Do we live in a simulation and people are real artificial intelligence? Probably not, but we don't have to be computers to simulate an alien civilization. Columbia University astronomer David Kipping says there is as much as 50 percent of the population. chances that our life is a simulation of a highly advanced civilization. Similar claims were made in 2003 by the philosopher from the University of Oxford - Nick Bostrom. Simulation theory is an existential problem that concerns philosophers, scientists and ordinary people. Do we really exist? What drives us? Is There Evidence for the Reality of Our Life? Find the answers to these intriguing questions.
You wake up in a simulated bed with programmed sleeplessness, eat a breakfast invented by an alien civilization, kiss your fake wife, and go to work to unwittingly fuel a computer simulation of the universe that has existed for thousands of years.
Every friend of yours, boxer, pathostreamer, and politician are just unconscious creations of a supercomputer, as are all planets, birds, and the laws of physics that connect them. The simulation is like a clock fueling their artificial life from which they can in no way break out - or cancel their current bank accounts.
Are we living in a simulation? Probably not, but we'll never get a justification for it, because studying our computer nature is a bit like figuring out God. Apparently you can do it, but after a long time we will find that we lack the right tools and chase our own tail.
It is good to admit that we do not currently have the means to prove the truth of the ideas of Nick Bostrom, the author of the modern simulation theory of humanity. In short, it assumes that the universe and society are the product of an advanced civilization, and we are unaware of our true nature.
Has reading this sentence changed anything in your life? Do you feel now like a sim in a pool without a ladder? Probably not, and rightly so, because as it turns out, becoming aware of being in a simulation won't change your life one bit.
But from the beginning. In fact, the only argument for simulated Earth is probability. We must take into account that since we are close to the stage of creating advanced simulators, a civilization that has already managed to do so and decided to include us in its program may have lived before.
This means that humanity is an experiment and a real artificial intelligence that it wants to create itself. Conscious, self-learning and a bit dumb because they still create a weapon for self-annihilation.
Undoubtedly, people have the most important features of real AI that they would like to replicate in their programs. However, we are far from ideal, because not all of us think the same and disagree on most issues - and this is what we would expect from our artificial intelligence.
We like to think that a perfect artificial mind should be single, in full harmony with itself, and with all the laws of physics in mind. Meanwhile, if we look at man as an instance of artificial intelligence (because we have some of its features), it turns out that in the future there may even be a conflict of minds.
Meaningful arguments for being stuck in a simulation end with probability, but I came up with another proof - some people have been so fed up with% $ ## from the beginning of their lives that it is impossible for them not to be forced to have such a dumb ^ & $$% scenario imposed on them.
Others say, however, that life in a simulation can be compared to a dream - we are not able to become aware of both in real time. An even less obvious argument in an aquarium with the inscription "for" is the Mandela effect, according to which some people are imposed some kind of memory updates causing inconsistencies in remembering logos of famous companies and events.
Nick Bostrom was the first to put forward a shocking theory about our lives, and his claims have been dubbed the Bostrom "trilemate". The scientist noted that at least one of the following statements is true:
Civilizations tend to die out before the ability to simulate reality develops.
Advanced civilizations are usually not interested in simulating reality.
We almost certainly live in a computer simulation.
Columbia University astronomer David Kipping has looked closely at these proposals and found that there is essentially 50% of the number. chances are we're actually living in a simulation, according to Scientific American. Kipping combined the first two theorems into one, arguing that they all gave the same result - we are not living in any simulation.
Kipping also argues that the more layers of reality embedded in the simulation, the more the computer's resources would run out. This can be explained by the fact that the deeper the layer, the less processing power is needed to create a convincing simulation.
The scientist believes that the very fact that people are able to create such simulations increases the likelihood that we ourselves function in such a reality. Other researchers even argue that over the next few decades, our IT know-how will actually allow us to finally confirm once and for all whether we are living in a simulation or not. For now, only guesses remain.
Meaningful arguments for being stuck in a simulation end with probability, but I came up with another proof - some people have been so fed up with% $ ## from the beginning of their lives that it is impossible for them not to be forced to have such a dumb ^ & $$% scenario imposed on them.
Others say, however, that life in a simulation can be compared to a dream - we are not able to become aware of both in real time. An even less obvious argument in an aquarium with the inscription "for" is the Mandela effect, according to which some people are imposed some kind of memory updates causing inconsistencies in remembering logos of famous companies and events.
