메트릭스 네오는 바밸탑을 세운왕 니무롯의 씨뮬레이션인가

Explores simulation cosmology, discussing Elon Musk's simulation hypothesis, scientific critiques, and the role of simulations in modern science.

Key Takeaways

Simulation cosmology is a complex topic requiring multiple detailed lectures.
Technological progress suggests a high probability that our reality could be a simulation.
Mainstream science views the simulation hypothesis more as philosophical speculation than a falsifiable scientific theory.
Computer simulations are essential tools in modern scientific research and engineering.
Criticisms of the simulation hypothesis often misunderstand how digital simulations manage computational resources.

What the video covers

The video introduces simulation cosmology and plans to separate it from hologram cosmology and information theory for detailed lectures.
Elon Musk's argument that the rapid pace of technological advancement makes it highly probable we live in a simulation is explained.
Philosopher Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is presented, outlining three key propositions about civilization and simulation likelihood.
The video discusses the concept of discrete space-time and Planck length as evidence supporting the simulation theory.
Criticisms from mainstream science are addressed, including the enormous energy requirements and lack of falsifiability of the simulation hypothesis.
The presenter argues that current computer programming techniques reduce the computational cost of simulations, countering some criticisms.
The importance of computer simulations in modern science and engineering is highlighted, especially for complex and high-risk experiments.
The video touches on philosophical and scientific contradictions in mainstream science related to simulation theory.
Examples from physics, such as the speed of light as a universal speed limit, are compared to rendering limits in simulations.
The transcript includes references to cultural and historical topics, but the main focus remains on simulation cosmology and its implications.

Chapters

What is Elon Musk's view on the simulation hypothesis?

Elon Musk argues that due to rapid technological advancements, it is highly probable that our reality is a simulation created by a highly advanced civilization, rather than the original physical universe.

What are the main criticisms of the simulation hypothesis from the scientific community?

Critics point to the enormous energy and computational requirements to simulate the universe and the lack of falsifiability, making it more philosophical speculation than a scientific theory.

How does the video explain the concept of discrete space-time in relation to simulation theory?

The video explains that just like pixels in a computer game, space and time in our universe may be discrete rather than continuous, with Planck length representing the smallest unit, supporting the idea of a digital simulation.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

As promised, I’m going to talk about simulation cosmology, but while preparing the lecture and editing, I realized it’s going to take a very long time. There is just so much to talk about. I’ll need to separate the simulation cosmology lecture from the

Speaker A

hologram cosmology lecture and teach them individually. The volume of content is simply too large. I will teach them separately: first simulation cosmology, then hologram cosmology, and finally information theory. Many people are watching, but why are so many others not interested? This is very

Speaker A

important, but the content discussed by many scientists here on YouTube contains too many contradictions. I intend to point out all those contradictions and provide an accurate explanation. I really hope that many people will listen to this. The content

Speaker A

you see on YouTube or in professional books is far too superficial. It is way too superficial and has not been explained properly. So, I intend to provide a detailed explanation of this.

Speaker A

First, let's start by listening to what Elon Musk has said about simulation cosmology. Elon Musk argues that there is a very high probability that our reality is not a physical universe, but a simulated reality created by a highly

Speaker A

advanced civilization. The core of his logic is as follows. Regarding the speed of technology: just 40 years ago, we played games like Pong with a few dots moving on a screen, but now, only a few decades later, millions of people

Speaker A

simultaneously enjoy real-time 3D virtual reality games. This means the pace of technological development is incredibly, incredibly fast. Next is the probabilistic approach. Assuming that technology continues to advance for thousands of years, the probability of creating a simulation indistinguishable from reality is not

Speaker A

zero, but rather, the conclusion is that such a probability is very high. If millions or hundreds of millions of such simulations could exist, the probability that the universe we experience is the original one is merely one in billions. Therefore,

Speaker A

believing that the reality we are currently experiencing is the absolute reality is, to put it mildly, foolish.

Speaker A

In other words, it is much more likely that this is not reality, but a simulation. So, Elon Musk argues that the probability of us living inside a simulation is high. While he claims this is likely, he does not see it as

Speaker A

merely nihilism or science fiction fantasy. The practical conclusion he reaches is as follows. The boundary between the survival and destruction of a civilization. If we are not beings in a simulation, humanity will soon evolve into a super-intelligent civilization

Speaker A

capable of realizing the physical world, or we will experience self-destruction before then. Game rules. Musk suggests that if we are living in a simulation, the very process of human evolution might be controlled by the rules of a giant game

Speaker A

or the algorithms of a program. Now, let's talk about what simulation philosophers and scientists are claiming. The foundation for the modern simulation hypothesis originated from a paper published in 2003 by Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom. He argues that at least one of the

Speaker A

following three propositions must be true. Civilizational extinction: Every civilization goes extinct due to natural or artificial factors before it reaches the "post-human" stage—the ability to run high-resolution simulations indistinguishable from reality. Simulation indifference: Even if a civilization reaches the

Speaker A

post-human stage, they have no interest in running simulations to recreate the history of their ancestors. Probability of virtual existence: The reality we live in is almost certainly a world within a simulation. Now, my opinion is completely different. Well, this is the

Speaker A

main evidence and points raised by scientists: universal quantization and simulation length, um, Planck length.

Speaker A

Some physicists argue that just as there are limits to pixels or resolution in the smallest units that make up computer game screens, our universe's space and time are not continuous but discrete—in other words, what does it mean to be discrete?

Speaker A

We are making digital videos here, right? Then it's usually 1/30th of a second. So, 30 frames pass by in one second. What we are making right now.

Speaker A

So usually 29.5 frames go by. It depends on how you set it, but when a programmer makes a video, they usually set it so that 29.5 frames go by in one second. So what we are seeing in this

Speaker A

video is not reality, but frames being played in succession at 29.5 intervals. We are just being deceived by that. Our vision, our eyesight is being deceived.

