Do we live in computer simulation? The question seems absurd. Nevertheless, there are many smart people who are convinced that this is not only possible, but, most likely, the truth.
In an authoritative article, which underlies this theory, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities are true: 1) all human-like civilizations in the Universe will die before working out technological possibilities for creating a simulated reality; 2) if any civilizations really achieved this phase of technological maturity, none of them launch simulations; or 3) developed civilizations have the ability to create a lot of simulations, which means that the simulated worlds are much larger than that are non-immutable.
Bostr concludes that we cannot know for sure which option is true, but they are all possible - and the third looks most likely. It is difficult to put in my head, but there is a certain meaning in this reasoning.
Rizvan Virk, a specialist in the theory of computing machines and a video game designer, published the book "Hypothesis of Simulation" in 2019, in which the Bostroma argument is investigated much more detail. He traces the way from today's technologies to the so-called "point of simulation" - the moment when we can build a realistic simulation similar to the "matrix". I asked the Warrik to tell about this theory.
Sean Illing: Pretend that I absolutely do not know anything about the "simulation hypothesis". What, damn it, is it for the hypothesis?
Rizvan Virk: Simulation hypothesis is a modern equivalent of ideas that exist for some time that the physical world in which we live, including the land and the rest of the physical universe, in fact the result of computer modeling.
It can be imagined as a high-resolution video game in which we are all characters. The best way to understand this within the framework of Western culture is the film "Matrix", which many people have seen. Even if they have not seen - this is a cultural phenomenon, going beyond the film industry.
In this film, Keanu Reeves, who plays neo, meets the guy named Morpheus, named after the Greek God of Dreams, and Morpheus gives him a choice: take a red or blue tablet. If he takes a red tablet, he wakes up and aware that his whole life, including work, the house in which he lived, and everything else was part of a complex video game, and he wakes up in the world beyond.
This is the main version of the simulation hypothesis.
Do we live now in the simulated universe?
There are many mysteries in physics that it is easier to explain the simulation hypothesis than the material hypothesis.
We just do not understand much about our reality, and I think that rather we are in some kind of simulated universe than not. This is a much more complex video game than the games that we produce, just as World of Warcraft and Fortnite are much more complicated than Pac-Man or Space Invaders. It took a couple of decades to understand how to model physical objects with 3D models, and then to visualize them with limited computing power, which ultimately led to a stream of online video games.
I think the chances of the fact that we really live in simulation are great. It is impossible to say this with 100% confidence, but there are many testimonies indicating in this direction.
When you say that in our world there are aspects that would have more meaning, whether they are part of the simulation, what exactly do you mean?
Well, there are several different aspects. One of them is a mystery, which is called quantum uncertainty, that is, the idea that the particle is in one of several states, and you will not recognize in which it is until you see this particle.
Take the infamous example of the Schrödinger Cat, which, on the theory of Erwin Schrödinger physics, is in a box with a radioactive substance. The probability that the cat is alive is 50%, and the likelihood that it is dead is also 50%.
Common sense tells us that the cat is either alive or dead. We just do not know because they have not yet looked into the box, but we will see it by opening the box. However, quantum physics tells us that the cat is simultaneously alive, and dead, until someone opens the box and does not see it. The universe visualizes only what can be seen.
How does the Schrödinger cat correlate with a video game or computer simulation?
The history of video game development is optimizing limited resources. If you asked someone in the 1980s, can you create a game like World of Warcraft, a full-fledged three-dimensional game or a game in virtual reality, they would answer: "No, this will require all computing power in the world. We cannot visualize all these pixels in real time. "
But over time, optimization methods appeared. The essence of all these optimizations is "visualize only what can be seen."
The first successful game was Doom, very popular in the 1990s. It was a first-person shooter, and he could display only light rays and objects that are clearly visible from the point of view of the virtual chamber. This is an optimization method, and this is one of the things that reminds me of video games in the physical world.
