Truth Unites - The Simulation Hypothesis (with Parker Settecase)

Episode Date: April 1, 2023

In this video I talk with Parker Settecase about the simulation hypothesis: what it is, arguments for and against it, what it reveals about our culture, and why it's important to respond to as Christians. Parker's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ParkersPensees Our Last Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCLICdpaXj8 Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey everyone, welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. I'm here with Parker Set a Case and we're going to talk about the simulation hypothesis. If you've never heard of the simulation hypothesis, don't click off the video. This is fascinating. I promise you you'll find it interesting and it's relevant to so many other situations. So we'll explain what it is and we'll get into it in just a second. Parker, thanks for taking the time to do this. How you doing? Yeah, doing well, man. Thanks so much for having me back on. I think this is my second time on yours and you've been on twice on mine. So we're going to be tied. up here. Yeah, yeah, we're old timers. What is the weather like currently in Chicago? It's cold. Colder than I want it to be. I've been procrastinating a lot today, walking the dog, so my hands are still warming up, but I took the dog on like four walks. He's like, please no more procrastinating. Yeah, the hardest part, we lived in Chicago kind of near you guys about five years ago, and I loved, I liked the winter at first, but the hardest part was like this time of the year. You get into March, you get into April and I remember walking around the campus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in May. It was early May and the leaves weren't out yet and I was like what the heck? When is it coming?

So hopefully it'll warm up soon. We've got we've been inundated with rain so it's really green here and really pretty right now but tell people what you do you know what are you you're you've got you're getting like your third degree right now is that right your third masters. Yeah that's right so I got two from Ted's and I started there right after you left. So we just miss each other. I lived on campus there for a while, too. I've been nice to talk with you more. But I got one in systematic theology, one in theological studies. I'm working on a third master's in philosophy of religion.

So I love thinking about this kind of crazy stuff. And then Lord willing, we'll see if I can get on to a philosophy PhD. Yeah, yeah, it's exciting. Yeah, yeah. And so we were at the conference last fall at Palm Beach, Atlantic University, great school, and lots of stuff going on with apologetics and philosophy. And you gave a talk. and I wasn't able to attend it, but it was on this, the simulation hypothesis, and then we've emailed a bit. And I think this whole issue is so fascinating, and it kind of breaks open so many other issues as well.

So why don't we start? Maybe just tell us what is the simulation hypothesis. And if you can involve, I love movies. So if there's any way you can involve references to the movies, The Matrix and the Truman Show, I will be really happy. That's great. That's great. Yeah. So the simulation hypothesis, or simulation theory, depending on where you're getting your information at, they use different words, is just basically the view that you live in a computer-generated reality. That the world that we take ourselves to, the world that we live in is not the most fundamental world,

but it is a computer generation of base reality, the actual real world. And so we might even be a nested simulation, you know, a bunch of levels up or down, however you think about that. But that's just, that's the thing that's going to connect all the different simulation theories and hypotheses, hypotheses, yeah, that we live in a computer generated reality. And how big is this? Because I mean, so when I started emailing with you about this, I looked into it just a tiny bit. I did like literally like the read the Wikipedia page article version of like orienting myself to it. And what it seems like it's kind of a big issue right now within philosophy. Are there people who take this seriously?

How common of a hypothesis is it? Yeah, yeah. So I think it's very common and I think it's trending up. It's not a whole ton. It's not taken seriously a whole ton in philosophy, but it is taken seriously much more in AI theorizing, in maybe theoretical physics, on the other side of the coin from philosophy.

Philosophers are thinking about it more, but more just like, oh, let's toy with it. except for David Chalmers, who is a techno philosopher. David Chalmers is the man. He's a very good philosopher of mind, metaphysician, and techno philosopher, a word that I think he coined. But he came out this book, Reality Plus, and it's virtual world and the problems of philosophy. And he's getting a bunch of headway from that. But it's kind of seeping back into philosophy and theology, but I haven't seen a whole ton of it in philosophy of religion yet, though I think it's really fertile grounds for it.

So the simulation hypothesis or theory, it encompasses things like the matrix where you are a brain in a vat or a body in a vat, where you have some kind of actual existence in base reality, but we're being deceived maybe by being in this world or maybe we, uh, vanilla sky. Maybe we chose to live in this world. And we forgot that we entered into it. A total recall is another one that that might be doing that. The Truman Show, it's kind of, um, the Truman Show, he was. He lived in base reality, but this would be like Truman Show, but we're, you know, wearing a goggles or whatever where in the, uh, the world. It also incorporates, uh, or encompasses movies like Tron and, uh, Tron Revolution or Tron, I always forget the name. There's a new Tron that's very, very good. I liked it a lot. I can't remember the name, but they're actually digitally, uh, simulated beings.

Their whole essence is in the computer simulation. So, you know, there's basically two views. One is that you have existence outside of the simulated world and the other view that you just are wholly a sim. Your whole existence is inside a computer generated world. By the way, just popped into my brain. I forgot to say this earlier. Parker has an awesome YouTube channel and it's also a podcast. I'll put a link to that in the video description.

Check it out. Really cool interviews, smart, high-level philosophy stuff relevant to apologetics, relevant to lots else as well. So check out his YouTube channel. Make sure to subscribe. But let me throw out a couple of the questions just right up front so people know where we're going with this. So we're going to talk about why is this of interest to people right now? What does that say about our culture, the fact that people are thinking about this? We're going to talk about why is it relevant to think about, you know, why is it important to think about what does it matter?

Why is it more than just a fun thought experiment? And then how as Christians we respond, what, you know, what a Christian response would be. But the way I got into this, when I started just earlier today, just again, just like 20 minutes of looking into it, I watched a Neil deGrasse Tyson clip where he was talking about it. And he was saying why he's not convinced, but it was fascinating. And I realized Elon Musk apparently takes this idea really seriously. And I listening to an interview he did with Joe Rogan where he was saying basically like if you believe, and this was, so Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk both gave this really quick summary of why people could think like this. So I'll throw this out there and see if you can kind of unpack this or explain this. But they're both basically saying, if you believe in technological progress, then at some point, they will get to a point where we're capable of creating a simulated reality.

And if you believe that, then it's plausible to think that that simulated reality will get to that point as well. And so then you've got all these like simulated realities within simulated realities. And then so then you just throw a dart at the wall and say, well, what order the odds that were actually in the base reality when there's all these, you know. And so that was kind of the way they were explaining it at a very entry level for why this could be a plausible idea. So is that anywhere approaching something like some of the arguments that people try to give for this? Yeah, totally. So, so what they're what they're gesturing at is, uh, techno another techno philosopher, Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. And, uh, you laid it out really nice.

I even like the throwing the dart at the wall. It's just exactly what you said. You say, hey, look, take the technological advances that we have, that we have seen in the last 50 years. And just run it to another 50 years. Like another 50 years of progress like we've had. It seems like we're going to be able to make worlds where they're indistinguishable from our world. You know, like just run it. 50 years isn't enough.

