1) His argument that the universe is literally infinite in size and thus, everything that could happen will happen and everything that has happened will happen again is very similar to an argument I once had that assumed simply a big crunch and preservation of matter. My argument is that if you had a box of legos and you were shaking it with enough force over an infinite amount of time the same combinations would inevitably happen again. His argument is highly similar however rather than a big crunch he is arguing, and claims this is the cosmological majority view, that the universe is infinite in size and as we expand out into the universe we would reach other universes and it goes on forever.
2) I didn’t realize that the multi universe theory just assumed an endless expanse of space. The way I’d heard multiverses described in the past was that there were “parallel universes” that we couldn’t reach in “another dimension. Tedgmark argues that they are simply out of our light sphere thus out of the known universe. I didn’t realize this but he also says the known universe expands every day because every hour new light comes from what was previously out of our light sphere.
3) He disagrees with Bostrom’s argument that we are likely in a simulation. One of his arguments is that if you believe youre in a simulation wouldn’t you believe that you are also in a simulation of a simulation for exactly the same reason. I would argue the opposite. If the base reality universe creates a vast amount of simulations it does not follow that those simulations do the same as it would crash if the original computer simulations grew exponentially. His second argument against the simulation hypothesis being likely is that if we are in a simulation we don’t know anything about base reality. I agree with this argument however it doesn’t defeat Bostrom’s thesis. As I see it there are two options A) we are in a simulation B) we are not. B collapses into likely A, A cannot collapse into B, thus if we concede we are in a simulation there is no way to collapse that into reality. It makes no sense to say if we’re in a simulation we know nothing so we aren’t in one, I think the starting point is to assume this is real and see where that goes.
Which actually brings me to an attack on Bostrom’s thesis which I do agree with. Because something occurred to me when Harris said in the podcast that some events are more common than others despite everything occurring eventually, or all logically possible events occuring. Well, my understanding of math is that 2x infinity is still infinity. So if you get on a plane its 10,000x more likely to land safely than not its still going to crash infinity times and land safely infinity times which is equal. And that would mean that odds of everything is equal from that perspective including odds of being in a simulation vs not. So were back to total agnosticism from that standpoint.