Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Are we living in a computer game? Neil deGrasse Tyson weighs in on the debate about whether our universe is real or simply a simulation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3526237/Are-living-computer-game-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-weighs-debate-universe-real-simply-simulation.html
Everything around us seems real enough, but recently a growing number of scientists have started to wonder whether life is all just an incredibly sophisticated simulation.
Although the debate has been raging for years, Neil deGrasse Tyson recently gathered a group of eminent scientists in an attempt to put the theory to bed - or at least discuss ways to test it.
And the mathematical evidence seemingly points to the fact that our lives could be nothing more than an elaborate computer game-style existence.
DeGrasse Tyson gathered a group of scientists at the New York City's American Museum of Natural History on Tuesday night for the debate.
Zohreh Davoudi, a theoretical physicist at MIT, was one of the panellists.
She has been working on a paper called 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'.
The paper proposes that if the universe is a simulation, we can measure predictable physical limits that are inevitable given the na If predicted limits are found, it could be proof that our reality isn't real.
When asked whether the idea scared her, Davoudi said 'no I think it's a fun idea!'
The event was part of the museum's Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate series, which is held each year to commemorate the life of the science fiction author.
'If you look at how these quarks move around, the rules are entirely mathematical as far as we can say' said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
'That makes me wonder if I were a character in a computer game that started asking the same kind of big questions about my game world, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical.'
James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland, did not want to believe in the idea but was forced to by maths, he said.
He was solving equations a couple of years ago about quarks and leptons, when he discovered codes that make browsers work. 'Why were they in the equations that I was studying about quarks and leptons and supersymmetry?' he said.
'That's what brought me to this very stark realisation that I could no longer say that people like Max were crazy.'
Lisa Randall is a theoretical physicist at Harvard University, and does not believe in the idea.
She said the question of whether the universe is a simulation is only interesting in as far as we can test it.
'Really, at first approximation we can't distinguish it' she explained.
'So I think the interesting question is why do we feel compelled to want this to be true or even think this could be true?'
David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy at New York University, added that the question of whether we are in a simulation is a contemporary version of questions asked by Descartes about the nature of reality.
When asked the question of how likely the universe is a simulation, Tegmark said 17 per cent, and Randall said zero.
Philosopher Chalmers continued 'we're not going to get conclusive proof that we're not in a simulation, because any proof would be simulated.'
However, the idea of the universe being a simulation is different to the hologram theory.
The holographic principle claims gravity in the universe comes from thin, vibrating strings. These strings are holograms of events that take place in a simpler, flatter cosmos.
The theory claims data containing a description of a volume of space - such as a human or a comet - could be hidden in a region of this flattened, 'real' version of the universe.
In a black hole, for instance, all the objects that ever fall into it would be entirely contained in surface fluctuations, almost like a piece of computer memory on contained in a chip.
In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a 'two-dimensional structure projected onto a cosmological horizon' - or in simpler terms, a projection.
If we could understand the laws that govern physics on that distant surface, the principle suggests we would grasp all there is to know about reality.
SUBATOMIC PHYSICS IN BRIEF
Atoms are usually made of protons and neutrons, which are made of even smaller elementary particles.
Elementary particles, also known as fundamental particles, are the smallest particles we know to exist.
These can be broken into two groups: leptons and quarks. There are six of each.
The six quarks are paired in the three generations – the 'up quark' and the 'down quark' form the first generation, followed by the 'charm quark' and 'strange quark', then the 'top quark' and 'bottom quark'.
Quarks also come in three different 'colours' and only mix in such ways as to form colourless objects.
The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the 'electron' and the 'electron neutrino', the 'muon' and the 'muon neutrino', and the 'tau' and the 'tau neutrino'.
There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force.
Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called 'bosons' - made up of three quarks.
HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE THEORY
The principle suggests that, like the security chip on your credit card, there is a two-dimensional surface that contains all the information needed to describe a three-dimensional object - which in this case is our universe.
The theory claims data containing a description of a volume of space - such as a human or a comet - could be hidden in a region of this flattened, 'real' version of the universe.
In a black hole, for instance, all the objects that ever fall into it would be entirely contained in surface fluctuations, almost like a piece of computer memory on contained in a chip.
In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a 'two-dimensional structure projected onto a cosmological horizon' - or in simpler terms, a projection.
If we could understand the laws that govern physics on that distant surface, the principle suggests we would grasp all there is to know about reality.