It all sounds beautiful and is very interesting, but hey - get up because you have to work at seven. The simulation is ticking and whether you want it or not, becoming aware of your computer life doesn't solve your current problems at all.
You have to pay the bills anyway, and the sink has to be repaired because it has been dripping for a week. Repeating your wife about life in a simulation and pointless repairs can end up differently, so don't take any chances. And so we smoothly move on to the next point - what if you already get a validation for life in the simulation?
How will you convince the whole world to this idea when we find ourselves divided on almost all things? Vaccinations, views on social policy, the right to access weapons, a way of life and everything else? It will be quite a feat to convince the whole globe even with a proof in hand.
First of all, humanity may not want to break out of comfortable life and use reverse engineering to explore the world of simulation makers. We do not even know what this reality is supposed to be like, and it is dangerous to assume that it is similar to ours.
Besides, exiting the simulation is like telling a Minecraft guy to appear in our world. Hello Herobrine.
Proof of a top-down simulation will only change your life if the whole world believes it. Then there is a chance for anarchy or global mobilization, and you will not be able to pay your electricity bills.
Arguments contradicting the idea of simulation were well presented by SciFun, who in his film talks about the use of enormous computing power, the absence of errors (glitch) straight from computer games, matching laws of physics and the complexity of the world.
The creators of the simulations are also restrained in making fun of us, although some may consider the outbreak of the pandemic as such:
"Hey, let's see how these meat creatures deal with this new disease."
- Come on, fire up another episode of The Truman Show
Another indication that we are not living inside a supercomputer is that civilizations are dying out before they reach the stage of advanced simulators - but Nick Bostrom assumes that the percentage of societies capable of imitating reality is non-zero.
Now let's answer the question: does simulation only mean a computer program? If we think about it longer, we will come to the conclusion that it is not, because reality can also be programmed in other ways - for example through a DNA helix.
Our genetic code contains all sorts of information that we will have to work on for years to come. However, someone might have turned out to be faster and mastered the ability to freely manipulate this data.
So, imagine a situation where our reality is real, but life on Earth was initiated a long time ago by an alien civilization capable of programming DNA. The human species would then be an experiment without any computer control. And he could be constantly looked after by the "creators."
It's an interesting concept, but it's straight out of science fiction. Moreover, it assumes not only the existence of alien civilizations, but also an extraordinary level of their knowledge and the ability to travel great distances.
Reflections on the nature of reality appear more and more frequently in scientific journals. We realized that our senses and brain are powerful filters that separate us more from the real world than connect to it. The very fact that we perceive the world with specific senses, each of which is sensitive only to a specific part of the electromagnetic spectrum or to certain stimuli, has many consequences.
One of them is the fact that we build scientific instruments, measures and methods of analysis on their basis. We are unable to free ourselves from it. More and more often we come to the conclusion that the perceived reality must be very different from the reality that exists. The fact that we perceive clouds of particles (and even probabilities) in magnetic fields as trees, clouds or stones is just a kind of user interface.
Donald Hoffman in his book The Case Against Reality even claims that separating us from reality, filtering it and presenting it in a simplified form was necessary for evolutionary reasons. This is what allowed us to survive. There is even experimental evidence, says Hoffman - attempts to model the evolution of the senses have proven that simplifying and filtering stimuli from the environment gives you an evolutionary advantage!
Caleb A. Scharf in Scientific American considered an interesting way to find out if we are living in a simulation, assuming that the simulation is done as we can imagine it with our little Earth brains - on some computing machines that resemble our future computers.
If simulation computing power has limitations similar to our computers, maybe we will be able to break its conditions and even force it to crash or hang? It is risky, but it can prove effective.
Scharf proposes a test of this hypothesis by trying to corrupt the simulation "from the inside". By sticking to the software analogy, humanity could try to "overflow" by creating recursive simulations of our world that also create simulations endlessly, potentially consuming available simulation resources. Of course, success here would also be the end of our (simulated) existence.
What if simulation developers have built in recursion protection? It will turn out then that, for strange reasons, we are unable to build such a recursive simulation, because it will also be a clue for us.
Let's stick with the idea of a simulation running on some kind of computer, using specific software. Perhaps the principles of economics apply in the world "above" (after all, our creators modeled the simulation on something), and the same is true of budget and savings when producing software?
In other words: in order to save time and resources, perhaps the simulation is done approximately so that the data provided is only "good enough". In other words: the data measured by us - simulation participants - should have accuracy limits.
