After pondering this TEDTalk a bit longer, here's my take on it, in what I believe are slightly more accurate terms:
Begin with a number of highly-questionable possibilities from the emerging field of astrobiology, all of undefinable certainty. String them together with some wild, sciency sounding speculation and link them with a chain of "what if?" conjectures and "then maybe" assumptions. Add a few pop-culture references (zombies and internet porn) to sound hip while also getting some grins and giggles. Throw in a couple of optical illusions for the "Wow!" factor.
Then attempt to tie it all together--no matter how tenuous or weak the connection--to the general subject of physics as support for your thesis by telling us a few of the things that we do not know or understand about physics or the ultimate nature of reality. Finally, offer that up as "proof" of what you initially asserted while hinting that there's actually much, much more "proof" but you've simply run out of time and have to go now.
- - - - -
It's surprising to me that someone that actually won a Nobel Prize in physics would put together a presentation like this and expect to be take seriously.
It's an intriguing idea, yes it is. Great subject for discussion over a few glasses of your favorite adult beverage; this may, in fact, be a requirement for such discussions. But don't expect me to give it too much credence and start knocking on doors (real or simulated) to preach "the Good News of the Virtual Reality."
It shoulda' been titled: You Might Be in a Simulation, But We Really Don't Know for Sure and Nothing from the Field of Physics Can Disprove It!
If you'll excuse me, I have to go reboot the Universe. I don't like how this one is turning out.
Oubliette