Rizwan Virk

The problem with that is there are lots of things that we can't prove that they're false.

But we can find some evidence that these things actually happen or that these things exist.

Like a couple hundred years ago, there were stories of rocks falling from the sky.

And all the scientists like in Paris said, oh, that's just bullshit, right?

That's just a bunch of peasants out in the countryside.

We know there's no rocks falling from the sky.

Why?

Because we know there's no rocks in the sky, our science tells us.

There's no rocks up there, so how the hell could they be falling from the sky?

So that's kind of not really a falsifiable thing.

How can you prove there's no rocks in the sky?

You really can't.

You can prove – and eventually they did because they got a whole – there was some huge meteor storm outside of Paris.

And some guys went out to investigate and there were thousands of witnesses that saw this thing.

And then eventually they looked at some of the artifacts, some of the physical evidence.

And then eventually they changed their model, their cosmological model about the universe.

And so I think it's the same thing with simulation theory.

Even though you can't prove –

We're not in a simulation because the simulation could be so good, like the matrix was pretty convincing at first, right?

But the simulation could be so good that you can't necessarily tell.