Speaker A

That, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light exists as the absolute speed limit in the universe. From the perspective of a computer simulation, this can be compared to the system rendering speed limit, which is the upper bound on the

Speaker A

video a computer program can process at once. This is exactly that story. What I mean is, what if that's not actually the case? The universe, in reality, the universe, I mean... It would mean there should be tens of thousands of frames

Speaker A

per second, right? But in actual simulations, when we create digital programs, we only have 29 frames per second. 29 frames. Now, imagine it wasn't 29, but tens of thousands of frames making it up. Then you would have huge rendering issues and massive

Speaker A

computational costs, but that's not how simulations work right now; the programming is designed to calculate all the intermediate steps. So, earlier, the 29.5... Every 29.5 seconds... No, I mean even with only 29.5 frames per second, it’s programmed to look as if

Speaker A

it’s perfectly connected; that’s what I’m saying. This is... Counterarguments and criticism: While the simulation universe theory attracts public interest, the mainstream scientific community views it as a philosophical speculation rather than a rigorous scientific hypothesis. The main criticisms are as follows. I mean,

Speaker A

the scientific community is currently showing a very strange side. I am constantly criticizing mainstream science as it stands today. It’s full of contradictions. The astronomical energy requirements: to perfectly simulate the entire universe or even the number of particles on Earth, it

Speaker A

would require an unimaginable amount of energy and computing resources with current technology. But that's not true. With current technology, current computer technology, or what I mentioned a moment ago... This, what is it... When I write video programs, I use

Speaker A

them constantly, right? So, from the perspective of someone writing video programs, it doesn't require that much energy. You don't need to calculate everything. Because it works the way I described earlier. You only need to create 29.5 frames per second. The

Speaker A

program itself is designed to make it look continuous. So, the people currently criticizing it don't accurately understand how those programs work. Next, the lack of falsifiability: According to Karl Popper's philosophy of science, a scientific theory must be falsifiable,

Speaker A

meaning it must be possible to prove it wrong. However, since the simulation universe theory can explain away the limitations of every physical law we encounter as simulation bugs or intentional settings, it is difficult to scientifically verify or falsify it.

Speaker A

This is a fact. Indeed. It cannot be scientifically falsified. Now, let's look at the role of simulation in modern science and engineering. In all fields dealing with complex systems today, computer simulation has become an essential prerequisite for physical

Speaker A

experiments. To minimize resources and time, processes like rocket launches, aircraft design, new drug development, and semiconductor manufacturing require countless trials and astronomical costs. Simulations using digital twins or high-performance computing eliminate potential flaws before creating physical prototypes. For experiments

Speaker A

where failure could lead to catastrophic consequences—such as nuclear fusion reactor design, high-risk chemical reactions, or

Speaker A

and simulation accuracy improves dramatically, there are still technical limitations and differences that must be considered for thorough analysis.

Speaker A

Variable complexity and non-linearity: the real world is composed of countless micro-variables we have not yet fully grasped and quantum mechanical probabilities. Because computer monitoring ultimately operates based on human-defined algorithms, discrepancies between simulation and reality can occur if unconsidered exceptional

Speaker A

variables arise. The necessity of verification: no matter how perfect a simulation may appear, to guarantee its true meaning and success, its validity must ultimately be verified through physical experiments or observations, even under limited conditions. So, is this my own personal argument? It is

Speaker A

this: if—The crucial mistake made by those who advocate for that simulation philosophy is their claim that history has never been simulated repeatedly until now. But I disagree. That is it.

Speaker A

I believe that history must have clearly been simulated throughout time. What I mean is, we are constantly using these simulations for things like medical information and so on, aren't we? We run them through simulations.

Speaker A

Regarding this medicine, what is it? Researching a new drug. Developing a new pharmaceutical. Everything is run through simulations. This means that it reduces the possibility of failure that we might have encountered in the past.

Speaker A

The same applies to humanity. From a grand perspective, it is necessary to perform simulations on human history.

Speaker A

So, if technology develops this way, it means humanity needs to simulate its past history. Why? Because if you look at human history, there have been countless wars and countless trials and errors. Looking at history, we need to run simulations so we don't repeat the

Speaker A

same mistakes. If such a civilization existed—and I believe that such a civilization did exist—Such a civilization, well, the problem is that we lack the perfect data from the past.

Speaker A

For instance, let’s talk about the Imjin War. If we wanted to run a simulation regarding the Imjin War, we should be able to, right? But we don't have the data. The records are just too incomplete. To run a proper simulation,

Speaker A

you need a vast amount of data. Here is what I mean. Take the movie*Jurassic Park*, for example. The very first thing they talk about in*Jurassic Park* , or rather, the concept that appears in*Jurassic Park*...Is the "butterfly effect." You know the gemstone, right?

Speaker A

The protagonist appears at an amber mine and asks about it. Exactly. At that amber mine, it's...What amber actually is, is plant—It’s plant resin, a liquid from a plant that hardened and turned into a stone. It's like pine resin that solidified and

Speaker A

became a lump of stone. It became a gemstone. That is what amber is. And inside that sticky plant liquid, something got trapped—a mosquito. The mosquito got inside and became completely fossilized. It was preserved exactly as it was when it died. And in

Speaker A

that mosquito...The mosquito must have sucked the blood of countless animals, right? So, in that blood...DNA could be contained within it. Because that mosquito blood is still there inside the mosquito. So, looking at that, the mosquito sucked the blood of a dinosaur

Speaker A

. And it's possible that dinosaur blood could be inside. So, by extracting the dinosaur blood...Using current genetic cloning technology, they could clone the dinosaur's DNA and reproduce dinosaurs. They could create dinosaurs.

Speaker A

That’s the story. That’s how* Jurassic Park*created dinosaurs through that experiment, isn't it? But here, a certain topic comes up, which is the " butterfly effect." The story of the butterfly effect. So, you need to understand what the butterfly effect

Speaker A

means, too. The butterfly effect means, for instance, a single butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing creates a ripple effect here. It moves the air, and that tiny movement of one butterfly could potentially bring about a typhoon . That is the butterfly. In other words

Speaker A

, it means that very small things can cause incredibly enormous phenomena. This is where that story comes in; here , the protagonist drops a water droplet on their hand, and no one can predict the path that droplet will take or

Speaker A

where it will flow. They use that to explain it. Dropping a water droplet on the back of the hand—that’s the story in this film. What is meant by the butterfly effect is that there is a meteorologist named Lorenz. Lorenz. Uh,

Speaker A

a meteorologist named Lorenz, he’s a meteorologist. He’s a meteorologist, but he was a computer nerd. He was a computer enthusiast. So, what he did was, you know how data has been accumulating over time, right? That’s meteorological information. I’m not

Speaker A

sure if you’re aware, but the largest-scale—I mean, the largest-scale systems are right there at the meteorological agency. Even in our country, the most complex computers are built by gathering a huge number of digital computers together. And where are those computers? They are at the

Speaker A

meteorological agency. Yeah. Did you know that? They are at the meteorological agency. Now, Lorenz, being someone who worked at the meteorological agency, since he was a meteorologist, he had access to those massive computers. By today's standards it’s not much, but at that time,

Speaker A

Lorenz was working with incredibly powerful computers, so he input meteorological data into them. I mean, there must be records of the weather from the past few years, or hundreds of years—at least a hundred years of weather records. There are weather