I will do what always do non-scientists when they want to seem smart, and resorted to the principle of the razor of Okkam. Is the hypothesis that we live in the physical world from flesh and blood, no more simple and, therefore, more likely an explanation?
And I will add to the very famous physics of John Wheeler. He was one of the latter who worked with Albert Einstein and many great physicists of the 20th century. According to him, it was originally believed that physics studies physical objects that everything comes down to particles. This is what is often called the Newtonian model. But then we discovered quantum physics and realized that everything around - the probability field, and not physical objects. It was the second wave in Wheeler's career.
The third wave in his career was the discovery that at the basic level everything around is information, everything is based on bits. So the Wieler came up with a famous phrase called "all of the bit": that is, everything that we consider physical, in fact - the result of the bits of information.
So, I would say that if the world is not really physical, if it is based on information, then a simpler explanation may be what we are in the simulation created on the basis of computer computing and information.
Is there a way to prove that we live in simulation?
Well, there is an argument nominated by Oxford philosopher by the Nick Bostrom, which is worth repeating. He says that if at least one civilization comes to the creation of a high-precision simulator, it will be able to create billions of simulated civilizations, each with trillions of living beings. After all, everything you need for this is more computing power.
Thus, it leads an argument that more chances for the existence of a simulated creature than biological, simply because they are quickly and easily created. Consequently, since we are reasonable creatures, then with a greater probability we are simulated than biological. This is rather a philosophical argument.
If we lived in a computer program, I suppose the program would consist of rules, and these rules could be violated or suspended by people or creatures that have programmed simulation. But the laws of our physical world seem pretty permanent. Isn't that a sign that our world is not a simulation?
Computers really follow the rules, but the fact that the rules are always applied, does not confirm and does not refute the fact that we can be part of computer simulation. The concept of computational irresistibleness is connected with this, which reads: To find out something, it is not enough to simply calculate it in the equation, you need to go through all the steps to understand what the end result will be.
And this is part of the section of mathematics, called the theory of chaos. Do you know this idea that the butterfly caresses the wings in China, and this leads to a hurricane somewhere in another part of the planet? To understand this, you need to actually simulate every step. In itself, the feeling that some rules work does not mean that we do not participate in the simulation. On the contrary, it can be another proof that we are in simulation.
If we lived in such convincing simulation, as a "matrix", would any noticeable difference between simulation and reality? Why is it generally important in the end, real is our world or illusory?
There are many disputes on this topic. Some of us do not want to know anything and prefer to take a metaphorical "blue tablet" as in the "matrix".
Probably the most important question is who we are in this video game - players or computer characters. If the first, then this means that we just play the video game of the life I call the great simulation. I think many of us would like to know. We would like to know the parameters of the game, in which they play, to better understand it, it is better to navigate it.
If we are simulated characters, then, in my opinion, this is a more complicated and more frightening answer. The question is whether all of whether there are such computer characters in the simulation, and what is the purpose of this simulation? I still think many people would be interested to know what we are in the simulator, understand the goals of this simulation and your character - and now we returned to the case with a holographic character from the Star Route, which discovers that there is a world "outside" (Outside the hologram), in which he can not get. Perhaps, in this case, some of us would prefer not to know the truth.
How close are we close to have technological opportunities for creating an artificial world, as realistic and plausible, as the "matrix"?
I describe the 10 stages of the development of technologies that civilization must pass to achieve what I call the simulation point, that is, the point in which we can create such a hyperealistic simulation. We are approximately at the fifth stage, which concerns a virtual and augmented reality. On the sixth stage to learn to visualize all this without having to wear glasses, and the fact that 3D printers can now print three-dimensional pixels of objects, shows us that most objects can be decomposed on the information.
But really a difficult part - and this is what technologists say so much, - concerns the "matrix". After all, there seemed to the heroes that they were completely immersed in the world, because they had a cord, going to the bark of the brain, and that was what the signal was passed. The interface "Brain-Computer" is the area in which we have not yet achieved significant progress, at least the process is. We are still in the early stages.
So I assume that in a few decades or 100 years we will achieve a point of simulation.