Computer simulation. Is life possible inside it? Reality is not a simulation: why Elon Musk is wrong

At Code Conference 2016: there is only one chance in a billion that humanity Not lives in a computer simulation.

Hardly our reality is basic. It is much more likely that the world around us and ourselves are virtual entities created by a super-advanced civilization, a level that we may reach 10 thousand years later.

Musk argues his thesis as follows:

In the 1970s we had "Pong" - two rectangles and a dot. Now, forty years later, we have realistic 3D simulations with millions of people around the world sitting at the same time.

Elon Musk

founder of Tesla Motors, SpaceX and PayPal

Gradually, we learn to create more and more realistic copies of reality. Therefore, sooner or later we will come to the conclusion that reality will be indistinguishable from a simulation. It is quite possible that some civilization has already traveled this path before us, and our world is one of its many experiments.

Musk made his argument even tougher: “Either we create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.”

In Musk's answer, the ideas of the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom are clearly guessed, who back in 2003 in his famous work"Are we living in a computer simulation?" (Russian translation) offered three versions of the existence of mankind:

Civilizations are dying out before reaching the posthuman stage, at which they can surpass the biological capabilities of man with the help of technical inventions and build artificial models of consciousness.

Civilizations that get to the point where they can model artificial reality at will are, for some reason, uninterested in doing so;

If points 1 and 2 are wrong, then there is little doubt that we are living in a computer simulation.

Within the framework of this hypothesis, reality can be not single, but multiple.

The post-humans who developed our simulation can be simulated themselves, and their creators, in turn, can also be simulated. There may be many levels of reality, and their number may increase over time.

Nick Bostrom

professor at Oxford University

If the hypothesis is correct, after some time we ourselves will be able to reach the stage of "creators" of the virtual world, which will become "real" for its new inhabitants.

Apparently, it was Bostrom's model that made Elon Musk suggest that we have little choice: either create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or cease to exist and develop. The option that posthumanity for some reason (for example, ethical) will not be interested in creating virtual worlds is not seriously considered by Musk.

Bostrom himself, however, is not sure which of the three scenarios is closer to the truth. But still believes that the hypothesis virtual reality must be taken seriously. Shortly after Musk's statement, the philosopher gave his comments, in which he confirmed this again:

It is important to understand that the fact that we are in a simulation does not carry a metaphorical, but a literal meaning - that we ourselves and this whole world around us, which we see, hear and feel, exists inside a computer built by some advanced civilization.

Some time later, a detailed article by philosopher Riccardo Manzotti and cognitive scientist Andrew Smart appeared on the Motherboard portal “Elon Musk is wrong. We don't live in a simulation." short version articles in Russian published by Meduza).

Simulation is always objects material world that exist in reality. Information does not exist separately from atoms and electrons, virtual worlds - from computers, which, in turn, are part of the physical world. Therefore, we cannot separate the "virtual" from the "real".

A simulation that is indistinguishable from reality ceases to be a simulation. Simple technological progress does not make virtual models more realistic: a drawn apple will not become more real if we add even more pixels to it. If we create an apple that can be eaten - a chemical and biological material apple - then by definition it will cease to be a simulation.

Any simulation needs an observer. A simulation is inseparable from the consciousness that perceives it. But the brain that serves as the source of consciousness is not a computing device. This is an extremely complex biological machine that can hardly be reproduced using algorithmic components. If a full-fledged artificial intelligence is created, it will be very different from the human one.

Opponents accuse Musk of Cartesian dualism and Platonic idealism that goes back to the earliest philosophical debates about the nature of reality. Indeed, his hypothesis suggests that the simulation can somehow be separated from material reality, as well as delineate the basic, most "real" world - and its virtual emanations. No matter how many simulation levels there are, they are always assumed to be one, the last one, which is the source of all the others.

But for those who are inside the simulation, this division does not make any sense. If other, more authentic levels of reality are not available to us, then it is useless to talk about them. All we know are real, not simulated, apples, even if at some "deeper" level they are a simulation.

This dispute is reminiscent of old story Borges about a country in which cartographers created a map that, in size and in all details, was an exact copy this country itself (this metaphor, by the way, was used by Baudrillard in his famous work"Simulacra and Simulation").

If a map is an exact reproduction of a territory, then is there any sense in the very division of "map and territory", "reality and simulation"?

In addition, Musk's model revives the theological predicaments that people (for lack of a better one) have spent their intellectual resources on for centuries. If the world has creators, then why is there so much evil in it? What do we live for: is it just a random experiment, or is there some kind of secret plan in our lives? Is it possible to reach that very “deeper” level of reality, or can we only build our own assumptions about it?