Go 100 years or 1,000 years. It seems like we're going to be able to do that. If that's the case, then those worlds are going to be able to generate. world and just like you said if there's a bunch of nested worlds if there's uh you know billions and billions and billions of digitally simulated conscious beings then what are the odds that you're in the base reality you know there's like eight billion people here on earth in base reality that we take it but there could there there'll be trillions and trillions and trillions if each simulation can simulate more so then there's this in philosophy it's called

a indifference principle a bland indifference principle that's just the the view that like if most things are X, then I'm probably X. So if most conscious beings like me are digital beings, simulated beings, then I'm probably a simulated being too. And so then you run that. There's some extra stuff that Boston throws in. Like we might we'd be living in a ancestor simulation that our future ancestors wanted to see what it would be like to live in 20, 23 or I you know, crazy things like the like the 2016 election like, oh, you know, really in base reality, Hillary won. But wouldn't it be crazy if we push Trump?

What would happen if we push the Trump button? So sometimes people will point to examples that are really crazy in our history and say, look, we got to be living in a computer simulation. Yeah. Well, I want to ask about kind of why you think this topic is worth talking through and taking seriously and devoting some time to. And maybe as an entry into that kind of heading of questions, you can share your own personal point of engagement.

How did you first get interested in this? Yeah, yeah. So I think it's fascinating. And every time I start to lose interest in it, someone will come through and say, hey, my kid thinks that we live in a computer simulation. So I do, I pretend to be someone from a different worldview for one of my friends who runs an apologetics ministry. So I go there, I pretend to be a panpsychist or a simulation hypothesis theorist or something. And the last time I was pretending to be a panpsychist, which is just a view that everything has a mind or mind to it. And I, I told. I told the audience after we were done interacting with each other, I said, hey, look, I think I pretended to be this because I think that your kids are going to enjoy this. I think your kids are going to be into this. I think this is going to be a challenge of Christianity. And simulation hypothesis. And this lady raised her hand and said, actually, both of my kids currently believe that we live in a computer simulation. And so I've seen like a lot of the younger Gen Z and whatever is after Gen Z, they are really moved by this.

A lot of them in locked indoors a lot. A lot of them play Minecraft a ton. And they call physical reality. They call it meat space, which is super gross. Oh, I'm going to go meet them in meet space. You know, like, yuck. But they play so much Minecraft that they're like, hey, what if this world is just another Minecraft, a more finely grained Minecraft.

So I've seen it come up, but I've also seen it come up on college campuses when I'm sharing the gospel with somebody. And they go, yeah, okay, that's fine. But, you know, I listen to Lex Friedman or I listen to Joe Rogan. And, you know, people on there say we could be living in a computer simulation. So what if what you take to be God and our creator is just a human being or an alien, one level of reality deeper than you? You know, they wouldn't even be God because maybe they're simulated.

So maybe all this evidence you have for God actually points to a computer simulator or, you know, a 13-year-old kid and one reality below us. Yeah, yeah. So it sounds like there's a direct relevance in that. It is kind of depressing to me at one moment. And then at the very same moment, I realize it's totally realistic that there are probably a sizable number of young people who believe in this, you know, who think it. And that's kind of a sign of the times. And we can come back to the cultural piece of all this maybe in a little bit.

But so there's a direct value of talking about this because people believe in it. I've also wondered, do you think there's any indirect value in that in thinking about this? It's a pivot to raise other philosophical questions or even just to invite people into conversation. Sometimes I've wondered with apologetics, maybe if you start the conversation saying, hey, do you want to talk about Christianity that is not of interest? But if you, you know, this can be a window into these larger questions. Like you say, you know, thinking about who's the designer of the simulated reality, it does kind of get you into like teleological arguments. So it seems like there's kind of indirect value as well in a way. 100%. Yeah, I think you're right. Yes. So as like the metaverse,

approaches more and whether that project actually takes off or not. I think more and more interest will, this idea will garner more and more interest. I think that at one level, I want to like destroy it. I want to knock down the simulation hypothesis and give an argument against it. And the other, it kind of depends on the person. Some people I want to just drag in and say, like, well, tell me, tell me why the simulator wouldn't be God, you know, like the God that I believe in, the Christian God. Like, tell me, tell me, you know, maybe this is just a rough analogy or a metaphor for God. Tell me why you think that would be a 13-year-old girl, one level of reality below, instead of like a super genius God who's immaterial. And so I found it to be really, as I backed off

the instant refutation trying to really just destroy it, and as I've just asked more questions, say, well, you show me, you show me why these are contradictory. I've had really good metaphysical conversations, really good theological conversations where we're getting into the nature and existence of nature, existence, attributes of God and putting it back on them to say, hey, you tell me. And they go, well, I don't know. And I go, well, let's talk. And now we're talking about God and theology, which started from thinking about if we live in a computer simulation.

Yeah, it's fascinating. That's so cool. So what do you think, I just dive into this question. What do you think it says about our culture that this is such a common idea, especially among young people? I mean, I kind of wonder if it speaks to this desire, maybe a, a, a, disenchantment with the world in its current state, people are looking for something more? What kind of cultural takeaway do you draw from the interest in this?

Yeah. I think that I think there's a lot. I think one of them is that people are disenchanted with like the new atheist view of the world and strict like physicalism. Even though you can give the simulation hypothesis in a physicalist, you know, notion, you can do that. But I think a lot of people are just like, yeah, I see that there is design in the world. I see that there's purpose. But maybe I don't want to go in for like strict theism.

So maybe I just think that we live in a computer simulation. And I think it, in one level, it's like you're turning off too soon and you keep going into theism. Let's talk. But maybe you have reservations about that or maybe you grew up and you had really bad experience with the church. And so this is a way to explain a lot of things that theism is supposed to explain without committing you to. Christianity or to being some kind of theist. So I like that. I like people who are honest like that. Like let's I'm gonna drag them back in and talk. I don't want to you know box them in. I don't want to trap them or anything like that. I want to have honest conversations and if this is a

a way that we can do that where they feel like they're safer then that's cool. Let's do that then. Yeah. Yeah. Do you think do you sense a thirst for enchantment right now? I've been trying to think about what is the feel right now of the culture. And this word enchantment, well, disenchantment, and then the thirst for enchantment keeps coming back to me. And I just, I think a lot of people feel exactly what you just said, that the flatness and the barrenness of the new atheist perspective, it feels like there's a thirst for something more interesting, for something more layered and textured to the world.

Do you sense that right now? Yeah, I do. And I think it probably depends on where you go. If you're like on atheist Reddit, you're probably going to catch that. If you're on Instagram, those people are all, many of them are existentialists. And there's some like anti-natalist arguments against like, you know, being born. I exist without my consent type ideas. But those are like some isolated places.

When I talk to people on college campuses, they're much more open to thinking about God again. They've kind of like left their faith or they, many of them have. I've never had faith, but it was grandma's faith that was kind of jammed on them. I think many of them, you find this yearning for enchantment through like Marvel movies, right? Like, if you talk to them about the reboots in the DC comic universe or in the MCU, the cinematic universe, like, they will know everything. They can tell you all sorts of cosmogony and cosmology and theology. They want to talk about that stuff. but maybe because the stakes aren't

so high, they're cool being like, yeah, I'll nerd out on that all day long. You can find YouTubers who only talk about comics and they have 10 million subscribers on YouTube. People want to talk about this kind of stuff. But I believe that this is the true stuff. So let's get into some metaphysics here. Like, let's actually do that.

And I think the simulation hypothesis is kind of a bridge between the like comic book cosmology type stuff which is obviously fake and like theology which I believe is real there's this simulation hypothesis bridge where it's a safe place for them to kind of theorize could we be living in someone's world that designed it for us to have purpose. Yeah, it's almost like a bridge into these deeper questions. Yeah, if only theology and philosophy were as popular as comics on YouTube, we would be in good, good shape, man. That's right. Okay, so give us an overview. You already mentioned Bostrum, Bostrum? Who are some of the main proponents of this idea?

Yeah, so if you look on Amazon and you type in like simulation hypothesis, you're going to probably find Rizvon Burke's book. He's a computer programmer, video game designer, architect, and he wrote this book called The Simulation Hypothesis. And in his book, he's giving a kind of theory of everything in like the theoretical physics type sense where he's trying to unify physics. He's trying to say, here's how Einsteinian physics works with, you know, fundamental physics. Here's how these two go together when you, you know, why does a, why does an electron look like a particle when you look at it when you're not observing it? It looks like a wave.

Oh, that's because it's rendering. Why would the computer simulators want to render things that aren't being observed by a conscious agent? Like, that's how, that's like video game 101. You're saving RAM or whatever. So he wants to unify everything that way, but he also wants to unify all the religions and say, hey, look at, you know, Plato said we lived in a. cave and we should escape that cave. That's, that's like a, he didn't have the language for

simulation hypothesis, but he was getting at that. And, you know, to be is to be perceived by Barclay. And Christianity says that we're going to leave this world for a better place and Hinduists. And so he goes and tries to, in like a syncretist way, unify all the religions. So that's Rizvon Burke. That's a pretty popular one. I think that his, a lot of what he says is really inconsistent with itself. Sometimes he sounds like you're a sim. Sometimes. it sounds like you're an impure sim or a matrix type simulated being. So I think he isn't consistent. He's not a philosopher. That's fine. But someone who is a philosopher who's very consistent and who's thought about this a lot is David Chalmers. And I do commend this book.

I think that a lot of Christian apologists and Christian philosophers need to be thinking about this stuff a lot more. This is a popular level book. He actually does a really masterful job of bringing really rich ideas down to a non-philosophically, non-academic philosophy audience. So I think he does a really, really good job of it. And then you'll find a lot of it online on YouTube and stuff, which it's hit or miss. I mean, you know how YouTube is. Sometimes they're really good. Sometimes they're really bad.

But I would look into David Chalmers, Nick Bostrom. They've got really good stuff on this. Yeah. Suppose someone's doing, someone's watching this. they're interested in Christian apologetics. They've never thought about this idea at all. Give like the elevator speech of why they should read the David Chalmers book or a different one. Yeah.

So the David Chalmers book is fascinating because he asks and answers a lot of questions that Christians should ask. If we live in a computer simulation, is our simulator God or does God, a cosmic God still exists? So he makes this distinction between a local God and a cosmic God. that's a question that we Christians need to be working on. Why I think that God is a cosmic God? Why think, why, like, what's an argument against the simulation hypothesis? Besides just like, that's so silly, you know, just laughing it off. Like, well, don't just laugh it off because you actually want to have these conversations with people.

If they're asking these abstract questions, pull them in, you know, that's a good question to be asking. That's great. At least we're past this like just new atheist type thing. thing where it's oh no there's nothing spooky no no this is interesting and fascinating so do you think the simulators care about us do you think like if the bible is true and based reality could it be true for simulated beings like you know i think that i'm made in god's image but if i live in a computer simulation and i'm made in the image of base reality Parker does the image of god transfer to me does christ blood does his sacrifice cover me and simulated reality as well what do you think about that

And now we're talking about the extent of the atonement on a college campus when we started with simulation hypothesis. Yeah, yeah, that's fascinating. Yeah, I mean, a principle for every evangelist and every apologist should be you work with whatever level of spiritual interest is already in the person you're talking to. And you work from that and you appeal to that and you work with the people you're talking to. So people are interested in this. I just love your interest of working from that to get to ultimate questions. Maybe we can do arguments for and against. What are the biggest arguments for the simulation hypothesis?

Yeah. So I think the most philosophically rigorous is going to be Nick Bostrom. He's an Oxford philosopher. He gives a simulation argument. He's not saying that we do or do not live in a computer simulation. But he gives three premises, which are pretty easy just to cover really quick. And he says one of these has to be true. The first premise is that we'll never be able to make a simulated world

where conscious beings exist who have this conscious experience you and I have. The second one is, yeah, we'll be able to make that, but maybe we won't for moral reasons. Maybe humanity will come together and say, look, this is really inappropriate to make all these conscious beings who could experience suffering and stuff like that,

so we won't do it. Or third, you most likely already are living in a computer simulation because of the nested simulated possibility. So in order to motivate, the simulation hypothesis, which is the third premise, you have to deny these first two. And so if you say, unless you have a reason to say that we will never be able to make a simulated world with conscious beings, or you think, like, I think humanity is really good. I think that we won't do that. Well, that's not very plausible. If you look at the tech boom right now, look at how they're, it's an

arms race to AI. It looks like that's, that one's probably. out or someone will make it in their basement or something. So really, I think it's between one and three. And Nick Bostrom says, look, a certain philosophy of mind called functionalism, all you really are is just a machine anyways. You're just an algorithm, a set of inputs and internal states and then outputs. So if that's all you are, that's no big deal. We can make robots that are conscious being like us. that's probably the most popular theory in the philosophy of mind i think it's it's false but i also have talked with a lot of christians who said if you're a substance duelist and believe you have a soul you could also believe that robots could be conscious maybe god has set up certain psychophysical laws

that when you know when the sperm meets an egg or something the soul is produced and attached to that physical thing so maybe if there are laws you could hack into those laws you know maybe you can make something that's that also fits the same criteria and then a soul is attached to that digital thing. And so maybe you could do that as well. If you're if you believe that the soul emerges from the mind like a magnetic field emerges from magnets, then it doesn't really matter if you're in base reality or sit us all the way down in the nested simulation. So I think it's actually more compatible than Nick Bostrom thought with different theories of mind. So so so you don't have to be a functionalist to believe that you could have a sim who has conscious experiences like the ones that we have.

So there you go. So if that's possible, then we might already be in that. So there's one. On the popular level, Nick Bostrom says in principle you can't really have any positive evidence for it. Because if you say, like, I saw a glitch in my mirror. It's like, well, if this was a good simulation, we'd also have mental disorders where you would see things like that as well. Right. And if the simulators didn't want you to know, they could always scrub your memory or rewind the tape, you know, and redo things.

So he says, in principle, you can't really have any, like, empirical evidence for it. But on the popular level, people don't talk about that. So they say, like, look at the 2016 election. That's actually has been a really big one. But they'll say, they'll point to things that Christians say is providence. And they'll say, look, that shows the simulation. And you go, why not God? And they go, God doesn't exist.

And you go, wait, all of a sudden, simulation hypothesis is way more plausible than theism. I don't understand how that jump happened so quick. But if you rule out theism because of your atheist tendencies, then you just go, oh, well, then simulator. Because I've already taken theism off the table. And we've already run through that since 9-11. People have been, you know, the atheism has been bumping up. So I kind of already erased God from my worldview. But I still have all this stuff that points to like Providence.

or too much coincidence or as the unions call synchronicity when things kind of like sync up and it looks like it's way too much of a coincidence. Okay, so then I'm living in a computer simulation. So on the popular level, you'll see a lot of that. Yeah, yeah, fascinating. Yeah, interesting. I mean, one of the questions I want to ask is, do you, when you engage on this, do you find people who respond to it with apathy?

Because they might just say, look, if I'm in a computer simulation, I'll never know. and my experience consciously, it's kind of, it is basically going to be the same. Like, it's kind of like in the Matrix when the guy gets out of the Matrix, one of the evil characters, but then he wants to go back in. Yeah. It's like, who cares if it's real? It's more pleasant, you know? Yeah.

I don't know. Do you ever see people responding like that? I see a lot of Christian philosophers who are like, you know, who cares? Like, what's the deal? Like, what's the big deal with this hypothesis? But then when I talk to people who, who are fascinated by it, that's where the we talked about the enchantment like that's where it comes in we're like that's that's a that's a way more fascinating world if someone is in control of this simulation if someone has a purpose for us that's way more fascinating than if we're just here by accident just floating on a rock and there's no purpose to life so a lot of people i don't know that they're finding comfort but they're it's tickling that that abstract thinking itch that they have of where where are we what what is my place in the universe what kind of thing that's am I? What's fundamental? Is it bits or is it, you know, computations or what is it? Like, what's going on?

That, those kind of questions I see people get really excited by. Yeah. That is one of the most interesting things about human beings, the thirst for meaning. Yeah. The thirst for purpose. We just ache for things to make sense in some cosmic way, you know, and that maybe that explains some of the interest in this. And yeah, it's funny. You mentioned when people say, like, well, you know, we know God doesn't exist, but it could be this. It reminds me of surprised by Joy when C.S. Lewis is sort of slowly getting dragged toward theism, but he's at one point where he says, but I still call, I didn't call him God. I called it spirit. And then he says, one fights for one's remaining comforts. And it kind of reminds me of like, you know, it is kind of comforting to think, yeah, maybe it, oh,

it's not God, but maybe it's some other thing. Yeah. I was going to ask you a question about this, and it totally left my mind. Well, so David Chalmers, he's an atheist, and he's a very, very, good philosopher. I admire this guy a lot. I got to talk with him and ask him a bunch of questions about this two weeks ago. We're at the Mind Fest at Florida Atlantic University. It's so cool to get some time with him. It was it was fantastic. But he in the book he says the simulation hypothesis is the best argument for God's existence that he's seen. Oh really? Tell us why. I don't I don't think that's true because he says you know if there's a if you live in a simulation that means there is a simulator. And so he says the simulator would be omniscient when it come as far as their own

simulation is concerned. And you can even, he is a name for this tool where you can like zoom in into the simulation and look at it. But he says, you know, in principle, you would, you would know, you'd be omniscient about that simulated world. And you'd be able to do whatever you want with that world. Because if you created it, you can, you know, type this and make this happen and make it rain and do all So you'd also be like omnipotent concerning this world. He says you wouldn't necessarily be an omnivinevalent. You probably wouldn't be if you're just a simulator. There's no reason to think that you would be.

But he says that's close enough to get you to a God. And so he says, you can ask the question, who created that simulator? And if it's based reality, then he would say nobody because he says, well, I'll get into that in a little bit. But he says, you could run it all the way back to a God or you could stop at base reality. So what's more probable that you live in a nested or nested simulation or a bundle of simulations? Because maybe the simulators wouldn't want to just waste their time running one experiment, but they would run a nest of them that look alike. And then in that nest they'd run many more.

So there's different arguments about that. But his main argument against a cosmic God would be, he says, if God exists, God would be worthy of worship. and he doesn't see how any being could be worthy of worship. Maybe I'd be, you know, all-inspired by this being. I don't see why I would be like drawn to worship this guy. It's such a weird, such a weird, like, objection to theism, I think. I want to ask him about it.

So hopefully he'll come on the podcast. But so he says it's an argument for theism, but the God is a computer simulator and not a cosmic God because a cosmic God would have to be worthy of worship. and no being can be worthy of worship. Interesting. That's a great example of how you're talking about the simulation hypothesis, and it leads to these deeper questions of the nature of worship

and whether any being, yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Can we, I'm kind of curious to go back to, is it Bostrom or Bostrum? Bostrom, Boston. Bostrom, okay, I think like the city Boston, Bostrum, to go back to his trilemma. Is that the, it's kind of like a trilemma, right? Totally, yeah.

Yeah. So, so, so, because I agree with you, so to, if I can, regurgitated from memory that will help viewers kind of simplify it too because I'm new to all this so this will me thinking it throughout loud can help people who are also new to it so the second premise or the the second idea of the trilemma was humanity just wouldn't do this we'd be able to but we wouldn't do this now I agree with you that doesn't seem like the best option just you know restraint at the use of our technology is not our defining characteristic no it's like this is the story this is the whole theme of Jurassic Park you know if we can do

something we will even if it destroys us and then so the first of them was that basically we're not going to be able to but that one also it's like it just seems like if you just give us enough time i mean look at look at what we can do now that we couldn't do 100 years ago that would have seemed magic to people who lived 100 years ago that also seems like that's not that plausible so i can see why someone would find this serious because it does seem like that's a trilemma i can't imagine is there a fourth option that people propose or do they think those are that it really works as a trilema? I think it works as a trilemma.

Depending on how you interpret premise one. So premise one is like, well, we won't get to the point of our technological advancement to make these because we'll go extinct or something. Because Bostrom does a lot with superintelligence and thinking through, like, existential crises and things like that. So he says, yeah, maybe we'll go extinct. But maybe you just say, hey, look, I think Bostrom's theory of mind is false, the one that he needs to get this motivation.

which is functionalism, machine functionalism. So you just go, hey, look, I'm a substance duelist, so I don't believe that. But as I've said, I think that substance dualism is compatible with making a digitally conscious being and other forms of the philosophy of mind. So if you do get out of Bostrum's Trilemma, I think we can amend premise one or amend the philosophy of mind at play, and we can get you right back into the Trilemma. Okay. So if that is a, so what would be the main arguments against the simulation hypothesis? Maybe even just sticking with Bostrom's Trilemma for now. What are the main contenders for opposing this? Yeah, you might, you might go, you might go at the bland indifference principle and say something against indifference principles and say like, hey, you know, most things, if most things are X, then I'm probably X. Well, most people are not Parker's etiquette. So should I think that I'm not Parker set a case?

You know, so there's some, some like deeper epistemological things that play here. You might go that route, but he might be able to tighten that back up. I think one of the best ways to do it is to say what is gained from this theory, right? So you go with a theoretical virtue route and you say, compare the theories. Compare theism and theism plus simulation. or just simulation as it is. So when it comes to theism and theism plus simulation, I can just cut off the simulation

because both those theories explain the same amount of things, but one is more ontologically like sparse. So I don't need to have more entities than are needed to do the work. So if I have a creator God, then I don't need a creator simulator in between those two. So you can just go with the simplicity route. If you go with simulation versus theism, then you can say, well, I think theism has more explanatory power because theism can ground like abstract objects.

I know you've talked about some of this, right? You thought through some of this with Augustine and putting like mathematics in God's mind, laws of logic in God's mind. You can't do the same thing with a contingent simulator, right? that was the product of naturalistic evolution at the base reality. Like those laws still need to be grounded or you need to have some kind of explanation. Maybe you go in and say that those aren't real, but that's kind of a weird view as well. So you'd have to add more.

So I think that theism has more explanatory power when it comes to abstract objects, when it comes to moral realism. So how do you ground morality if all that exists is contingent beings of the base reality? So you get to still use all the, classic arguments for theism, and you can shoot right through if we're in, you know, if we're all the way down, then the 75th simulated world all the way down in reality, I think that these arguments still shoot you right back to base reality where a necessary being who is good and omnipotent and all-knowing exists.

Yeah, because it seems like even if you just go to like Thomas's five ways or something like that it seems like no matter how far down you might be within simulated realities at some the the reasoning seems to require a non-contingent cause yeah to start reality so it seems like but i don't know i guess i'm thinking about this out loud what if someone's a theist and they believe in simulation hypothesis in that scenario couldn't couldn't uh you know they just totally grant all the theistic proofs they say yeah god exists and we're going to go with Bostrum's Trilemma. Yeah.

In that circumstance, are there any arguments that you would bring against that? Yeah. Well, let me just mention really quick that Dustin Krummet, he's a Christian philosopher, he's written a paper trying to collapse natural and moral evil together through the simulation hypothesis. And so there's this problem about like animal suffering. That's like a natural evil or like hurricanes and stuff like that. And you say if you want to use the free will defense against moral,

evil. It doesn't seem like you can use their free will defense against animal suffering or hurricanes. Like, did the hurricane need free will? No, it doesn't seem like that. So you can collapse those together and say, if we're in a computer simulation, it's not God's fault that this universe has bad stuff. It's the simulator's fault. And that's a moral, it's immoral for him to make this universe that we live or something like that. So Dustin Kremlin is just toying with it. He's not saying that we do live in a computer simulation, but he's like, if we do, we can collapse down that moral and natural evil together and immoral, and then you could use the free will defense. So I thought that was pretty fascinating. He's come on my podcast to talk about that.

But when it comes to, if you're a theist and you believe that we live in a computer simulation, it's, I don't know what kind of positive evidence you could have for that, because Bostrom rules out positive evidence for it. So if you're a theist and you believe that we live in a computer simulation, again, I think it's the comparison of the theories between theism and theism, plus simulation. And you go, well, they both explain the same things. In principle, especially if we're using Boston's reasoning, we can't have any positive evidence that we do live in a computer simulation because the simulators could just erase that.

So then we have the exact same things being explained by theories, one of which is much simpler than the other. Yeah. Which is just raw theism. Right. Okay. So let's say, let's make it kind of practical at a conversational level. Let's say you're talking to someone.

They're convinced of the simulation hypothesis rather than. theism. I mean, let's say it's someone like you mentioned, I think it was David Chalmers. You mentioned who doesn't believe God's worthy of worship, that thing. So let's say you're talking to someone, not him specifically, but someone who thinks like this. How would you, how would you kind of steer and maneuver in the conversation to try to help them see? You know, why is theism? What, what specific points would you try to challenge about their worldview? Yeah. So I would try to see what's motivating them to believe that there is a simulator at all? And if they point to design,

because I actually think this might be a problem for people who rely a lot on the design argument, because the design can be explained by a computer simulator. That's why there's design in the world. That's why there's cosmological constants and stuff like that, all that fancy stuff. I'm not very good at that, but some people are very good at it. But if you use that,

you can just appeal to a simulator. I'm not sure that that will get you past the simulator. So why do you believe that? Well, I believe in the simulation because I don't believe that God exists because of the problem of evil, but I do believe that there's got to be some kind of intelligence behind the universe because of the cosmological contents and, you know, fine-tuning arguments and all sorts of stuff. So it looks like that puts you right into the position of simulation hypothesis. Then I might use a contingency argument and say, well, so you believe this is a contingent being, who created this simulator? because if it's a contingent being, it still cries out for an explanation.

Why is it that this thing is intelligent? Why did it want to create? You know, there's a lot of why questions that are kind of calling out. Like, tell me why? Why is that happening? Then if you say, look, I want to compare the theories again. I have a creator, God, who is a necessary being. So no one created him.

Well, if you can ask me about the simulator's creator, why can't ask you about the creator's creator because he's a necessary being. Like that, like, definitionally, that's what we're going. Now, not everyone believes that, like Richard Swinburne, but, you know, he's not here right now, so I'm not going to talk about someone. So, so that's where I would go with someone who believes in a simulation, but not, in a simulator, but not God. I would probably use the contingency argument.

Depending on where they're at, like, you use different arguments. If they say intelligence, but not a God because they think God is less plausible, then you go, why why does the intelligence terminate in a base reality simulator? And how is it they became intelligent? If they became intelligent through a process of naturalistic evolution, then why think that we live in a computer simulation where intelligence led us to this point? If you think that intelligence had to guide evolution to bring us to where we're at right now, then why didn't intelligence have to guide evolution and base reality to bring the simulator to their level of intelligence?

So whatever reason you give for thinking that we live in a computer simulation, you have to then explain base reality where you think there was no creator. Yeah. Right. So whatever you're going to say, I believe that we're intelligent, we've been driven, or history looks like it's being shaped by a creator. Okay, well, what about base reality history? What about base reality intelligence? What about base reality morality? You know, like all those questions still arise at the base level.

you're just kicking the can back a couple levels based on how many realities you think are between us and base reality. This is a, what I'm experiencing right now as I'm here listening to you is I'm struck by how helpful it is that we have these multiple arguments for God. Yeah. Because they help each other because, you know, ever since I did my study of the cosmological arguments, I was so blown away by how powerful they are. are that like the physical constants of our universe are so precisely set that um but this and i'm still thinking this through but it does seem like the simulation hypothesis could undercut those arguments because you could say well of course they're finally set this we live in a simulation but then the contingency argument comes into the rescue because even if it's a simulator he's still a contingent

being and you just keep it so you just keep going back until you get to what we call God. So anyway, that's what I'm thinking right now. There's some other, there's some other like self-defeating type arguments. And I really like these. And I keep trying to sharpen them. Some philosophers have come on my podcast and knocked them back down. But I think they're getting better and better.

But right now, one that I've been thinking through myself is it seems like a necessary condition of you being a rational being, a rational thinker, is that you believe your knowledge faculties generally lead you to true beliefs. That seems pretty plausible. You have to be able to trust your cognitive faculties, your knowledge-producing faculties. But if you come to find out

that you live in a computer simulation, it seems like to me, you have a reason to not trust your reasoning faculties to lead you to truth. Not like distrust. I just mean like not trust. Because what's the purpose that you've been made by these simulators?

Is it to be in a dating app like in Black Mirror? It turns out this one episode, Hang the DJ. I'm not saying to go watch it. There's some nudity and stuff, I think. But in that one, it turns out their whole world is just being part of a dating app. And so they've been deceived about everything that's going on and who they are and their existence. They've been, you know, they're just a little tiny product of the base reality person. And yet they took themselves to be the base reality.

person themselves. So it seems like if you come to find out that you live in a computer simulation, you might have an, you might acquire a reason to doubt your truth producing, your knowledge producing faculties. I know that seems kind of technical to people, but I'm just saying like, if you get this new piece of knowledge that you live in a computer simulation, then that might check up everything else in your cognitive system. Because now you have this one belief about base reality and that tells you that you've been designed to function in a computer simulation well if you've been designed to to function a computer simulation why think that you can reason about truth outside the computer simulation right like the truth outside the computer simulation is

that you are a simulated being how can I even think about that if I've been designed to function in this world so then that has some implications about about theism like can we ever know anything about God do our concepts refer to God if we've never had experience with him well that's like why we need divine revelation as well so like all I'm saying is this has implications for theology as well when we're trying to knock down the simulation hypothesis we need to be careful that we're not knocking down theism as well yeah yeah fascinating no that makes a lot of sense in your own study on this my final question on this topic then I have a few more general questions to finish with what's your basic thesis what are you what's your contribution or your work on this in this whole topic yeah I really, really want to make a self-defeat argument. I think that I might be a content

externalist. That just means that, like, if I have a concept of something, I probably should have a causal interaction with it. Like, I know about pens, because someone taught me this concept in the word for pen, and then I fixed that concept through interacting with them on this pen. If that's the case, then everything, if I live in a computer simulation, everything I've interacted with has been a digital thing and not a base reality thing. So it seems like maybe I can't reason about base reality things. So therefore, I don't think I can be, I can rationally believe I live in a computer simulation,

even if I do. So that might be skepticism, but it seems like that's a self-defeating belief. To believe that you live in a computer simulation while actually doing that seems like you're not rationally justified. It seems like you can either believe that or the rest of your beliefs. So that's the stuff I'm working on right now. And it gets pretty deep into the philosophy of language and concepts and epistemology.

It's not super easy to talk about with people who like I'm worried about the audience. I don't want to lose everybody. But that's what I'm, that's what I've been working on. But then Gavin, one on the theological aspect, because I want to be a philosopher and a the theologian, right? On the theological aspect, I think there's some really fun implications for the extent of the atonement like we talked about. the nature of the Imago Day? What does it mean to be an image bearer of God? What is the reality that we live in?

How do we know God? Do we have to have causal interaction with God in order to have a actual concept of him? And so I wanted to pitch a couple questions that you, if I could real quick. Sure, yeah. So if we live in a computer simulation and you and I are Sims, but Christianity is true of base reality, do you think that you would still be saved? Do you think that Christ's atonement would still extend to you?

What does the sacrifice cover your sins? Yeah. I want to hear your answer too. I mean, my intuition is yes. My intuition is to say that the nature, and I'm even going to ground it in the love of God. The nature of the love of God is such that it encompasses, it would encompass not just base reality,

but it would encompass every conscious creature. Yeah. Including within the nested realities. And that's, you know, that's a theological intuition that's informed by the gospel. You can't reason directly about something like that. Theologically, it seems, because it's by its nature kind of a speculative question. Yeah. But, yeah, I mean, when you think enough about the nature of the love of God,

as revealed in the gospel, you get to a point where your intuition is to always expect God to, to tend toward generosity. You know, so that's my intuition about that. But I'm curious about what would you say? So I would say yes. I would say the same thing. I am doubtful that we could create simulated conscious beings, right? But if we live in computer simulation, then it's possible.

because you and I would be the simulated beings. And I think that if I was a direct analog of like a base reality Parker, it seems like I would still be made in the image of God. So we kind of have to get into like what does the image of God mean? And it's really, really hard to pin that down. Because if you go with like a functional definition, then what about the people who don't fit those, that criteria? You know, rationality.

What about people who aren't rational enough or, you know, morality? about people who don't have natural inclinations towards empathy and stuff like that or volition. What about people, you know, whose will is limited? So it's really, it seems like you can't exclude digitally conscious beings. If they're exact, if they're conscious in the same way that base reality humans are, it seems like they'd be made in God's image. I think the same thing for aliens too, right? like if there's an alien species like us that it's actually don't know if this is really tough too

because maybe they didn't sin Lewis C.S. Lewis did the easy thing and made them not sinners, right? If they were sinners, then maybe Christ, there's that, there's that theological expression, whatever Christ didn't assume he can't save. So like if he didn't assume an alien, a Martian nature, does that mean he could save them or not? Like, I don't know. That expression is not in the Bible anyways. um, Alexander Proust is a really famous Christian philosopher, very, very good philosopher. I believe he says that it would be like immoral for us to make conscious beings, um, through

artificial intelligent like methods because he, because he's Catholic and he thinks that there's one way to make, um, conscious beings and that's in, in a marriage union. Right, right. And so it, we might, we might have, uh, Christian moral reasons, uh, for not creating conscious beings. But if we live in a, simulated world it's it's just sub-creation right it's it's it's like token it's it's god's means of creating more people looks like he used secondary means like base reality humans yeah i'm very sympathetic to the idea that it would be immoral for us to create conscious beings i'm very sympathetic to that for precisely the reason you just said and uh it it it just feels too much like playing God. But I think that in agreement with you, my intuition is our conscious experience as

human beings is so significant. Like my intuition is when I held my first child, Isaiah, for the first time, what I experienced in that moment was rich and noble and serious enough that even if I'm in a simulated reality, I must matter somehow. And if I matter, then God must care about me if God is God. So that's kind of my intuitions about this, but raising these questions is interesting. Bringing up the aliens question is another example of how things pivot. It's like there's the question itself, but then there's all these theological questions that it generates that are like thought experiments that are helpful to think about.

The biggest one I think is in base reality. If we are in a simulation in base reality, would your mustache be bigger or small? Yeah. I don't know. it might be, I might not even have one. Maybe, maybe this whole simulation is to see what would Parker be like if you had a mustache. It's that. It's Donald Trump's election and your mustache. That's right.

The most important thing. That's right. That's so good, man. Yeah. Okay, so this actually is a fun point. There's another kind of argument against simulation hypothesis comes from Mike Humor. And I had him on for an episode as well. He goes in for like probabilities and says,

the more specific you get about the type of simulation you live in, the more improbable it is. Right? So it's like, what are the odds that Parker has a mustache in this simulation? What are the odds that Parker's talking with Gavin in this? What are the odds that we live in a universe that's intelligible instead of one that's just fuzz? You know, like that's the most probable one, just generating a world. What's it going to look like? It's going to be static.

Okay, so then you have to, so the probabilities get so small. all that it's you can say you don't live in a in a, you're not a brain in a vat and you don't live in a computer simulation. So there's one, but I asked him about like Elon Musk because he had this intuition that like if you have a pretty normal life, you're probably not living in a computer simulation because why would someone simulate just a regular ordinary plain old life? So I asked him about Elon Musk and he's like, yeah, Elon Musk has more reason to believe that he's in a computer simulation than like I do. Yeah. So it is kind of funny like the more. It's, it's kind of funny. Like the more interesting your life is maybe the probability goes up that you live in a computer simulation.

Right, right, right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that does make sense. I mean, the more intricate and complicated the world is it would seem like, boy, you'd need more reasons to think someone would go to all this trouble to create a world that intricate. Yeah. I also think that another, another virtue that theism has over simulation hypothesis, so Chalmers goes in for batched batched simulations. And so that's different than nested. Batched is like what we said, it's like nested, but they're all in the same playing field.

So there would be like 50 generated worlds. And one has a park with mustache. One has a park with a goatee. So, you know, they're close, but let's see how they play out. And the existential, like, angst that comes from that, that you're just a batched version of maybe not even a base reality person, you don't mean anything. You know, like nothing. There are an infinite number of views maybe.

And the whole point of your existence is to test out whether Steve is compatible with Rachel. So you're just like a player that has like zero existence in a nested, batched reality. And it's, man, like theism is just so much better where you're not the whole, the whole story. isn't aimed around you, but all of us live in our own micro stories that fit into the greater grand narrative, right? So like, in a sense, you really are a main character in your story because you are made in God's image and he is guiding and leading you through your life to look more like him and to glorify him and to share his love with other people. It's like from your own first person perspective, it kind of does feel like you're in the Truman show. Like sometimes when I was a kid,

I look around the corner, like seeing if my family breaks character or something, you kind of do have that feeling that someone's watching you. It's like, well, yeah, but it's a holy good God and you fit within the grand story. Your story really, really matters, but it's not the only one that matters. And it matters because of its place in God's meta-narrative, in God's story. And so such a better picture of reality than being in a batched, nested simulation for some non-perfect simulators, desires, you know, so weird. You know, one general comment I would like to make on this whole simulation hypothesis, suppose the one out there is really intrigued and that they're emotionally drawn to the

simulation hypothesis. I would like to make this appeal to them that, because I think one of the values of talking about it is to show how wonderful theism is, specifically Christian theism and just how enchanting and beautiful it is. And so the appeal I would like to make is, you know, whatever it is that would draw you to that. Christianity has that, you know, and it has it to infinite proportions. You think about this that, you know, if the draw is, oh, you know, I don't like hardcore

atheism because no one is looking out for me and there's no ultimate purpose, but I'm drawn to the simulation hypothesis because there's something out there that's guiding things and, you know, it has me in mind. And well, theism is that to the uttermost. Theism means that the core of reality is an infinite love. and that deliberately created you and loves you and wants to love you forever and ever. And if you think about that, you know, Augustine once said, God loves each of us as if there were only one of us. I think what he's getting at is like, the love of God is not scattered and reduced by being given to lots, but it's infinite.

And therefore it's, you know, it's as there's a sense in which it's as though God made just you. Like, that's how much he loves you. that's how important you are to him. And that's enchanting. You know, that really is enchanting. So I guess I would just like to make that, just offer those comments for someone to consider that if Christianity is true, that's a pretty enthralling concept. And that's going to offer you, you know, whatever you might be looking for in this other idea. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And, Gavin, I wanted to do a little call back to episodes that you and I have done in the past on the authorial analogy. where I think that the reasons you have for thinking you live in a computer simulation, there are better reasons to think that you live in God's story, that God is the author of the story, that God is much more like a novelist than he is like a computer programmer. Though, you know, if you want to use the computer simulation as a metaphor or as an analogy,

that's cool. I think there's a better one in the authorial analogy. Yeah, yeah. People could check out, that's one of my older videos that they may not have seen it, people could check out that video. I'll throw that one in the video description too. It's about this authorial analogy, which both you and I like. The meta, not a metaphor, you help me like the, the analogy that just like an author is to their story, so God is to creation.

It really is a cool analogy. And it's interesting to think about like the incarnation, like the author writing himself into the story and things like that. Helps in all kinds of ways. So I have a couple general questions, but anything else? you want to talk about on simulation hypothesis first um no man that was that was fun i could if if something else crops back up that's cool but yeah like i just want to say exactly what you said that if you're thinking about this that's cool i'm glad that you're thinking about this um if you don't believe in god and you believe in the simulation hypothesis you're drawn to it then talk with someone who does and compare the theories

you know it will sharpen the believer and it'll sharpen you it's a fun conversation to have to get at the nature of reality and where we're going where we're headed what's why are we here um it's it's a really fun abstract concept to think about and uh it might have eternal ramifications totally okay some fun questions to finish with just so people get to know you a little bit better what's your personal favorite argument for god's existence or the one you find most compelling yeah oh man so i come from a ventillion background so i always like to try and make a transcendental argument and they're very very hard that is for people yeah they're very hard to make a transcendental argument um starts with something uh incontrovertible in your experience like um i

exist right so or i think right so it's it's really hard to deny that you think because in doing so you're doing the thinking so you might say hey look if i think then i have to exist as a thinker in order to do the thinking. So a lot of people have pitched Descartes Cogito-ergosum argument or thought experiment as a transcendental argument. Another one would be like Aristotle's argument for the law of non-contradiction. Kind of an indirect argument. You say like, hey, prove to me that the law of non-contradiction exists, that something

can't both be and not be in the same way in the same time. And you go, well, like, don't use that. You know, it does exist. And you go, no, it doesn't. And you go, yeah, but it doesn't matter if you contradict me. Because if there's no law of non-contradiction, then both of those things are true in the same way. So it's saying, it's showing the necessity of it. You can't think without this, therefore it must exist.

So I kind of like those kind of arguments. A lot of arguments in the area are like the arguments from consciousness. A lot of people call them anthropological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from our shared human experience and trying to go deeper and say, hey, look, if we have these experiences, then God must exist. Now, those are really hard to make. So what I've loosened up on, and what I like to argue for a little bit more is inference to the best explanation and inference to the best explanation for the usability of inference to the best explanation. What kind of world must we live in if you and I can infer to best explanations?

Well, a world that is uniform, a world where logic coheres with reality, where reality somehow conforms to the laws of logic, a world where our thoughts actually latch on to the world where we're seeing the world as it is, a world where pizza doesn't just pop in and out of existence, like all the things that make the inference to the best explanation possible, I think make more sense in a the theistic, world where you and I are made in God's image, made with the ability and capacity to think God's thoughts after him, then in a world of random chance and matter, you know, just bumping into each other. So it's kind of a meta argument from the inference to the best explanation. If you and I can infer to the best explanation, then God exists or God exists as the best explanation of that. Yeah, I don't know if that might have been kind of confusing. No, no, it's cool. Okay. If you could do, if you could have complete control over it. What kind of PhD program would you want to pursue? Like what kind of

dissertation or or thesis would you want to pursue? Oh yeah. I'd love to work on concepts. And it's not that fun like for people to hear that, but I think concepts are nuts. Like how do we have a concept of a dog? Is that is that dog concept? Does that exist eternally in God's mind? And if so, like did he implant that into our head? or do we get that concept from talking with other people who already had that concept, who had that concept, who learned it from Adam because God taught it to him? Do we abstract those out? Do we look at a bunch of dogs and then kind of abstract back a concept?

So like is it an ability? Is it an abstract notion? Like what are these things? And I think it's really fascinating to think about what kind of thing we are if we can think about concepts like triangle. Something so simple is so super profound and such a privilege that you and I can think about triangles where my dog can't. It's really odd and really cool. So I would do a dissertation on concepts. Fascinating.

Last question. What is something, what's your favorite thing about YouTube? What do you like about being on YouTube? Oh, man, I'm super frustrated with YouTube right now. I spent like all day. What's your least favorite? What do you hate about YouTube the most? I hate, I don't understand it.

I work really hard on my thumbnails. I work hard on the descriptions and all that stuff. And I don't get a whole ton of traction except on random things. So I have a frog video that has 38 million views. I didn't even put any effort into it. And I'm never going to surpass that ever. I'll never get past the 38 million. I'm sure I won't.

So that's my legacy to the world. I love that you can learn anything on YouTube. You can go on there and learn. There's a wealth of information. If you want to become a philosopher, YouTube is your place. if you want to start working on cars and become a mechanic, you can go to YouTube for that. If you have theological questions, that's kind of scary. You can go to YouTube and find the right people.

If you want to know why anyone would ever believe that the earth is flat, you can do that. There's a wealth of information. I think the ripple effects from YouTube itself on human knowledge, I think they're going to be vast. And I think people are going to look back and go, oh, that was because of YouTube. Hopefully that's a good thing. Hopefully it's not the destruction of the world because of flat earth or something like that. Yeah, it is it is amazing how much is on YouTube. I never thought I would be a YouTuber. I remember the first time I ever heard the word YouTuber and I was like what's a

YouTuber and then it's like oh people who like make YouTube videos and you know, it's like, oh wow, you mean people actually I guess those have to come from somewhere. Yeah, right. YouTube was first the thing and I was like oh yeah. I was like when Michael Scott says at some point in the office we got to get YouTube down here. to film this, you know, it's like, oh, it's actually people who do it. But it is amazing and it is scary how much is out there. And it is part of how I got into it is thinking, well, people are going to YouTube for answers anyway. So it's there. So it's the marketplace of ideas right now. So you might as well try to help and make it better, you know. I think if you have a PhD, you should be making YouTube videos. Like that's kind of a maybe you don't have time, whatever,

you should probably find some time because you've done all this studying, you've done all this learning. and you will work on an essay that seven people will read in a journal somewhere. Just go and reiterate that on a YouTube video for the public, for everyone else to learn. Like, this is the place to do. I'm so glad you're on here, and it's obvious that there's a hunger for what you're talking about because you've blown up. Like, obviously people want to hear from a Protestant who's not a jerk who can interact with Catholics and all the other stuff you do, right? But that one gets a lot of play as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It is amazing how, I mean, the amount of work that I did on the edits and proofreading for my first academic book, the amount of hours I logged relative to the number of people who will ever read that book compared to, you know, you just zip out a quick short. And all the, it's just, it's kind of like, wow. But I don't think it's a reason not to do that hard work. No, no, no, do the hard work. Of course, you have to do that. Yeah. But to find a platform and an audience for it, I mean, there are some. And the thing that's cool for me is I've just made so many friends.

I never thought you could meet people and get to know people as well as you can. It is cool to collaborate with people and get to know. And it's this whole community. It's kind of amazing. I have, my dog came from Patreon money. And we were getting really close. And then I put out and ask and I said, hey, if you've been thinking about doing a one-time gift, now it would be a great time.

And they gave the rest of the money so I could buy a dog for my wife. So, like, I have. have Theophilus, the mini Bernadittle, because of my YouTube channel. I am going to make a plug for my patrons, too. If you, because we were talking about getting a dog the other day, but I'd be down the road of ways, but it's like, yeah, then you can, then you can say thank you, you know, send them a cute picture of the dog and it'll, yeah, that's amazing. Yeah.

Well, and, and it was, by the way, last thing, say, what was the frog video? What was happening in that video? It's, uh, I bought giant African bullfrogs because I watched. life, which is like Planet Earth, you know, sequel kind of thing. And I saw these giant African bullfrogs and I had all this time because I was done wrestling in college. And then I finished my college career. And then I had all this free time.

So I bought some frogs. I bought five of them. And I grew them up real big. They get pretty huge. They start this big and they get huge. And I was feeding them mice because you should feed your giant African frog a mouse once a month. So I recorded this over nine months. So it looked like I was feed them all at once, but I wasn't.

and it's just called giant African bullfrogs eat everything in sight. They're eating roaches and, you know, crickets, and then they started eating mice. So some people loved it. Many people hated it, and they would go at each other in the comments, and it just blew up. Yeah. That's the depressing part is like you'll do a brilliant philosophical video, and it won't get as many views, but that. But people love watching that kind of stuff.

It still outperforms my other stuff. Yeah, it still does to this day. That was in 2015, so it's still going. Yeah. YouTube is an interesting window into human psychology, I guess. But it's a lot of fun to be on it. It's a lot of fun to talk with you. Thanks, everybody, for watching this.

Don't forget to like the video and check out Parker's channel. Subscribe to his channel. Check out the great philosophical work he's doing. Yeah, any final words for us, Parker? Man, thanks so much for having me on. This has been awesome. And we've got to get you back on the channel over on Parker's Pensies, too. That would be great.

Yeah, I love talking with you. This is just great. So we'll definitely keep collaborating over the years, Lord willing, in the years ahead. So, yeah. All right. Thanks for watching everybody. We'll see you next time.