I'm joined today by professor lawrence krause is a theoretical physicist
cosmologist a professor of physics and director of the origins project at
Arizona State University
it's great to talk to you know growing up I don't even remember when I first
had this idea but in listening to many of the religious stories that we hear
about
the origins of the universe I would think to myself you know I'm not really
finding the story of a man in the sky
in some kind of different incarnation to be reliable I'm not finding myself
swayed by it but you know if I was to come up with an idea
that at least seems more more likely to me
then that even though I can't prove it rather than man in the sky I might say
you know
if everything I was experiencing seeing hearing touching
was part of some computer simulations set up by a greater being than me
that actually seems to me more plausible
and and later I found out that there are actually theories around is some
brain in a batter the universe is the simulation so
was I i certainly wasn't the first to think of this but what is the kind of
scientific basis for these ideas
well i you know it I think I'm not 100 percent certain what the scientific
basis as I think more
many people have wondered that I it's and just like many people dream of line
I think
many people wonder if there are the universe around them
is created as as an allusion for them and I'm
and of course the movie The Matrix promoted that kinda notion
and I the first thing I say is you know
we can't prove we're not in this in a simulation this simulation is good
enough
I'm then then appointed
what's the difference if we're trying to understand the nature of our reality
and the whole reality was a simulation at the simulation as the laws of nature
built into it in our job to start an awesome nature how the universe behaves
I it's hard to imagine of course
that such a simulation actually
existence by the fact that we have wonderful virtual reality that's getting
better and better all the time
are but it to my 4 year the
the issue whether we the universe is it is
is that a simulation or Oracle Real is a relevant because it is
the simulation is so going to appear to be real then what's the difference being
that in reality
well with the with the exception that if by finding out for sure whether we're in
a simulation we were somehow able to get around that
NC what is creating the stimulation then it would become relevant of course
but the point is everything we know about science
tells us there's no evidence that any plan or purpose or design
so if there were it was a simulation it with its remarkable in the sense that it
seems purposeless
it's hard to imagine so if we were to find some purpose to the universe then
that might give evidence
magazine relation but but in fact the progress in science
over the last four hundred years has been precisely the opposite namely
that there's no evidence many purposes or plan
or design I'll in fact everything every day we learned
think things disappear make the University more random and haphazard
including our own existence that
existence his balls on that allowed us to exist appears to be an accident in
many ways and so
most other things we see at a fundamental level appears suggest
quite the opposite now the one area where
were signs really has led to some sort of support for the notion
I've at least big question whether
the illusion or reality is really an illusion is this notion
that perhaps our ideas and dimensions are
are anecdotal namely that
just as a hologram allows you to
in Colby information a three-dimensional room
in a two-dimensional plate you can look around and see people behind other
people
and center I like a real photograph it's been our
you that perhaps you can that that I am
that our notions of dimensions are losing namely that all the information
of say a
three-dimensional space I for dementia universe three dimensions in space when
Mitchell time
could somehow be encoded on the surface me and that
the the actual dimension is kinda redundant so everything
bet although are experiencing a three-dimensional world is really
established by conditions somehow I missed
on a two-dimensional surface or something like that or
normally this is applied to higher dimensions a four-dimensional space
being late or five dimensional space there there's progress
related stranger it shows that the laws of nature in a space that one dimension
are in some sense equivalent to a very different set a closet
I'm out nature in a space for a different number dimensions and so
people have been talking about whether the universe is a hologram
in a sense that whether and whether what we experience is really
dictated by different number dimensions it's all very exciting mathematics
right now it's not clear that any entre les still
to the real world in which we live the the cases in which you can
relate different numbers have dimensions are very special cases where the
mathematics is very special
and they're not it's not the case in our universe 0
so while these questions and issues re passing from a
specular point of view right now there's no evidence that our universe is a
hologram but more importantly
there's certainly no evidence even if in some some aspects of our universe are
delusion
there's no evidence battle lucien was created by an Italian entity
in fact every bit of evidence suggest quite the opposite
I what what is going on in your purse you do much better job I think
what is very real is the the fact that you and I both seem to have
conversations time and time again with those who seem to
site the Bible as proof that the Bible was written by God
and you know just yesterday interview this guy called Carl gallop said he has
a theory about
a rabbi and a real sure owns death and a whole thing and did not bore you with
the details
I actually I think the interview went okay but you
you really debate at length people like William Lane Craig and he's very very
eloquent
very good speakers who are coming from a very religious point of view
and I think you do a really great job by the end I'm actually kinda coming here
for advice it on a specific point which is
I'll where can you kind anchor
the conversation when you're speaking to someone
who insists on going back to the
argument that you can't prove that they're wrong so
intellectually I kind of understand why that doesn't make sense but often times
in the midst of an interview
I get kinda trap there and I'm not exactly sure how to circumvent those
arguments so how how would you advise mirror
who did you study to learn to do it I well i i i'm
a lot I learned from school of hard knocks being involved in debates and
and being caught I now unawares I guess and say you learn from
from bad experiences when you get burned you try not to get burned again
right I'm most people I debater far I you know I have to bear willie Mae
gregory's not what I people on my list and i consider a significant
person I'm northeasterly though his his his speaking skills are good even if his
ideas lack happy Aki
you rhetorically as a debater he was good but once you
on the debate format was clear that he was obviously so you know debates are
not meant to be informative
formal debates are meant to be arm rhetorical devices for
for up committee people have a point and not to really provide information
and so I try to get outta that format first ball when is a
five minutes here five minutes there another counter by because you never can
really have the kind of discussion
engaging them in questions about you know so it's true that I UK I mean
the point is that a lot of things you can't prove to be wrong and
a and got maybe one of them but you know they example often uses what I'm
Bertrand Russell who said well you know I can't prove there isn't a beautiful
china teapot
orbiting Jupiter but that doesn't make it likely or reasonable
and so the question is to try and probe juju thanks to prime probably
why why they insist upon something for which there is no evidence
and and and try and trap them up in logical contradictions
and then in particular number people greg is my number
you know utilized make claims based on science that they don't understand and
so
on it's very useful to point out that the understanding is incorrect i think
im
so if you know of any people like to have it both ways well site can't prove
this
but we can use science to prove what we want when we need to
well that's something that happens with conspiracy theories I find where
the impetus the evidence used
to I a point to a conspiracy theory
is this same media evidence that is called inaccurate
were disproving that same theory yeah and I i think one what we look the only
way alternately
to convince people I'll I'll I love bob
to me I think to get people think about things is to point out
the their own misconceptions point out the logical
inconsistencies or the fact that yes exit
if X is true that implies why but why is obviously not true
and so is a physicist when I'm teaching that the most effective teaching tools
to get students to realize
their own misconceptions by understanding by leading to a logical
contradiction
and when I try and do when I in the cases where I
reluctantly agreed to have a dialogue with people who are rather not be on
stage with
in I'll because sometimes I think it's important to realize mostly people
wanna be on stage for people like me here were made initially because it
gives them
credibility because when people hear them or see them the farewell
you know they must be reason must see and they sound reasonable like he said
she said
so I refuse to do the base in general cañas UFO
abduction people for that reason to the all-big to be on stage in me
and even marginal individuals like great I i certainly
I in a very specific case I agree to do this but in general I
I won't debate I'll debate issues
that are relevant but I won't debate obvious nonsense because all it does is
raise
the profile other people who are promoting the nonsense because people
book make of course darn aware of the issues and if they sound reasonable
then then they they come away thinking while the other two sizes story but as I
often say
the great thing about site is is usually just one side
the other side is just wrong and and that makes give signs progress because
we can
show that it disagrees with the evidence experiment we throw it out
and that'll make science wonderful is there are always two sides to every
story
and a and we should celebrate that back alright professor Lawrence Krauss
of course the origins project at Arizona State University you can check your big
on YouTube it's amazing how much YouTube stuff there is a view
yeah i know i I try to say no to many times and people trying to help but
YouTube too much but we are having any event this weekend I'd origins Wow
I'll call parallel reality is growing but metaphysics which I've up
public event with three Nobel laureates and it's gonna be a a wonderful out
expiration on the fundamental physics governing the universe and the question
is are you tour is necessary
it'll be live but lost be archived and again visible on YouTube
okay thanks so much