Lawrence Krauss - More likely universe is simulation than there's a god?

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