Speaker A

records for specific days. Weather records. So, for any given day, in any given city, there are records of what the air pressure was, the wind speed, and the humidity; all those records were plotted there. He put all that

Speaker A

data in and ran the simulation. And the shape that was drawn was one that repeated endlessly, but changed slightly every single moment. The data repeated endlessly, and the shape that was drawn looked like a butterfly. So, what do we call this? We call it the

Speaker A

Lorenz butterfly. We call it that; we call it the Lorenz. It’s a curve drawn by Lorenz. This curve is called Lorenz, Lorenz's butterfly, this curve is. And that’s how the term " butterfly effect" came to be. In meteorology, because of the Lorenz

Speaker A

butterfly. This is what Lorenz drew; he put in an enormous amount of data and plotted it on a computer, and this graph appeared. So this is the Lorenz butterfly, that's what it is. So, what was the conclusion? The effect brought

Speaker A

about by this Lorenz butterfly was enormous. What I mean is, do you know what all of humanity's interest is focused on? Everyone, the greatest interest of humans is, well, is human destiny, is all of human destiny already determined? Is human destiny

Speaker A

determined? Or is it not determined? This is the biggest interest. Surprised ? Is the greatest interest of humans whether human destiny is determined? Or can humans act according to their own will? That is the story. However, what the Lorenz curve discovered by Lorenz

Speaker A

means is that not only humans, but also humans—Nature as well. Nature, this meteorological phenomenon—Even meteorological phenomena have it determined where the wind will blow or where it will rain a year from now.

Speaker A

It’s an amazing story. What does that mean? It means it’s already decided. As for destiny, human destiny goes without saying—since humans are a part of nature—not only is human destiny, but even natural phenomena and the weather in any region a year from

Speaker A

now are determined. So just give me enough data—countless data that can capture even the movement of a butterfly—give me all that data accurately. Then I can forecast the weather even a year from now. That is Lorenz's argument. It’s a terrifying

Speaker A

story right now. The story I am telling now is a massive one. It’s an astonishing story. That is exactly what Lorenz is concerned about. That is the butterfly effect. However, the problem is that we cannot provide all the

Speaker A

information about every single flap of a butterfly's wings. It is currently impossible. That is the problem. So that's the issue. Hey, what is the answer? It’s simple. The answer is.

Speaker A

Well, information—It is impossible for us to provide all the information. Providing information—It is impossible to provide all, all the information. We can’t grasp all the information, can we? We cannot monitor everything, including the movement of a single butterfly in any region, and

Speaker A

provide that. Therefore, it’s just that we cannot know the future. We cannot know the future. This is the conclusion. Information, all the information, all the information—We cannot provide it. Yes. Because we cannot provide all the information, we cannot know the future. This is the

Speaker A

truth. But the fact that we cannot provide all the information does not mean that the future does not exist.

Speaker A

Whether the future is unfixed is a separate issue. This is what we call determinism. If, now, what is it that the Buddha says? The Buddha's theory of dependent origination. What is the theory of dependent origination?

Speaker A

Dependent origination. Yes, the Buddha's teaching is dependent origination. If there is a cause, there must necessarily be a result. Isn't that dependent origination? What is this theory of dependent origination?

Speaker A

The theory the Buddha speaks of means every result must have a cause. What is this? This thing called information is the cause. As mentioned earlier with the Lorenz curve, this information—a butterfly acts as a cause, leading to a

Speaker A

typhoon—means if you know the causes exactly, you can predict the result. The result is fixed; because of the butterfly's flutter, it brought about the result of a typhoon. The butterfly's flutter brought about the typhoon, but because we cannot know all

Speaker A

the causes, we simply cannot know the result; that doesn't mean the result isn't fixed. That's what it means. The Buddha's theory of dependent origination says exactly this.

Speaker A

Therefore, it means our destiny is fixed. I believe this completely. This is 100%the truth. It's just that we don't know the causes exactly; what is mathematics? Mathematics. Now, all of physics is mathematics. Yes, all of physics is done with mathematics. Now,

Speaker A

if you do 1 + 4, mathematics means it will come out to 5 in any case. This is the conclusion. This is a law of physics. Laws of physics are nothing special. They are mathematics. What is a law of physics? It is mathematics.

Speaker A

Mathematics. Mathematics is the law of physics. The law that 1 + 4 equals 5 can never be changed. Even if you die, it cannot be changed. How could a law of physics change? 1 + 4 is 5. So this

Speaker A

is the cause, 1 + 4 is the cause, and the result is fixed. If 1 + 4 is the cause, then the result is fixed. That is physics. Now, we used the laws of physics to create the computer. So,

Speaker A

whatever a computer might be, a computer is something that provides an exact answer for an input. Isn't a computer just a calculator? It's nothing else. Computer operations are just calculations; they are calculations. They are laws of physics.

Speaker A

They are laws that calculate based on mathematics. Yet, physicists, physicists say, "Humans have no destiny , no fate." Human life is not destined.

Speaker A

God does not even exist. Isn't that a total comedy? Isn't it a comedy to say the Buddha's theory of dependent origination is wrong? Physics is the foundation; physics is, well, we created computers because of physics, right? And those computers operate

Speaker A

based on mathematics. If you input 1 + 4 into math, the result is bound to come out as 5. The Buddha should be the one talking about that story. But now, when the Buddha talks about it, people say the Buddha is wrong. The people

Speaker A

saying that turned out to be physicists . Isn't this like performing a comedy routine, knowing this? What simulation cosmology is, is exactly what the Buddha called the theory of dependent origination; it’s a concept that if all data, such as the position and

Speaker A

momentum of every particle in the universe, is perfectly collected, the future can be perfectly calculated.

Speaker A

This is what they call Laplace's Demon. But in reality, this What do you mean, input is impossible? That is the story of Laplace's Demon. Repeating the perfect state reconstruction: if perfect data including all biological signals, surrounding environments, weather conditions, and even minute

Speaker A

physical variables at the time of a historical event are input, the simulation gains the theoretical foundation to restore a specific moment of the past perfectly without errors.

Speaker A

Eliminating trial and error. If that is possible, what would happen? "Hey, we must not repeat this history in the future.""There have been so many wars; isn't there a way to solve things without going to war in the future?"

Speaker A

They would research that, right? I mean , if there were an outstanding anthropologist, wouldn't they naturally have to conduct that research? They would conduct that research. I am certain that if any civilization existed, if a truly highly advanced

Speaker A

civilization existed, they would say, " Let's not have wars in the future."" There have been too many wars in the past, destructive wars; shouldn't we research ways to solve things peacefully instead of fighting in the future?" They would run it through a

Speaker A

simulation, wouldn't they? If it were me, I would naturally run it through a program, and that is my exact thought.

Speaker A

While data from the very distant past is difficult to guess, if the data from just 20 or 30 years ago remains intact, couldn't we run a simulation on that?

Speaker A

If science advances and reconstruction through simulation is possible, then couldn't we sufficiently run that through a simulation? Well, such things are currently underway. Reducing the cost of trial and error. Humanity has developed predictive systems to reduce the loss of resources and crises of

Speaker A

survival. If we could perfectly input past political, economic, and social variables to simulate past outcomes or alternative historical branching points , attempting to prevent failures like massive disasters or economic depressions would be the natural next step. With digital twins and decision

Speaker A

support, even today, industries and the defense sector universally build systems to run countless scenarios in virtual environments and adopt the optimal choice. It's like that even now . But for the wisest among humans, the most important thing is simulating how

Speaker A

to avoid war, because looking at human history, most civilizations collapsed due to war. They collapsed because of war or extreme meteorological phenomena . Shouldn't we run simulations to find ways to reduce variables like war? I believe those simulations definitely

Speaker A

existed in the past as well. The infinitely increasing number of simulation cases and their distinct, separated paths can each be realized as an independent virtual universe, providing a logical basis for the existence of countless multiverses.

Speaker A

This is because a person monitoring simulations in a lab can use multiple monitors to run simulations simultaneously by slightly varying the initial assumptions. The point is, couldn't we be running multiple simulations at once using multiple monitors right now? If so, then each

Speaker A

monitor becomes a universe, and that is what a multiverse is. At the intersection of computer science and physics, there exists a perspective that views the universe as a giant information processing system. Now, the mathematical universe hypothesis.

Speaker A

Physicists like Max Tegmark argue that if the ultimate essence of physical reality consists of mathematical structures, and all possible mathematical structures actually exist, then they form a multiverse. If virtual realities that branch off according to countless variables within advanced

Speaker A

simulations each have their own unique laws of physics and history, the data space inside the computer running the simulations becomes another set of universes indistinguishable from reality. In other words, the philosophical meaning of the multiverse concept. A question of definition—if

Speaker A

the reality perceived by beings inside a simulation is perfectly identical to the original universe, what meaning does the original world hold for the virtual one? If countless branches of simulations unfold with their own histories and causalities, the argument

Speaker A

is that they must be acknowledged as independent realities in their own right. It holds true. Universe expansion. As humans simulate and expand future possibilities based on data, the cosmic horizon existing within human consciousness also expands into an infinite multiverse. Now, if

Speaker A

the universe is a simulation created by a higher civilization, the act of observing and monitoring by those higher beings becomes the very framework that defines and constrains the physical laws and spacetime of this world. Isn't that right? A program, or

Speaker A

a simulation, operates according to the algorithm written by the programmer. This simulation works precisely according to how the programmer has programmed it. So, it means the programmer has created this world. This world runs inside the monitor exactly as the programmer intended, doesn't it?

Speaker A

This, right now, this Now, From the perspective of a higher being, it is merely a data set composed of countless variables and algorithms, but for us living inside it, it becomes our unique and absolute reality. What is this?

Speaker A

Isn't the movie*The Matrix*exactly about this? Doesn't the movie*The Matrix*show that we are living in a virtual reality? So, the protagonist Neo, having seen the true reality, enters it to completely change this virtual world, right? That's the story, isn't it? Since it's a programmed

Speaker A

reality, if you go directly into the world of the architect who is doing the programming and change the programming itself, couldn't the reality be changed ? That’s the point, isn't it? That is why in religious and spiritual realms,

Speaker A

the idea that God does not remain a single absolute entity but implies countless internal souls or divisions of divine existence, separating themselves to accumulate infinite experiences, is a perspective long explored in ancient Gnosticism and Eastern and Western mysticism. That's

Speaker A

exactly what I'm arguing. What is God? They are the observers. The God we speak of is simply a highly evolved human. It is a highly evolved human, and there are even higher beings above them, and even higher beings above

Speaker A

those. That is the "33 Heavens" that the Buddha spoke of. It means there are 33 levels of heaven. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying? It's all the same story. The concept that a divine being projects its own essence into myriad

Speaker A

entities to monitor and simulate them is strikingly consistent with the worldviews often explored in films and pop culture content, such as those found on Netflix, involving virtual reality and multi-observer perspectives . This is why simulations and the divine observer—the popularization of

Speaker A

virtual reality and the observer effect —are frequently addressed in modern media content, including Netflix and other platforms. Tropes like human consciousness being uploaded as computer data or the world itself being a massive program or laboratory appear often in sci-fi, dystopian, and

Speaker A

interactive films. The narrative of containment and monitoring, where an absolute being or an ancient civilization watches human choices and conflicts in real-time through countless displays and intervenes, is something we experienced in the previous segment about the fragmentation of God. How do you view

Speaker A

Netflix as a film? That’s what I asked. Rather than just a film service, Netflix can be seen as a massive digital monitoring platform and a modern-day arena of simulation that broadcasts the lives, entirety, and imagination of countless people around

Speaker A

the world in real-time. That is exactly the point. In my view, that is the case . It is a space where the boundaries between virtual and reality are currently collapsing. The essence of simulations based on algorithms and rules, or the explicitness of those

Speaker A

rules—computer simulations operate according to the initial conditions and physical laws or statistical rules input by the programmer or designer.

Speaker A

Therefore, weather forecasting programs or molecular modeling for new drug development—All process variables within fixed numerical values and rules . In a simulation implementing laws, even phenomena that appear to be accidental or random are, in reality, what we call pseudo-random number

Speaker A

generation. They are results calculated by rigorous mathematical algorithms. In other words, the nature of the output world is determined by what rules are input. This is what it is. Designed rules, inherent variable relationships, initial conditions, and the designer's

Speaker A

intent—chance or randomness in computer programs is not truly random but merely a value calculated within an algorithm pre-written by the designer.

Speaker A

This is exactly what the theory of civilization is. The reason I am focusing on this is because the structure of simulation is a deterministic system. This means that if the algorithm of the higher system is perfectly designed, even if it seems

Speaker A

like an unpredictable contingency or variable to the entities living within it, it is merely a process already expected or controlled within the algorithmic framework from the perspective of the designer outside the simulation monitor. In other words, the various variables seen in the

Speaker A

double-slit experiment are also already planned from the perspective of the algorithm designer. In short, it is the double-slit experiment and the optimization of computer graphics rendering. What I mean is, with the computer—Like I said earlier— Mentioned—You see, I’ve been doing

Speaker A

work producing videos with computers. So, how do I produce videos on a computer? Well, I create a computer background screen. I create a computer background screen on the computer. I make the background, and I decide on that screen—ah, I set the background

Speaker A

like this—and when the background changes a lot, I change it again according to a certain timeframe.

Speaker A

Whether I change that background or set its scope, I—or rather, the computer programmer—create that. Creating the background and setting how it operates and when it runs, that’s all up to me . So, the computer programmer creates that background, and the programmer

Speaker A

decides how it operates and for how long. I can't do the computer programming myself, but I can handle the program—isn't that simple? As I mentioned at the beginning, it doesn't require an enormous amount of data.

Speaker A

That's because the programmer makes it calculate automatically. Because, as I said, what we see here when we watch videos is really...In one second, our eyes only need 16 frames in one second to see it as continuous. That’s because an afterimage remains for 1/

Speaker A

16th of a second. Since our visual system retains an afterimage for 1/16th of a second, if you just create 16 frames per second, we automatically perceive it as continuous. But that program was made to run at 29.5 frames.

Speaker A

Since only 29.5 frames are shown per second, if just that is displayed, our eyes are tricked into seeing it as perfectly continuous—isn't that using the illusion of our eyes? The architects of the universe do the same thing. Likewise, that means there’s

Speaker A

no need for that much information or that many calculations. Even without it , it works perfectly. So, what we see with our eyes means we don't have to constantly look at the rest of the universe. It's enough if only what we

Speaker A

need is shown inside the monitor; we only need to see what is immediately necessary. Inside that monitor—each monitor—you can think of your human brain as looking at its own small monitor inside a computer where everything is connected. Each of you is

Speaker A

looking at your own monitor. Everything you see in your field of vision and everything you think in your mind is an individual monitor. You are each looking at your own monitor, but the screen being displayed on that connected monitor is linked to a

Speaker A

massive program. That So, you are just mistaken in thinking you are an individual self. You are watching a connected monitor within a massive program. It is exactly the same as you looking at your cell phone. The cell phone terminal you are looking at is a

Speaker A

device connected to that massive program, and the world you see through each terminal is just that. To ensure failure, the simulation has hardcoded probability and uncertainty into the laws of nature as a default, preventing the beings inside from realizing they

Speaker A

live in a fake world or tracing back the system's fundamental source code. Now, so you see, that You know the movie, right? In that movie where Neo appears, all the beings living within it don't know that they exist in a

Speaker A

simulation, a virtual reality. But they don't really need to know. Actually, it's not that they don't need to know if they find out. If everyone knew that —well, what I mean is, we are gamers inside this simulation. We are each

Speaker A

gamers, and if these gamers don't know the exact operating principles of this simulation, they won't succeed and will end up with a game over. Because they can't handle the game clearly in the middle. But those who have mastered it

Speaker A

completely can go beyond a game over, win the game, and eventually ascend to the next higher level. That is why it is necessary for many people to awaken.

Speaker A

If many people awaken, couldn't we rise to the next higher dimension within this simulation universe? That is what I'm saying. Right now, we gamers That is what I am talking about right now.

Speaker A

Now, were there really no such attempts in the past? But I believe there were.

Speaker A

There were such attempts in the past. Oh, and now, while I was talking to him , I remembered a very thick book I have . I can't find that book right now, but there is this book called The Urantia

Speaker A

Book. I have it, but it is just too complex. It is just too complex. It is about the thirty-three levels of heaven mentioned in Buddhism. So, you don't necessarily need to know all of that, and even if I knew it all, there's no

Speaker A

need to know everything. I mean, what are you going to do with that knowledge ? The book that describes the 33 levels of the universe and the world of gods is The Urantia Book. Even if I read it,

Speaker A

well, even if I read it all, is this actually the real world? Even so, it doesn't help us at all in our real world. There's no need to know any of this. However, just knowing that such a world exists...That much is enough to

Speaker A

know. Ah, such a world, that is the 33rd dimension. It’s the 33-level universe that the Buddha speaks of in Buddhism. That’s exactly what Jesus said, right? When people kept asking, " What is this, what is that?" he said, "

Speaker A

You don't need to know beyond that." That’s what he said. Jesus, too. Now, Kang Jeungsan said the exact same thing . Is there a world above that? Is there a world even higher up? So when asked, he said, "You don't need to know beyond

Speaker A

that." That’s what he said. Kang Jeungsan said the same thing. Wise beings. But why don't you believe that part? They tell you it exists, so just know that much. "You don't need to know beyond that," he said. Jesus said the

Speaker A

exact same thing. "Are you asking what's in the world above?""Well, you don't need to know beyond that." There's no need to know. Why are you preoccupied with those lower levels?

Speaker A

The Urantia Book is a legendary work that goes far beyond traditional biblical narratives, acting like a massive cosmic encyclopedia with its overwhelming thickness and volume, covering the birth of the universe, millions of inhabited worlds, macroscopic spiritual administrative organizations of the heavens, and the

Speaker A

evolutionary process of cosmic dimensions. That’s exactly it. But they say there's no need to know it. So , you all don't need to know it. I bought The Urantia Book a long time ago , but I don't read it. Since there’s

Speaker A

no need to know, I don't need to explain it to you, either—just know that such a thing exists. That is all you need to know. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. What that means is that the world is a fractal.

Speaker A

The world is that...What is it? It's the one who designed the algorithm. It means, "Execute the design of the algorithm well," doesn't it? But has this story never existed in history?

Speaker A

They say there is evidence that it did. The Tower of Babel? That is exactly what the Tower of Babel...What I mean is, you all already know the Tower of Babel well. If you ask what this Tower of Babel is, well, this biblical story

Speaker A

and the Tower of Babel incident are very important events. A very, very important event. Now, the Bible says that we wanted to make a name for ourselves, and that’s why we built the Tower of Babel. But the original

Speaker A

text actually says, "Let us launch a Shem.""Let us launch a Shem.""Let us launch a Shem." And there was a problem with this word, "Shem.""We, let us launch a Shem." They translated it as " let us make a name." They interpreted "

Speaker A

Shem" as "name." But "Shem" had two meanings. This is where the interpretation always causes problems.

Speaker A

The meaning of "Shem" is actually a type of spacecraft. There were many types of spacecraft, but in Sumerian, " Shem" referred to a communications satellite, like the ones being launched today. We...They called communications satellites "Shem." So, there were an

Speaker A

enormous number of spacecraft types, and they specifically called communications satellites "Shem." It means, "Let us launch a communications satellite." Why? What were these communications satellites doing back then? What do they do? It’s like what we have now: mobile phones. Currently,

Speaker A

we mostly operate our mobile phone networks by installing infrastructure on the ground. But what about now? Elon Musk is using communications satellites now, isn't he? All of it. He's receiving information through them, and everything is currently being replaced

Speaker A

by satellite communications. That’s the story. That’s what it’s about —the story of communications satellites. Do you know the word "Enlil "? Do you know what Enlil is? The being called Enlil is the god who rules over the Earth among the gods. The supreme

Speaker A

god of the Earth. The supreme god who rules the Earth. However, the drawing of Enlil, and the character for Enlil, and the character for 'Li', all look like high-performance antennas in Sumerian drawings. This...The god Enlil is shaped like a high-performance

Speaker A

antenna. What does that mean? This god Enlil is a being who monopolizes all the information coming from space— that is, information communicated from extraterrestrials. He is a being who communicates with space. Communication with space...This being who communicates with space, and...What is

Speaker A

this? What is this? This being is Emperor Yao. Emperor Yao. Emperor Yao is exactly Ninurta. The Bible calls him Nimrod. You guys would never know this, no matter what. Well, in Sumerian, Emperor Yao is written as Ninurta. But

Speaker A

how can we know that Emperor Yao is Nimrod? In the Classic of Mountains and Seas, it says Emperor Yao......dressed in the clothes......that the southern barbarians wore, and all the animals obeyed his commands. It is written like this. The Classic of Mountains and Seas

Speaker A

is written like this. But the Sumerian records say that Nimrod...Because they were wearing the clothes that Adam and Eve wore, all the animals obeyed that command. It is written like this. So, you can tell that Emperor Yao is Nimrod

Speaker A

without even looking. It’s written here. It said they were wearing Namman's clothes, and Sumerian records say Nimrod wore the clothes that Adam and Eve wore. But what does this mean?

Speaker A

Regarding 'Nam', I often talk about the Hwandan Gogi, and the content in the Hwandan Gogi is not problematic at all.

Speaker A

The content is quite accurate, but it’s just that figures were inserted in between. Whether it's the 47 Dangun, the 19 Hwanung, or the seven Hwanin, they don't cause any problems in explaining the overall context. Even without those beings, only one person

Speaker A

exists for each. But they say those were inserted. That is, well, because those people were Confucian thinkers, so that’s also a misunderstanding. So , this reflects the authors who wrote it during the Goryeo Dynasty because they were Confucian figures. So, this '

Speaker A

Namman' is actually Naban and Aman from the Hwandan Gogi. Naban and Aman are the first humans, and it is said that these people met in Sata. Sata. Where is this region called Sata? It is Suncheon and Yeosu. Sata is the old

Speaker A

name for Suncheon. Sata. It is a place name in Suncheon. Sata-ri-eo-a, 'a' is called 'aryeo', so it is written as Sata-ri-eo-a or Sata-ari. 'Ri-eo-su' is the name of a river. Ri-eo-su, this is Ri-eo-su. Ah, 'a' is this! It is the

Speaker A

character for 'water'. This is water, so Ri-eo-su is actually dark water, and in the Book of Changes, water represents the North, meaning it conceives life. It means water that conceives life. That is Ri-eo-su, so it is this water; it is written exactly

Speaker A

like this. This is Sata, but Naban and Aman, if you combine Naban and Aman and read it quickly, it sounds like 'Namman '. So it matches the word 'Namman' exactly, and regarding Adam and Eve, if you look at The Urantia Book, you'll

Speaker A

know. In The Urantia Book, is the being called Adam an alien? Space The being called Adam is an alien who came down.

Speaker A

On Earth, what are the sons of Adam and Eve? Aren't Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Abel? It's Cain and Abel; Adam and Eve's sons are Cain and Abel. But here, what is that? If you look at the

Speaker A

Sumerian records, do you know who Abel is? Abel, Abel is Abel. Enki's name appeared as Abel. Enki. Enki's name is Abel. Ah, Abel, he was called exactly Abel. The name Abel, Abel means Abel.

Speaker A

It means 'father of Bel,' doesn't it? So Bel, Bel-Marduk, his name is Bel-Marduk. The father of Bel-Marduk.

Speaker A

That's the meaning. Of the word Abel. What is the father of Marduk here? It’s Enki. So it matches exactly. And it said that was the clothes Adam and Eve wore. So who is Adam here? Who is Adam? An, the deity An. An, An, the

Speaker A

deity An is Adam, and then Nammu, the wife of An, Nammu, who is Nammu? Nammu is Ab. So she is Enki's mother, right?

Speaker A

So the reason is correct, right? It means An and Nammu. If you combine and pronounce An and Nammu, it becomes Naman. Ah, here, An and Nammu. So if you say Nammu first, it's Naman. Naman, it's Naman. It’s written here that

Speaker A

Adam and Eve are Naman. It’s accurate . And furthermore, The clothes that Adam and Eve wore were space suits.

Speaker A

Space suits. These beings were said to be aliens from space. They wore space suits. Space suits. So when they wore the space suits, people, because the space suit itself is a symbol of a god, a being from space. It means they would

Speaker A

listen to their orders. I found all of this. And there is more about these space suits. It appears in other records, this is what the Sumerian records say about space suits. It’s about Inanna, she herself, Inanna's...

Speaker A

Inanna, who did I say was Inanna's husband? I said it was Dumuzi. Dumuzi. Dumuzi, while Inanna was captured and went down to the underworld, while Inanna was away in the underworld, Dumuzi wore something called a 'Me-robe .' He was wearing it and acting

Speaker A

boastful. Wearing the 'Me-robe,' and people ask what a 'Me-robe' is; ' Me-robe,' wearing the 'Me-robe,' he was wearing it and acting boastful. I found out what 'Me-robe' is. 'Me' is a space ship, a type of space ship. 'Me' is one

Speaker A

of those types. 'Robe' is a type of garment found in France, it’s a one-piece outfit that covers the top and bottom. A one-piece outfit, what else could it be but a space suit? It is exactly a space suit. He was wearing

Speaker A

the 'Me-robe' and acting boastful. This story appears again. It appears again in Sumerian mythology. This space suit story. So, Nana-su, Nana, what this being called Nana-su is, it’s a name for the Yellow Emperor. The Yellow Emperor, Huangdi Xuanyuan. It is

Speaker A

recorded that the Yellow Emperor's name was Nana. The Classic of Mountains and Seas says the Yellow Emperor's name was Nana. That is how it is recorded. Ra-ra , uh-uh. Ra. So the Yellow Emperor's name is Nana-su. But who did I say the

Speaker A

Yellow Emperor was? Who did I say the Yellow Emperor was earlier? This Yellow Emperor is actually...I said he was Dumuzid. Dumuzid. This Dumuzid is the son of Enki, and I said the Yellow Emperor was Dumuzid. However, the clothes that Dumuzid wore were known as

Speaker A

the Me-lube. Me-lube. In other words, it was a space suit. But the Yellow Emperor died early. Since he died early , Semiramis took Nana-is, the son of the Yellow Emperor. Nana-is is the son of the Yellow Emperor. This is Emperor

Speaker A

Yao, right? Because he is the son of the Yellow Emperor. The Yellow Emperor is, what is it? He is the figure known as Emperor Ku, who migrated. So he is the son of Emperor Ku. Emperor Yao is.

