Tom Bilyeu Doesn't Understand The "Real" World - Debunking Terrible Physics

[00:00:00]Let's set that set that to rest once and for all that there as far as I can tell is no correlation between the tech bro arguments that we're living in a simulation and honest science that has to do with computability and complexity theory.

[00:00:15]>> [music] >> Hassan, we're going to stay with you because you remember a couple of sessions ago, maybe we did it most of it offline, we definitely talked about some of it online. We talked about some of the worst science thumbnails that have ever existed. Now, you shared this with us for a little bit of discussion. This is from Tom Bilyeu, which is a he's another one of these, you know, ten-a-penny sort of tech bro clueless wonders into science and says lots of ridiculous things kind of person. And he posted this nice thumbnail. The Nobel Prize, this is the Nobel Prize in 2022, I guess, for Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger just proved that the universe isn't real. He was so proud of this that he that he re-uploaded it this month.

[00:01:10]>> The odds that you're living in a simulation border on 100% meaning this, all of this is almost certainly not real. In October of 2022, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for proving that the universe renders like a video game.

[00:01:28]>> What?

[00:01:30]Bro, what are you talking about, man?

[00:01:32]>> What's going on here and what's your problem with it?

[00:01:35]>> So, when it comes to this particular video, I think the title is much worse than the thumbnail. The thumbnail is bad, but the title is much worse because the title is just a lie. Right?

[00:01:43]So, it doesn't prove that the universe is not real. I mean, I don't know any physicist who has said that. And if you want to talk about the simulation hypothesis, I mean, that has problems, of course, but the title just lies. So, I mean, you can't argue against a lie because it's not any argument.

[00:02:00]>> So, when we're when we're talking about realism, right? So, the the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, when we talk about realism, we're talking about particles having definite properties when we're not looking at them, right? And this is quantum mechanics seems to say they don't, right? With this this kind of fuzzy ball that's moving around and until we make a measurement, we don't we don't know if they're spin up or spin down or whatever. That's that's a lack of realism, but that's a physicist way of using the word real.

[00:02:31]And then you have the kind of colloquial version of the world is not real. So, the universe is not doesn't you know, local realism doesn't apply in quantum mechanics, but that's different to colloquially saying the world isn't real and everything's being simulated. It's it's a mismatch between the the physics use of realism and the colloquial use of the word real. And then smashed in with this It's just It's just It's just total nonsense from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, right?

[00:03:01]>> Also, I mean, one problem I mean, it's not a physics problem, but I don't know what this person who is shown in the thumbnail he is. I mean, this person seems to be from the Matrix, but this is not a character from the Matrix. I mean, it seems to be like a mashup between Neo and you know, whatever that you know, guy who you know, who was an antagonist in the So, it's it's a mashup between Neo and Agent Smith. I don't know who this person is to be honest.

[00:03:24]>> It's a quantum superposition of Neo and Agent Smith, Hassan. That's what it is.

[00:03:29]So, this this upset you a bit, didn't it?

[00:03:32]>> Oh, a lot. I mean, because the title is just a lie. Although, also, you know, if he's talking about 2022 Nobel Prize, you can see that this video was uploaded 1 month ago and he said just given. So, what does that mean? Like, [laughter] 4 years ago?

[00:03:46]>> It's also time invariant is this this video. It it It doesn't change doesn't change at all. Christian, any thoughts on the on this?

[00:03:56]>> Yeah, I think it's it's kind of doing the real science a disservice because I mean, we know that we know what the Bell tests did. So, just at a very high level, like the Bell tests did not prove that reality is fake in the colloquial sense that you're describing. Under very particular assumptions, they proved that certain quantum correlations violate inequalities that would need to hold if there were local hidden variables. And you can respond to this in many ways.

[00:04:19]You can say, "Okay, fine. We don't have local hidden variables and states can exist in superpositions." If you want to be a little bit more um I don't know, exotic, then you can argue for non-locality and say, "Okay, there's non-local explanations that circumvent these assumptions." But, the result is the result. Under these assumptions, these experiments show that there's a particular no-go theorem, and I think that's astonishing enough without attempting to wrap it in this sort of sci-fi simulation language, right? I mean, the paper stands on its own without trying to sneak Keanu Reeves into the conclusion section and try to sell it and make it sound more exciting.

[00:04:57]I mean, the science is already very cool.

[00:04:59]>> Well, entanglement is already a crazy thing to to discuss and something we don't fully understand at the moment, right? So, you don't need to add all these bells and whistles on the on top to make it exciting. I I don't know why though.

[00:05:14]>> Uh just a progress. This this person is not Keanu Reeves. [laughter] This this is some This person looks a bit like Keanu Reeves, but he is not Keanu Reeves. He's not Keanu Reeves.

[00:05:22]>> He's getting really He's really upset that he doesn't look enough like Neo. I Do you Are you a big fan of Keanu uh Azam?

[00:05:29]>> Uh yeah, I I like him, yeah.

[00:05:30]>> [laughter] >> I mean, I like Matrix movies, but this person is not Keanu Reeves.

[00:05:34]>> Evarno, anything to anything to add here? Cuz I've got one thing to add afterwards.

[00:05:38]>> Well, first of all, who's not a fan of Keanu Reeves?

[00:05:41]>> Yeah, he's he's a good guy. He's a good guy.

[00:05:43]>> And second, >> Bill and Ted, man. Bill and Ted is amazing.

[00:05:46]>> Right?

[00:05:48]I I I don't think I can add much to what um the others have said. They said it perfectly. I think this is like really disrespectful. Like Like you you can you can't just say that. Like the title the thumbnail text like it's it's not okay. Like >> Five chapters. He goes into He goes into some details. What The The only thing that I was going to add to this is that I'll come back to you, Christian. That The simulation hypothesis I've got to say does seem to be like the ultimate sort of midwit catcher hypothesis, right? I'm not saying like people can't do serious work on it or you know, you can't you can't think about these ideas, but it seems to be in sort of tech bro know-nothing circles. It's like, "Oh, well, like if you just simulate the universe, you can kind of you can do what you want, right?" And you can make up any rules you want in the computer.

[00:06:39]So, uh you know, when I see something that's confusing, uh we're in a simulation.

[00:06:44]>> Yes. I mean, we should distinguish between, as you say, two different things. I mean, there is interesting work in complexity and arguing that if the universe operates in a sort of computational way, then there are limits to what can be done because certain problems are very hard to solve computationally. So, you can argue against certain things by saying that this thing would take an exponential amount of compute time and the universe is in some sense doing some sort of computation. So, this rules out particular scenarios. That can be legitimate science. But this is very different from people who kind of squint and say, "Well, if we were living in a computer game, wouldn't you expect there to be a minimum length because that's as small as the bits can get?" Or a maximum speed because that's, you know, the cap at which the thing can process how fast you're moving. These are just very suggestive bizarre analogies that have nothing to do with the legitimate science that has to do with simulation hypotheses or complexity. So, let's uh set that uh set that to rest once and for all that there, as far as I can tell, is no correlation between the tech bro arguments that we're living in a simulation and honest science that has to do with computability and complexity theory.

[00:07:51]>> I want to know what you think because you're the scholars of enlightenment that I do this for. So, please take a moment, if you wish, to let me know down in the comments section. And if you like this video, please consider leaving a like, subscribing, setting up notifications, and sharing this video more widely. I can't tell you how much these simple actions help me out and how much I'd appreciate it. Thanks for watching.

[00:08:21]Thanks for being scientific.

[00:08:23]Thanks for being bad.