Learn about the likelihood that we all live in a computer simulation. Then, author Thomas Kostigen explains how geoengineering might help cool the planet and save the world.
Learn about the likelihood that we all live in a computer simulation. Then, author Thomas Kostigen explains how geoengineering might help cool the planet and save the world.
Two physicists calculated the likelihood that we live in a computer simulation by Grant Currin
Additional resources from Thomas Kostigen, New York Times-bestselling author and journalist:
Subscribe to Curiosity Daily to learn something new every day with Ashley Hamer and Natalia Reagan (filling in for Cody Gough). You can also listen to our podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing; Amazon smart speakers users, click/tap “enable” here: https://www.amazon.com/Curiosity-com-Curiosity-Daily-from/dp/B07CP17DJY
Find episode transcript here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/hacking-earth-to-fight-climate-change
ASHLEY HAMER: Hi, you're about to get smarter in just a few minutes with Curiosity Daily from curiosity.com. I'm Ashley Hamer.
NATALIA REAGAN: And I'm Natalia Reagan. Today, you'll learn about the likelihood that we all live in a computer simulation. Then author Thomas Kostigen explains how geoengineering might help cool the planet and save the world.
ASHLEY HAMER: Let's save some curiosity.
NATALIA REAGAN: So 2020 has been wild. And while there are plenty of reasonable evidence-based explanations for it all, it might be tempting to wonder if this is all a bit, hhm, artificial, a test of sorts, or perhaps a simulation. Well, two physicists have just released a theoretical exploration of that last possibility. And their findings? Well, they're surprising. That is unless you're one of the quantum computer simulation overlords, in which case you already know that the math says we're almost definitely living in a simulation. Oh, boy.
This isn't the first time, researchers have tried to figure out the probability that we're in some kind of incredibly complex computer model. One problem researchers have dealt with in the past is that classical computers, which include practically every computer that's ever been built, aren't very good at simulating phenomena at the teeny tiny quantum level. That's inconvenient because we're pretty sure that quantum processes underlie everything in the physical world. That's where this new research comes in.
Well, no one has really proven that quantum computers can solve problems that classical computers can't, like simulating the quantum phenomena that make up the universe, the evidence is mounting. This increasing possibility prompted these two Canadian physicists to revisit the question, given that quantum computers are a thing, what's the likelihood that we're all living in a simulation?
They start off with the fact that if a kilogram of matter were used as efficiently as possible in a quantum computer, it could do about 10 to the 50th power calculations per second. A human brain also weighs a kilogram. And it can perform something like 10 to the 16th power calculations per second. That means a quantum computer could be something like 14 septillion times more powerful than a brain of the same size. And FYI, I cannot overemphasize how hypothetical this is.
The researchers took that information and plugged it into a formula along with variables for the number of real non-simulated sentient beings in the universe, the fraction of those beings with access to ultra powerful quantum computers, and the fraction of futuristic computing power that's dedicated to simulating consciousness. They obviously couldn't plug any numbers in for those variables. But the researchers came to a couple of interesting conclusions without any empirical data.
See, those hypothetical computers are so ridiculously powerful that it doesn't really matter what the numbers are. If any percentage of the computing power is dedicated to simulating consciousness, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. The only way this whole thing might not be the matrix is if none of the computing power is put towards simulating consciousness.
But that possibility is almost harder to believe. That leaves us with two possibilities, according to these physicists anyway. Either some super advanced alien civilization is toying with our simulated society this year or our would-be overlords are so ethical that they've chosen not to simulate existence at all. Of course, this could all be real life we brought on ourselves. When you put it that way the simulation hypothesis is downright comforting.
ASHLEY HAMER: I don't need to tell you that we're facing a climate crisis. You just need to take a look at the news to know that. Storms are getting stronger, droughts are getting longer, and fires are getting harder to control. Sometimes, it can feel like the problem is just too big to take on. But our guest today says there's hope.
Scientists are finding ways to change the weather and cool the planet. It's called geoengineering. And it ranges from small changes to the ways we build our cities to large-scale technology that, honestly, sounds like the stuff of super villains. Thomas Kostigen is a New York Times bestselling author and journalist and the author of the new book Hacking Planet Earth How Geoengineering Can Help Us Reimagine the Future. And in our conversation, he told us about one of the most surprising pieces of technology he witnessed when writing the book.
THOMAS KOSTIGEN: Geoengineering itself is basically the mass scale intervention of the climate through artificial means like us doing nature's job for her to thwart the effects of global warming. Part of that is how do we do it. How do we get involved? What technologies are there? And what types of possibilities are there?
And there is a Swiss scientist Jean-Pierre Wolff who has created a laser that is more powerful than all the nuclear weapons on Earth that can reconstruct water molecules. So that means if you shoot it into clouds, it can make water molecules cluster closer together, thereby increasing the possibilities for precipitation, or make them disperse, and thereby creating more possibility for drought. You can also create a lightning strike, which is a phenomenal, phenomenal possibility.
So there are these technologies that can redirect the weather. And if you start to redirect precipitation patterns and things like that, we can start to have some solutions toward climate change when the effects are really extreme storms, floods, et cetera, all the things that we've seen. So fascinating stuff.
ASHLEY HAMER: But it's not all lasers and cloud zapping. Thomas told us that geoengineering also includes analog solutions, like building our roads and roofs with light colors, so they reflect more heat back into space. You can make clouds do the same thing by injecting them with aerosols that make them brighter. He told us about one proposal to drive auto piloted yachts across the ocean to spray seawater up into the atmosphere, where it would brighten clouds and cool the water around coral reefs. Pretty impressive stuff. So what's stopping us? That's what Cody asked him.
- Would you say the biggest hurdle right now is policy, regulatory, getting people to agree on how we do this ethically? Or is it the science and tweaking that and making that precise? Is that's what's stopping us?
THOMAS KOSTIGEN: I think there's another factor here, too. And it's awakening the private sector to these possibilities so they can get funded. And they have the means. Most of these tests take place on university campuses, and they just don't have the funding to continue. So we need to bridge the gap between the private sector and the science community, raise awareness. And then at the same time, that will allow us to take a look at some of the risks.
I think policy has been what everybody's been counting on. And we, as a society, have always looked at government as our great protector. But increasingly, government isn't doing its job. And we need to step in with the power of technology, with the power of Silicon Valley minds, and bring the science community together, and say these are the solutions that we think are going to have the biggest impact, let's get the money, let's get the will-- and that's the other missing piece here-- let's get the will to do it and view this as an existential threat.
We see an invisible existential threat in terms of the coronavirus being put in our front door. And we have prevention methods for that-- washing our hands, social distancing. And now, we're scrambling for treatments. We're scrambling for vaccines. We have prevention methods in the climate, which is turning off the lights when you leave a room, turning down the thermostat, stopping our cars from idling, bringing a canvas bag to the grocery store. But we also need vaccines. We also need treatments. We also need solutions. And that's what I'm advocating with this book.
ASHLEY HAMER: Again, that was Thomas Kostigen, author of the new book, Hacking Planet Earth-- How Geoengineering Can Help Us Reimagine the Future. You can find a link to pick it up in today's show notes.
NATALIA REAGAN: Now, this was very interesting. I do think it's like a super villain that's playing the hand of god, but--
ASHLEY HAMER: I know, I'm very nervous about it. But that was actually my big question was, is this ethical? And he kind of flipped the script on me. He was just like, is it ethical that we're changing the climate so drastically already? I mean, at least, this will help hopefully.
NATALIA REAGAN: OK, let's recap today's takeaways.
ASHLEY HAMER: Well, we learned that since quantum computers are pretty much now a thing, there's a pretty decent probability that we're all just living in a computer simulation. Now, that's at least according to two Canadian physicists, who set out to answer this question. And given how terrible 2020 has been, I think we'd all like to know the answer. I mean, I'm not sure which is worse, being pawns in an alien's twisted game of simulation chess or that humans are just reaping what we've sown.
I, for one, am biased. I think the simulation hypothesis is silly. And I don't think it's as likely as scientists say it is. And the reason for that is that I think most of the people, although these are physicists, so this is different than my rule of thumb, but most of the people who are into the simulation hypothesis are computer people. And most of the people who say that it's not possible are physicists.
NATALIA REAGAN: [LAUGHS]
ASHLEY HAMER: And I feel like I would trust the physicists. They know how our world works. They know whether it seems like all of the little quantum processes in the universe could be programmed. And they don't think so, so--
NATALIA REAGAN: I also think that aliens need to get a better hobby if this is what they're doing, you know? I mean, come on now.
ASHLEY HAMER: Right. I don't know, we keep like terrariums of salamanders. I mean, humans can be the same thing.
NATALIA REAGAN: This is true. I did have Sea-Monkeys at one point. But the Brine shrimp get boring at a certain point. And that's why they don't last forever. I do think it's interesting that it's the computer people that are so on board with this theory because if you think about it, then they're smaller versions of what these overlords would be, so they're kind of, I guess, demigods? [LAUGHS]
ASHLEY HAMER: Yeah. I mean, maybe that's why they believe in it because they'll be the powerful ones who get to make the simulation in the simulation.
NATALIA REAGAN: Exactly. I can take them down-- wait, wait, what? We also learned how geoengineering can possibly combat climate change with lasers. Lasers are not just to entertain your cat. You could actually bust up clouds and change how weather actually performs. I found this fascinating. I also find it ethically a little disturbing if it got into the wrong hands.
ASHLEY HAMER: We do all these experiments in the small scale to see how something will perform in the big scale. But how do you do that with this? I mean, you're talking about an entire planet's weather systems. I'm still skeptical. Thomas had a lot of really good points, and he made me feel a little better about it all. But I'm still very worried. I don't know.
NATALIA REAGAN: Well, this could all just be part of the simulation actually.
ASHLEY HAMER: It could be.
NATALIA REAGAN: They think they screwed up so bad that they're going to use laser beams to change the weather. But it also reminds me of how biologists, conservation biologists will realize that we've screwed up so bad and either hunted something into extinction or introduced, for instance, an animal to an area that now has overrun the area, and they have to cull them or take matters into their own hands. And I guess humans trying to play god, because we know we messed up. And sometimes, it's worked like introducing wolves into Yellowstone. But sometimes, it can backfire like cane toads in Australia.
ASHLEY HAMER: Right. Exactly.
NATALIA REAGAN: Today's first story was written by Grant Curran and edited by Ashley Hamer, who's the managing editor for Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY HAMER: Scriptwriting and editing by Natalia Reagan, our producer is Cody Gough.
NATALIA REAGAN: Join us again tomorrow to learn something new in just a few minutes.
ASHLEY HAMER: And until then, stay curious.