The first question, of course, can be answered with the words of Agent Smith from The Matrix that “humanity as a species does not accept reality without suffering and poverty,” so even artificial reality should be just that. But this does not remove the basic difficulties. In addition, it is very easy to switch to conspiracy logic here, assuming that everything around is an illusion, the fruit of a conspiracy of intelligent machines (aliens, masons, the US government) against humanity.

In many ways, the "virtuality" hypothesis is theology in disguise. It cannot be proven and cannot be refuted.

Perhaps the most vulnerable side of this hypothesis is the assumption that consciousness can be modeled using computer technology. Our brains are not made of silicon chips, and algorithmic computing is far from their main function. If the brain is a computer, then it is an ill-adjusted computer with many conflicting operators and components with no clear purpose. Human consciousness cannot be divorced not only from matter, but also from the environment - the social and cultural context in which it participates.

So far, no one has reliable evidence that all these components can be technically “simulated”. Even the most powerful artificial intelligence is also likely to be far from human consciousness like a real apple from the logo Apple. It will not be worse or better, but completely different.

In the design of the article, a frame from the film Inception was used.

Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The talk of scientists about the unreality of our world falls on the ground prepared by mass culture

The hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation or a hologram is increasingly exciting the minds of scientists and philanthropists.

Educated mankind has never been so sure of the illusory nature of everything that happens.

In June 2016, the American entrepreneur, creator of SpaceX and Tesla, Elon Musk, estimated the probability that the "reality" known to us is the main one - as "one in a billion". “For us, it will be even better if it turns out that what we take for reality is already a simulator created by another race or people of the future,” Musk said.

In September, Bank of America warned its customers that there was a 20-50% chance they were living in the Matrix. This hypothesis was considered by bank analysts along with other signs of the future, in particular, the offensive (that is, according to the original hypothesis, virtual reality within virtual reality).

A recent New Yorker feature on venture capitalist Sam Altman says that many in Silicon Valley are obsessed with the idea that we are living inside a computer simulation. Two tech billionaires allegedly followed in the footsteps of The Matrix characters and secretly funded research to rescue humanity from this simulation. The publication does not disclose their names.

Should this hypothesis be taken literally?

The short answer is yes. The hypothesis proceeds from the fact that the "reality" we experience is due to only a small amount of information that we receive and that our brain is able to process. We feel solid objects due to electromagnetic interaction, and the light we see is only a small section of the spectrum of electromagnetic waves.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Elon Musk believes that humanity will create virtual world in the future, or we are already characters in someone else's simulation

The more we expand the boundaries of our own perception, the more we become convinced that the universe consists for the most part of emptiness.

Atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space. If the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is enlarged to the size of a soccer ball, then its single electron will be located at a distance of 23 kilometers. Matter, which is composed of atoms, makes up only 5% of the universe known to us. And 68% is dark energy, about which science knows almost nothing.

In other words, our perception of reality is "Tetris" compared to what the universe really is.

What does official science say about this?

Like the heroes of a novel trying to comprehend the author's intention right on its pages, modern scientists - astrophysicists and quantum physicists - are testing the hypothesis put forward by the philosopher Rene Descartes back in the 17th century. He suggested that "some wicked genius, very powerful and prone to deceit" could make us think that there is a physical world external to us, while in fact the sky, air, earth, light, shapes and sounds - these are "traps set by genius."

In 1991, writer Michael Talbot was one of the first to suggest in his book The Holographic Universe that the physical world is like giant hologram. Some scientists, however, consider Talbot's "quantum mysticism" pseudoscience, and the esoteric practices associated with it - charlatanism.

Far more recognized in the professional environment was the 2006 book "Programming the Universe" by MIT professor Seth Lloyd. He believes that the universe is a quantum computer that calculates itself. The book also says that in order to create a computer model of the Universe, humanity lacks the theory of quantum gravity - one of the links in the hypothetical "theory of everything."

Image copyright Fermilab Image caption "Holometer" worth $ 2.5 million could not refute the foundations of the universe known to us

Our world itself can be a computer simulation. In 2012, a team of researchers at the University of California at San Diego, led by Russian Dmitry Kryukov, came to the conclusion that such complex networks as the Universe, the human brain and the Internet have the same structure and dynamics of development.

This concept of the world order involves a "small" problem: what will happen to the world if the computing power of the computer that created it is exhausted?

Can the hypothesis be experimentally confirmed?

Craig Hogan, director of the Center for Quantum Astrophysics at the Fermi Laboratory in the United States, set up the only such experiment. In 2011, he created a "holometer": an analysis of the behavior of light beams emanating from the laser emitters of this device helped answer at least one question - is our world a two-dimensional hologram.

Answer: it is not. What we observe really exists; they are not "pixels" of advanced computer animation.

Which allows us to hope that one day our world will not "freeze", as is often the case with computer games.

Ecology of consciousness. Life: In this discussion about whether our world is real or fictional, there is practically no other important argument ...

You've probably heard this already: our world may turn out to be a sophisticated computer simulation that makes it feel like we're living in a real universe. Recently this topic was raised by Elon Musk. And he may very well be right. But in this discussion about whether our world is real or fictional, there is practically no other important argument: it doesn't matter at all.

But first, let's see why the world can be a simulation. Similar ideas were put forward by the ancient Greeks - what we can call a computer simulation, they considered, for example, dreams. And the first thing to understand - our perception of reality does not equal reality itself. Reality is just a collection of electrical impulses interpreted by our brains. We perceive the world not directly and not in the most perfect way. If we could see the world as it is, there would be no optical illusions, no color blindness, no all sorts of tricks to mislead the brain.

Moreover, we perceive only a simplified version of this sensory information. Seeing the world as it is requires too much processing power, so our brains simplify it. He is constantly looking for patterns in the world and correlates them with our perception. Therefore, what we call reality is just an attempt by the brain to process incoming data from the senses.

And if our perception depends on this simplistic flow of information, it doesn't matter what its source is - the physical world or a computer simulation that throws the same information at us. But is it possible to create such a powerful simulation? Let's look at the universe from the point of view of physicists.

fundamental laws

From a physical point of view, The world is based on four fundamental interactions:

• strong,
• weak
• electromagnetic,
• gravitational.

They govern the behavior of all particles in the known universe. Calculating the action of these forces and simulating the simplest interactions is quite easy, and to some extent we already do it. But the more particles interacting with each other are added to this picture, the more difficult it is to model it. However, this is a matter of computing power.

Right now, we don't have enough computing power to model the entire universe. Physicists might even say that such a simulation is impossible - not because it is too difficult, but because the computer modeling the universe will be larger than this entire universe. And this is obviously an impossible task. However, there is a flaw in this logic: simulating the entire universe and making it feel like you're living in some kind of universe are not the same thing.

Many computer problems would be impossible to solve if our brains could not be fooled so easily. For example, we watch a movie or video on the Internet, which is transmitted with a delay and in fragments, but we perceive it all as one sequential stream. The logic is simple: you need to reduce the detail to a level at which an optimal compromise between quality and complexity is reached and at which the brain stops making distinctions.

There are many tricks to reduce the need for computing power when simulating the universe. The most obvious: do not process or show what no one is looking at. Another technique is to portray as if the universe is huge and limitless, although in reality it is not. This technique is used in many video games: by reducing the detail when depicting "distant" objects, we save a lot of effort and generate objects only when the player actually detects them. For example, in No Man's Sky, a huge virtual universe is generated on the fly as the player explores it.

Finally, fundamental physical principles can be introduced that make it extremely difficult or impossible to reach any other planet, which means that those who experience the simulation are locked in their own world (the speed of light, an ever-expanding universe - yeah, yeah).

If you combine these approaches with some mathematical tricks (for example, fractal geometry), you can create a fairly decent simulation of the universe, which relies on the heuristic principles of our brain. This universe seems to be infinite, but it's just a trick.

However, this in itself does not prove that - as Musk and other proponents of this idea say - we most likely live in a virtual world.

What is the argument?

Simulation and mathematics

The simulation argument was developed by the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom. It rests on several premises which, if interpreted in a certain way, lead to the conclusion that our universe is most likely a simulation. Everything is pretty simple:

1. It is quite possible to simulate the Universe (see above).

2. Each civilization either dies out (pessimistic view) before gaining the ability to simulate the universe, or loses interest in simulating, or continues to develop, reaches a technological level that allows such simulations to be created - and does it. It's just a matter of time. (Will we do the same? How about...)

3. Having reached this level, a civilization creates many different simulations. (Everyone wants to have their own universe.)

4. When the simulation reaches a certain level, it itself starts to create its own simulations (and so on).

If we analyze all this automatically, we will have to conclude that the probability of living in real world extremely small - too many potential simulations. From this point of view, it is more likely that our world is a level 20 simulation, and not the original universe.

The first time I heard this argument, I was somewhat frightened. But here's the good news: it doesn't matter.

"Reality" is just a word

We have already discussed that our perception of reality is very different from reality itself. Let's assume for a moment that our universe is indeed a computer simulation. This generates the following logical chain:

1. If the universe is just a model, it is a combination of bits and bytes, simply put, information.

2. If the universe is information, then you are information, and I am information.

3. If we are all information, then our bodies are only the embodiment of this information, a kind of avatars. The information is not tied to a specific object. It can be copied, converted, changed as you like (you only need the appropriate programming techniques).

