Menu
Sign In Search Podcasts Charts People & Topics Add Podcast API Pricing
Podcast Image

StarTalk Radio

Cosmic Queries – Living in a Simulation with Nick Bostrom

19 Dec 2025

53 min duration
8654 words
4 speakers
19 Dec 2025
Description

Are we in a simulation? On this episode, Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice take a deep dive into simulation theory, consciousness, and free will with Oxford theorist Nick Bostrom. Is this The Matrix? Originally Aired December 21, 2021.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/cosmic-queries-living-in-a-simulation-with-nick-bostrom/ Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Audio
Transcription

Chapter 1: What is the main premise of the simulation hypothesis?

0.031 - 31.631 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Hey, Star Talkians, Neil here. You're about to listen to an episode specially drawn from our archives to serve your cosmic curiosities. The archives run deep. If you enjoy this, take a peek at the full catalog on your favorite podcast platform. There's a lot there to tickle your geek underbelly. Check it out. Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.

0

32.956 - 55.924 Neil deGrasse Tyson

StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk Cosmic Queries Edition. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist. I got Chuck Nice with me, of course. Chuck, my... What's up, Neil? Faithful co-host. You know, we need you for the Cosmic Queries so that you can mispronounce everyone's name.

0

55.904 - 65.881 Chuck Nice

Well, that's my purpose in life, Neil. I live to butcher names. Those poor questioners.

0

66.261 - 68.465 Nick Bostrom

How would you attack my name?

0

68.485 - 77.248 Chuck Nice

Oh, my goodness. So, Nick Bostrom? Is that what you... Is that how... It's pretty good.

77.268 - 82.597 Nick Bostrom

Is that all right? In Swedish, it would be Niklas Bostrom, but that was close.

82.737 - 94.277 Chuck Nice

All right. And listen, I'll take close. As far as I'm concerned, names are like a game. That's like a game of horseshoes for me. Close is good enough.

94.978 - 126.537 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Good enough. So that was indeed Nick Bostrom chiming in. Nick, welcome to StarTalk. Dude, you started something that has got the whole world, you know, spinning in a tizzy. for birthing the concern that we all live in a simulation. And let me just give a fast bio on you. You're a professor at University of Oxford in the Future of Humanity Institute. Oh, that doesn't look very bright.

128.179 - 140.67 Chuck Nice

It doesn't look very bright. Sorry, Nicholas, not a lot of job security in that, buddy. No future for humanity. Looking at the future of humanity, yo.

Chapter 2: How does Nick Bostrom explain the simulation argument?

1170.059 - 1189.486 Chuck Nice

I'm sorry, I know you're a genius, but here's the deal. Here's why I'm going to disagree, Nick. Because when movie makers make movies, they do not render the detail in every single little thing. What they have... He didn't get there yet.

0

1189.506 - 1192.05 Neil deGrasse Tyson

That was the next thing he was going to talk about.

0

1192.07 - 1204.405 Chuck Nice

Oh, man. You're ahead of me. See, you already thought of this. Like I said. Jesus Christ. Here I am making a discovery, man. All right, Chuck.

0

1204.725 - 1208.37 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Okay, continue. Wait, Chuck, finish the point. And then we'll pick it up there.

0

1208.39 - 1221.565 Chuck Nice

Both of you already knew where I was going. But the deal is this. If you actually create a background, that background will pretty much be the same for all the characters that are mapped onto that background. So that's all I would say.

1221.545 - 1233.656 Nick Bostrom

Now, I mean, I think that's the key to understand this whole simulation argument stuff, that if you had to simulate all of the environment in subatomic detail continuously, it probably would be completely infeasible to do that. But I claim that's not needed.

1234.497 - 1245.207 Nick Bostrom

All you would need to do is to simulate enough of the parts that we are observing, when we're observing them, that to the simulated creatures, it looks real and that they can tell the difference. And that's a lot less. All right, wait a minute.