Everything seems to be so: recent research shows that indeed our universe may have "clocking", or a minimum measurable time. And it is much larger than the suspect so far, which is Planck's constant. The accuracy of the distance measurement is estimated at 10-35 meters.
Another feature of our reality, which resembles the features of object-oriented software, is the fact that many phenomena on a micro scale show their features only at the moment of observation and the fact that the observer influences the observing object. This is similar to ... software-type functions that only count the return value when needed.
Of course - all these thoughts may be the result of overheating and hot weather, and the similarity of the systems and structures of the universe we build may have exactly the opposite cause.
Perhaps that is why we build such systems, because these are the features of our reality, which, however, is not simulated?
Simulation theory is a philosophical thought defined by the Swedish thinker Nick Bostrom. According to the scientist's thought, the universe around us may be a pre-programmed computer reality. The simulation, which we are not aware of, is also supposed to affect everyone individually. This is because simulated people live in the artificially generated world.
Nick Bostrom's simulation theory is based on three theses. The first of them assumes that no civilization will ever reach a technological level that will allow it to simulate reality. The second proposition suggests that, even if you could achieve a sufficient degree of sophistication, simulating it would not be a universe-wide process. The third thesis is not so optimistic and assumes that we already live in a simulated world.
The last statement suggests the existence of a powerful civilization that controls our lives. Today's technological advancement makes the vision of a game-like world not so unrealistic. IT solutions such as VR provide a basis for thinking about where the limit of technology lies and whether we really are not living in a simulation.
The theory of world simulation has many supporters. They often justify their belief in simulation using the theory of the brain in a vessel. This concept relates to a question that was formulated by the American philosopher Hilary Putnam. His thought is considered a contemporary form of skepticism, that is, an incredulous and critical attitude.
The theory of brain in a vessel is directly related to grand simulation theory. It assumes that a person's mind is not at all in his head, but in a closed container. According to the theory, the vessel in which the brain resides is attached to a supercomputer. The device stimulates the perception of stimuli that create illusions of people, experiences and, finally, the whole world. This process can be individual or collective. It is impossible to distinguish whether someone lives independently or is controlled by electrical impulses stimulating the mind.
Simulation theory involves another popular concept - the dream argument. This idea was popularized by Descartes, considered the father of modern philosophy. The dream argument is based on the inability to distinguish waking from dreaming. When a person is dreaming, he is usually unaware of it. During sleep, the experiences produced by the mind appear real. Only after waking up can you realize that the experiences did not happen while you were awake. However, the dream argument questions the reality of what we experience when we wake up. Philosophers suggest that if we are unable to distinguish between dream and reality, it is possible that we never wake up and are constantly living in a simulation.
Proponents of the simulation theory justify the unreality of life on the basis of a few additional arguments. One of the themes they analyze is the size of the universe. The cosmos is a vast space with billions of planets, galaxies and stars. Earth is only a small fraction of this universe. So there is an assumption that there are other civilizations throughout the universe. Despite the enormous chances for the existence of extraterrestrials, man has never met them. Proponents of the simulation believe this is due to the fact that aliens were not programmed into our illusion.
The age of the Earth is also important in terms of simulation considerations. Our planet is assumed to be 4.5 billion years old. If there is a civilization in the universe that develops 3 times as long as terrestrials, it probably supports much more advanced technologies. The development of extraterrestrials could therefore lead to the creation of a simulated world in which we live.
The reason for considering people to be simulative creatures is also their construction. Every human has a kind of code - DNA. Therefore, we are a collection of information that can be broken down into prime factors, counted and subjected to various processes. An organism conceived in this way does not differ much from a computer program in theory. The cosmos itself and the laws of physics that govern it are also compared to an application written by a programmer.
The theory of life in simulation, apart from fierce supporters, also has its critics. They emphasize that all the evidence in favor of simulation is merely philosophical guesswork. Among the evidence for the reality of the world there is the thesis that creating an illusion encompassing the entire cosmos is impossible due to its size. A computer running such an enormous simulation would need a RAM chip that is larger than the number of atoms that exist in the entire universe.
It is also worth adding that the software used to create the simulation would certainly not avoid errors, i.e. bugs. In reality, however, we do not experience technological gaps that would make us believe that we live in a computer system.
Evidence of the reality of the world is even the fact that we question reality. Life in a simulation would probably be programmed to make people believe it was true. Therefore, in the simulation, there would be no room for deliberations on the reality of the world and ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment