an do it, the argument was always that once it can be done there'll be more than one. So after somebody makes one of them in a year in the real world, in one year there will be that simulation. Somebody else is going to say, hey that's a good idea, I'll make one too. And at that moment the number of simulated realities will be confirmed to be twice as many as base reality if there is, if even one exists.

Now the argument that I've heard against the simulation is stupid, and it goes like this: Scott, you're just pushing God back one more level. I mean you know something can't come from nothing, so therefore a God. And then I say, is God something? Well yeah, where did he come from? Something came from nothing or something was always there. Here's the answer to where everything came from. Everything was always here. That's it. Now the fact that your brain can't wrap its head around that doesn't make it wrong, because you can't wrap your head around any of physics. But you don't need to solve the problem of how anything came from nothing because that's an absurd assumption. The correct assumption is there was always something. Do you know why? Because you can't make something out of nothing. It's obvious. There was always something. You know, even if you say the Big Bang was the beginning, no, whatever it was that caused the Big Bang had to exist. So there was always something, even if it was packed into one little singularity. But there was something. So no, you don't have to solve the God or simulation problem. There was always something. That's it. That's the whole solution. There was always something.

All right, here is my last challenge to you. I want to see if you can prove me wrong. I was curious how many of the predictions made during the Al Gore era of "An Inconvenient Truth," when he first started saying you were all doomed from climate change, how many predictions were made either by him or other experts at that time that have panned out. Now that seems li