1245.307 - 1263.449 Neil deGrasse Tyson

I just thought of something else in support. So what that would mean, Chuck... Chuck, check whether it means whole sections of the Pacific Ocean where there isn't a boat, right? Then no one has, so it doesn't exist until someone has to then see it and process it.

1263.469 - 1273.742 Nick Bostrom

So it's a procedural content generation. So we use it in our computer games today a lot. Like you often only render the parts that some character in the game are observing.

Chapter 3: What are the three propositions of the simulation argument?

1292.882 - 1300.57 Neil deGrasse Tyson

The program would know, the programmer would know you're about to bring out an electron microscope, so they have time to up the calculation right in the beam right there.

0

1300.59 - 1318.309 Nick Bostrom

And if necessary, I mean, they could even pause the simulation or edit it or erase memories if they really screwed it up. But yeah, I think the kind of capability you would need to even create anything resembling this kind of simulation

0

1318.795 - 1333.191 Nick Bostrom

is very advanced, and I think with that advanced capability would also come the ability to edit and to monitor human thoughts and intentions and then kind of be able to do this kind of procedural generation that even we do in our computer games today.

0

1333.311 - 1366.183 Chuck Nice

That could explain why I've heard Neil say this, that we are terrible data takers. Like, as human beings, we are awful at taking in information. Well, if I'm programming a simulation, I would certainly want to program the people in that simulation to be like that because that way I wouldn't have to program all this detail into stuff. It protects the integrity of my simulation.

0

1366.349 - 1385.168 Nick Bostrom

Yeah. Although I think, to be fair, I think the difference between one human and another from the point of view of the simulators, it's like, well, there is one ant. It's got a few more neurons. It's a genius ant. But I mean, we all like ants, I think. So I don't think the difference in cost is that big.

1385.401 - 1386.583 Chuck Nice

Oh, cool.

1386.603 - 1387.906 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Very cool.

1388.066 - 1404.456 Chuck Nice

All right, Chuck, bring on a question. Let's see what you got. All right, here we go. Let's jump into this. This is Dennis Gislain, and Dennis says this. Spell that. G-H-I-S-L-A-I-N. I say Gislain.

1405.837 - 1407.919 Neil deGrasse Tyson

It's probably Ghislaine.

Chapter 4: How does artificial intelligence relate to the simulation theory?

1865.059 - 1869.326 Chuck Nice

Now all I can think about is a conscious rock. I just love the idea.

0

1869.346 - 1892.734 Neil deGrasse Tyson

So here's what I wonder, Nick. I just have a not deeply thought out hypothesis that having thoughts such as we do that are incomplete and that we wonder and we don't have good memory of things or we make stuff up, the fact that it's not perfect, we interpret as consciousness.

0

1893.794 - 1916.75 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Because if it were perfect, it's just data and our brain is a storage disk that occasionally puts information together with a new result. But the fact that we can sit there and say, oh, I feel this and I don't, and it's mostly how we reckon with our ignorance of our environment, even when we probe it for knowledge.

0

1916.77 - 1936.674 Nick Bostrom

I'm just putting it out there. Yeah, well, I mean, I guess, first of all, you could have a lot of artificial intelligence even simple systems that would be imperfect in various ways. You could have some faulty hard drives that randomly erase various things. You could also have kind of compressed representations. That's what you have to do if you're trying to do anything with AI.

0

1936.795 - 1945.485 Nick Bostrom

There's a lot of data coming in and you have to extract some important features based on that and throw the rest away.

1946.045 - 1957.012 Neil deGrasse Tyson

Wait, Chuck. What Nick just said, I can't stop thinking about it. So, Chuck, every time you and I forget something, the alien's hard drive messed up.

1958.576 - 1962.006 Chuck Nice

So every time you go, what did I come upstairs for?

1965.243 - 1972.315 Neil deGrasse Tyson

It's a read-write error, an I.O. error in a programmer's disk.

1972.335 - 1985.499 Nick Bostrom

Well, so I don't think so. No, I was just exploring your account of consciousness, that somehow what's necessary or sufficient for consciousness is that there is some kind of faulty or limited information processing. Right.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Please log in to write the first comment.