Speaker A

So, to disguise Nana-is, she makes him wear the clothes that his father, the Yellow Emperor, used to wear. And by doing so, she makes everyone follow his orders. That story is written exactly the same as this story. So, the same

Speaker A

story is written in various records. Also, there is too much evidence. I said that Mr. Jo Seok-hyeon and I translated all those ancient languages, all that ancient Hangeul. We translated ancient Hangeul and even found ancient Hangeul from 10,000 years ago. And we

Speaker A

translated all of it. But that...Even the artifacts discovered in France have ancient Hangeul written all over them.

Speaker A

Ancient Hangeul is written even in America; it’s all ancient Hangeul. The evidence is all out; the whole world was using the same script. They were speaking the same language. If the script is the same, the language is the

Speaker A

same. Naturally, the evidence is emerging, so why do they deny it? It appears, and this is a book called "The Pleiadian Mission." If you look here, there is a very important story written . Buta...It says that he contracted a

Speaker A

disease and died in his 93rd year of reign. In 93 years, yes, B. His own 93rd year; this is very important content. That he died in his 93rd year, this content...This content strangely matches the records of Emperor Yao

Speaker A

exactly. It’s a truly strange thing, everyone. Emperor Yao reigned for exactly 93 years. The record of Emperor Yao spans 93 years. But there is another very strange record. In other words, if you look at Emperor Yao in the Bible...If you look at the Bible, a

Speaker A

figure named Cush appears. Yes, this is it. Cush is the son of Ham. He is listed as the son of Ham, and during the era of Cush, it speaks of Nimrod by saying, "Nimrod was a mighty hunter," assessing him quite positively. However

Speaker A

, Nimrod suddenly appears as the king who built the Tower of Babel, and his status in the Bible changes to an evil existence. This is very strange. Yes.

Speaker A

Since Cush is the son of Ham, Cush is Ham's son, right? So, Ham...Ham's son is Cush, and his son is Nimrod. Now, this is the relationship; as for who Ham is, Ham is exactly...A figure called Xuanxiao. Xuanxiao. So, the name

Speaker A

of Shaohao is Xuan. This means that Shaohao is Ham. This figure of Shaohao is the "Gold of the West"(Shao-Hao-Jin) . Because the term Xuanxiao means "dark heavens." This means he is a dark figure. Here, Ham is dark, and here...

Speaker A

Shaohao...is a dark figure. The name Xuanxiao means a dark figure, and the Ham tribe is a black-skinned race. So the name Xuanxiao means black race, and then he is Shaohao. And this son of Ham , Cush, is Emperor Ku (Di Ku). He is

Speaker A

Emperor Ku. However, I said that Cush is the figure also known as the Yellow Emperor (Huangdi) Xuanyuan. The Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan. And the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan is...The Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan is Dumuzi in the Sumerian records, but we don't

Speaker A

understand that—we don't understand the Sumerian records. The biggest reason we don't understand the Sumerian records well is that we don't know who they are. Who on earth are they? So, because the gods are listed as sons of Enki...You have to understand the

Speaker A

society of that time regarding the character for "son"(子). This character "son" did not mean a biological son. It referred to a son-in-law as a "son." So the character "son" was a word that meant son-in-law.

Speaker A

Son-in-law. Then what did they call a biological son? They called him "Nam." Nam. Yes, using the character for "male "(男), it meant biological son; that is what "son" meant. So, it is impossible to distinguish whether it is a biological son or a son-in-law now.

Speaker A

Because from the perspective of Enlil, if you look at Enlil's official records , the figure corresponding to Enlil's daughter is Inanna. So, by becoming Inanna's husband, he became a son-in-law. So, this, because he became Inanna's husband and thus a son-in-law,

Speaker A

perhaps Enki's son-in-law was referred to as a son; the issue arose because of the character for "son"(子). Because the character for "son"(子) was read as "son." The thing is, you have to understand what kind of society this was. This is a very difficult story.

Speaker A

What kind of society was this? This society was a female-centered society. A female-centered society. Meaning, a man a man would go and live in the woman's house. Female-centered. So, this is why we express it as "getting married"(going to the wife's family).

Speaker A

Getting married. Meaning, he goes to live at the woman's house. At the woman's house. So he becomes a member of her family. Currently, in places like Japan or the West, it's the opposite. It's the reverse, where the woman comes to the man's house to marry

Speaker A

. The woman to the man. And so what happens is that she changes her surname . To the man's surname. When a woman gets married, she changes her surname to the man's surname. But this society was a society where women were at the

Speaker A

center. So, the man would go to the woman's house. Then he would change his surname to the woman's surname. You have to understand that society. Now, this strange story is about how Emperor Yao reigned for 93 years before dying.

Speaker A

Precisely. And it is written here precisely that he died after reigning for 93 years. Emperor Yao is Buddha.

Speaker A

But why is there another strange story in the Buddhist scriptures? During the process of the Buddha achieving enlightenment, the entity that appeared as a demon or a tempter, appearing as an incarnation of evil to seduce the Buddha, is known as Mara. This Mara is

Speaker A

portrayed as the incarnation of evil. But who does this Mara refer to? Mara is...He was portrayed as a tempter.

Speaker A

Mara, this Mara is actually a woman of Mago. Woman. The name of the Mago woman is Mara. So, Mara, this Mago and Emperor Yao were portrayed as enemies to each other. Now, in the Bible, the assessment of a person suddenly shifts

Speaker A

from being very positive to being a very negative entity. So, earlier that ...But what is this? Uh, what was the entity that took control of the Hebrew people called? The entity that took control of the Hebrew people is a being

Speaker A

called En, and that entity called En seized control of the Hebrew people. Now. And because of that, this Hebrew history was rewritten. By En; so En manipulated history, and who exactly is this En? It is the Yellow Emperor,

Speaker A

Xuanyuan. The Yellow Emperor, Xuanyuan, manipulated it. However, as for the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan, my stance is not to take one side, but to look at it objectively. I look at it coldly, without taking any side, without having my own bias, simply examining the

Speaker A

documents and materials impartially. Therefore, I am finding out what the truth is by switching perspectives and putting myself in each other's shoes.

Speaker A

Right now. From the perspective of the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan, this history book of the Hebrew people was written.

Speaker A

If it is En from the perspective of the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan, and the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan was the one who seized control, then who does the Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan eventually become enemies with? The Yellow Emperor Xuanyuan becomes enemies with his wife,

Speaker A

Inanna, because he is killed by Inanna; and this entity, having killed Ki and done this and that, used Ki’s death to create the North and the Northern system. But the question is, who is Ki?

Speaker A

Is Ki not the entity that corresponds to the grandfather of his own father? What comes out here is that Alu-sem, could Alu-sem be the one who is Ki?

Speaker A

Alu-sem; he controlled Alu-sem's subordinates, he said he controlled them, meaning he seized and controlled all of Alu-sem's subordinates, so he was in control; could this entity En be none other than Alu-sem? Alu-sem had died. So he took control. With this

Speaker A

story right now The story of the Budoji is also strange. Now, the records of the Budoji, try synthesizing all of this once. Now The records of the Budoji are also a bit strange. Because the book called Budoji is centered on

Speaker A

Mago. Yes, Mago is the center. It was written with Mago as the focus, but the end of the Budoji's record is that...It says that Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun built the Budoseong and opposed the Budo, and because Emperor Yao and

Speaker A

Emperor Shun were not thorough with the numbers, the calendar calculated by Yao and Shun was a mess. However The Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun mentioned here are now...They are the beings said to have created that, but Yao and Shun

Speaker A

are calculated to be similar to Dangun. They are very similar to Dangun. This is what we have recorded, but Dangun actually opposed Dangun. In other words , Dangun is actually Inanna. The record of Budo-ji, which corresponds to Inanna

Speaker A

, is also just one perspective. It was written from their own position, tracing the existence of Mago. Isn't the word "perspective" just the place where you are standing? They saw it from the place where they stood.

Speaker A

Budo-ji was written from Mago's perspective, and earlier...So, Buddhist books or the Buddha's stories were written from the Buddha's perspective.

Speaker A

They were written from the perspectives of men and women. This is what I am doing now. And this is...The Bible was written from the perspective of the sun , because that entity took control. The point is that each perspective they

Speaker A

view things from is different. I am trying to look at these things objectively, excluding any prejudices.

Speaker A

So I am saying that things were written this way here and that way there. I mean, the final judgment is up to you.

Speaker A

The Tower of Babel incident is the decisive event. Because of the Tower of Babel incident, everyone, all people of the world...Used the same language. All the people of the world were speaking the same language, but their languages were mixed up. What does this mean?

Speaker A

That is exactly what a communication satellite is. Isn't it? What I mean is, we are talking on cell phones now, right? We talk to each other on cell phones; saying they removed communication satellites means, for instance, just 100 years ago, people

Speaker A

from Jeolla Province and Gyeongsang Province could not understand each other. Actually, when I was in middle school, I went to Gyeongsang Province and ran away from school, so I worked as a restaurant server, but I was kicked out in less than a month because

Speaker A

I couldn't understand a word the Gyeongsang people were saying. I mean, how could I work if I couldn't understand what customers were ordering ? I didn't know what they were saying.

Speaker A

But why can Gyeongsang people and others communicate so well now? That is because of the radio. Of course, this 800-year-old cell phone thing came out, and they say some German author made it , but how can you believe that? How can

Speaker A

you trust what comes out of broadcast stations? Most of the news from broadcast stations is lies, so how can you believe it? With radio and TV continuously broadcasting in the standard language, people's education keeps expanding. It keeps growing. So,

Speaker A

through school education, they teach only the normal, proper vocabulary, right? That’s what school education is. So it became unified. Since the words were all unified, now people from Gyeongsang-do and Jeolla-do can communicate even when they talk. This is because of things like education.

Speaker A

But back then, people all over the world were using 'N' as a high-performance antenna, and both the characters 'N' and 'NIL' were used as fixed antennas for global communication . They were communicating, and remember I said that 'SEM' was that thing? It

Speaker A

was a communication satellite. They blocked the communication satellite. So people couldn't understand each other anymore. Because education, well, what even is this? The standard language disappeared. The standard language all turned into separate dialects. Every being expresses that story in strange,

Speaker A

twisted ways. That is a simple explanation. It’s been over an hour and a half now. So, I can't keep doing this indefinitely, and there are just too many stories. The story about simulation cosmology—I have to wrap up the key points, and the reason I

Speaker A

kept talking about Emperor Yao is that we have no choice but to simulate past history right now. So, in the past if there were massive mistakes in the past , all history before us has shown that every civilization has repeated the

Speaker A

cycle of rising and falling. Up until now. So, by simulating that history, if there were mistakes in the past that caused a collapse, we must correct them , and a simulation is absolutely necessary for that. So, those beings

Speaker A

also reached the stage where they could run simulations, but in the end, they failed because they couldn't perfect that simulation; that’s the story here. And so, today’s technology has finally reached the exact level where it has the ability to run those

Speaker A

simulations. Our current technology has reached exactly the same level as the technology of the Yao era. Currently, however, because they couldn't perfectly understand the algorithm of that technology, Emperor Yao failed, and since he failed, he was completely integrated into history as a devil, and

Speaker A

thus the civilization of the Yao era disappeared entirely because of that failure, and so right now...The civilization of us people living on Earth has reached exactly that level of Emperor Yao. So, how we fully decode this universal algorithm will determine

Speaker A

whether this game ends in a reset, or if we can overcome it and ascend to a higher dimension. This is the moment that decides our fate. Do you understand what I’m saying? So, in conclusion, The reason they are

Speaker A

launching so many spacecraft and planning space travel right now is that they see a much higher probability of failure here on Earth. That's why, if a war breaks out here on Earth, the most terrifying war imaginable is—It's a

Speaker A

war between artificial intelligence and humanity. A war between AI and humans is one we are bound to lose. Humans are destined to fail against AI; just imagine a war against physical AI— robots—created by them. We could never win; defeat is inevitable. So, at

Speaker A

that moment—When the Earth faces destruction and a reset, they are preparing to escape to another planet.

Speaker A

That is exactly why they are launching all these spacecraft and planning countless space missions. Alright, let’s stop here for today.

Topics:simulation cosmologyElon MuskNick Bostromsimulation hypothesisdiscrete space-timePlanck lengthphilosophy of sciencecomputer simulationscientific criticismmodern science

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries and speaker detection. 30 minutes free.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools