernail universe” scene in Animal House.
I see myself as something of a Gnostic and hence conceive this reality as a small subset of a unimaginably larger super-reality --people who survive near death experiences refer to them as "hyper-real" or "super technicolor" compared to the dullness of waking life-- but somehow I doubt Musk's logic is influenced by the Cathars and the library of Nag Hamadi.
I suspect the idea of us living in a simulation is so appealing to the likes of Musk, because that gives them in their minds free range to do what they please and damned be the consequences of their actions. Fire 100 Tesla employees during the pandemic? It doesn't matter because it's all a game anyway, man!
You see, Musk's arguments go counter with the "it's just a ride" argument Bill Hicks used to compel us not to take life so seriously, and the biggest evidence for this is the fact that Musk is still so hard-pressed in continuing the race to become the richest man in the history of the world. Why keep trying to reach all the gold achievements if it's just a dumb simulation anyway, Elon?
But it's not *just* a dumb simulation. It's everything. Apparently one can colonize Mars in it, so why not? It still matters, because we have no knowledge of what's on the other side of the simulation, so this is all we got.
And besides, I don't think Elon does any of what he does for wealth. You're thinking of Bezos. Elon is motivated by actualizing his ideas. Wealth is merely a requirement to that end.
Per these comments, you have very brainy subscribers, Chris! Elon? I am completely fascinated by One-Offs like him. Utterly unique minds make the world go 'round...and I'm rooting for Space-X.
As per many first responses to this hypothesis,
its veracity is ultimately meaningless for how we live our lives. Even those that believe in an ability to consciously manifest reality don't require simulation theory as their canvas. So there's no great reason to care. Unless we're to fear negative outcomes from any segment of the population believing in it, a potential which no doubt could be explored.
Your dismissal, however, seems to be presuming unrealistic expectations of pace, but Musk pre-empts such with, "If you assume any rate of improvement at all". Does your 14 year old nephew not continue to expand in mind and experience beyond physical growth? Do his children and theirs not have opportunity to build upon this? While a simulation of the quality we experience might seem improbable, it would be illogical to dismiss it as impossible.
I dunno, man. The Dimitri experience apparently 'reveals' something both wildly foreign and realer than real, a realm from which our mundane, daily reality seems as relatively simplistic as stick figures on 2D paper seem from here. So shit, anything is possible and knowing reality to relatable completeness is likely beyond us gnats.
The referenced simulation may not be of our creation.
Good point