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate with Host Neil deGrasse Tyson: Is the Universe a Simulation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFEbJQY16Io
Neil deGrasse Tyson (far left) gathered a group of scientists at the at New York City's American Museum of Natural History on Tuesday for a debate about the universe being a sophisticated computer simulation. David Chalmers, Lisa Randall, James Gates, Max Tegmark and Zohreh Davoudi are pictured left to right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3526237/Are-living-computer-game-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-weighs-debate-universe-real-simply-simulation.html
What may have started as a science fiction speculation—that perhaps the universe as we know it is a computer simulation—has become a serious line of theoretical and experimental investigation among physicists, astrophysicists, and philosophers.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, hosts and moderates a panel of experts in a lively discussion about the merits and shortcomings of this provocative and revolutionary idea. The 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate took place at The American Museum of Natural History on April 5, 2016.
2016 Asimov Panelists:
David Chalmers
Professor of philosophy, New York University
Zohreh Davoudi
Theoretical physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Gates
Theoretical physicist, University of Maryland
Lisa Randall
Theoretical physicist, Harvard University
Max Tegmark
Cosmologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate — generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work — bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.
Why Space Science Urgently Needs a Better Spokesman Than Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://www.inverse.com/article/14978-why-space-science-urgently-needs-a-better-spokesman-than-neil-degrasse-tyson
What do you mean you don’t like Neil deGrasse Tyson?”
This is how people always respond when I admit that I have little love for the science communicator the internet knows as NdGT. In the world of science, and in the world of science journalism and communication, this opinion is anathema. My lack of support for the guy standing on the deck of the “Ship of the Imagination” makes me a borderline mutineer. People step away, not wanting, I presume, to be forced into an airlock and jettisoned into space for sharing my apostasy.
Sure, I’m being dramatic, but not that dramatic. People really like Tyson, ugly vests and all. And — for what it’s worth — I’m not surprised by that. The bestselling author of Death by Black Hole, a very good book most NdGT fans haven’t read, came to prominence as a regular guest on The Colbert Report, where he made space science seem fun. Since then, he’s spent a significant portion of his time on talk shows and built his own audience with the StarTalk podcast. He’s also hosted a thoroughly okay revival of Cosmos and served very capably as the Hayden Planetarium’s director. He is, one might say, a man climbing to the heavens by piling up soap boxes.
I’m a science writer, but I primarily write about space. And Tyson is probably more responsible than any other scientist or science communicator for creating an audience for my work. So, why the resentment? Is it genuine or is it just a defiant contrapposto? Unfortunately, it’s the real deal. I’m not a proselytizing hater, but I’m pretty devout.
And here’s the crux of it: He could do so much more.
For all of Tyson’s good deeds in the name of advancing science for the public good, he has committed a fair share of aggravating nonsense. Did he really need to appear on an episode of The Big Bang Theory? That show is awful for science, scientists, and humanity in general. In a generation, when the neurodiversity movement has more sway, we’ll look at it as nothing more than hurtful caricature. Why, Neil?
And what the flying hell was with that flat-Earth spat with B.o.B? I kind of get responding to his first wave of tweets with a rebuttal based in science, but then there was that excruciating diss track (rapped by his nephew) and that appearance on The Nightly Show that seemed to drag his name into the world of bad entertainment. The problem isn’t with rapping, the problem is with presuming that science — and by proxy, scientists — needs to be more approachable.
Tyson stoops when there’s no need.
For instance, he went on a trolly, pointless Tweet spree in which he discussed all the scientific reasons Star Wars doesn’t work in real life. And it’s not the first time he’s decided to deride fictional movies for their liberal interpretation of science. Sure, it’s kind of cute and mostly harmless, but it misunderstands and betrays the potential of a truly potent scientific communicator. The idea should be to ennoble, not nitpick.
And then there are the instances where Neil just starts to make shit up.
Stephen Geeks Out With Neil Tyson & Seth MacFarlane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UDNOOJ3sr0
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Einstein's Gravitational Waves Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOPEPVYAnU
10 Times Neil deGrasse Tyson Blew Our Minds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfPdtfbPsRw
What are the odds there is life in outer space - Richard Dawkins asks Neil Degrasse tyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk0pRPIQBY4
The Theory of Everything (Neil deGrasse Tyson Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSb1eJGCtcI