4. Any society capable of creating a simulation of the world is also capable of giving your "personal" information a new avatar (because this requires less knowledge than simulation of the universe).

In other words, the information that defines you is not tied to your body. Philosophers and theologians have long argued about the duality of body and soul (mind, personality, etc.). So this concept is probably familiar to you.

Thus reality is information and we are information. Simulation is part of the reality that it simulates, and everything we simulate is also reality from the point of view of those we simulate. So reality is what we experience. There are quite popular theories that say that every object that we see is a projection of information from the other end of the universe, or even from another universe.

That is, if you experience something, perceive it, it is “real”. And the simulated universe is just as real as the universe that runs the simulation, since reality is determined by the content of the information - not where that information is stored. published

The current Universe Simulation Hypothesis states that the entire world is nothing more than a matrix, a virtual reality created by an unknown form of intelligence. Physicists, philosophers, and simple thinkers have been discussing the issue for a long time: can a person be virtual? What if the whole world is a simulation? And what could that mean?

The idea that reality is nothing but an illusion was put forward by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who came to the conclusion that only ideas are material, and other objects are just shadows. Aristotle adhered to the same approach, but adjusted for the fact that ideas are expressed in material objects. In addition, the provision on the illusory nature of the real is one of the key in some religious and philosophical teachings, for example, in Indian philosophical school Mayan.

In 2003, the famous Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper in the PhilosophicalQuarterly under the almost fantastical title "Are we all living in a computer simulation?" In his work, Bostrom adheres to the concept that consciousness depends on intelligence (computing power), the structure of individual parts, the logical relationship between them, and much more, but does not depend at all on the carrier, that is, biological tissue - the human brain. This means that consciousness can also be realized as a set of electrical impulses in some computer.

Given that the work is about simulations created by posthumans, the people modeled inside the simulation (Bostrom calls them a civilization of a lower level compared to the civilization that launched the simulation) are conscious. For them, the model will appear to be a reality. Despite all its popularity, Bostrom's conclusions have repeatedly become the object of criticism. In particular, opponents point to gaps in the philosopher's argument, as well as to the large number of hidden assumptions present in his reasoning regarding a number of fundamental questions - for example, the nature of consciousness and the potential ability of simulated individuals to be self-aware. An unambiguous answer to the question "Do we live in the Matrix?" philosophers are not to be expected.

The simulation hypothesis is of interest not only to philosophers, but also to specialists in the exact sciences, in particular, in physics. So, a group of scientists from the USA and Germany, Silas Bean, Zohre Dawoudi and Martin Savage, decided to make an attempt to establish whether we live in the Matrix, experimentally. Taking as their main argument that the spatial structure of the simulated world would be simpler than the real world, they built a proof based on quantum chromodynamics (the gauge theory of quantum fields that describes the strong interaction of elementary particles). This was done in order to establish that the world is nothing more than a grid with a certain pitch. During the calculations, scientists have identified several interesting facts: for example, in order to simulate a cubic meter of matter with a step of 10-16 meters, according to modern laws of chromodynamics, it will take about 140 years. However, for the time being, an exact answer to the question about the simulation of reality under these conditions is not expected.

The simulation argument has been heavily criticized by the scientific community, including transhumanists. Opponents of the simulation argument emphasize that matrix theory papers contain various logical fallacies, such as: "logical circle", auto-reference, violation of causality, ignoring the non-random position of observers, and neglecting the control of the simulation by the creators. Therefore, on this moment the simulation hypothesis needs more evidence than a few papers.

Theory about digital reality, matrix, can serve as a universal key to the theory of the origin of the Universe, which scientists have long been searching for and which would help resolve the contradictions between classical and quantum physics. The simulation hypothesis is studied within the framework of such philosophical areas as futurology and transhumanist theory. In addition, the achievements of specialists in the simulation hypothesis have been widely used since the early 1990s in popular culture, for example, in the film trilogy "Matrix".

20, Nov, 2016

Some physicists and engineers believe that humanity lives in a virtual reality. They believe that the increasingly popular "simulation theory" will be proven in the same way that it was proved in its time that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Sometimes, when Elon Musk isn't making plans to use his huge rocket to leave the decaying Earth and , he talks about his belief that the Earth isn't even real and we might be living in a computer simulation.

"There is only one chance in a billion that we live in the mainstream reality"

Musk, a Silicon Valley resident, is very interested in the "simulation hypothesis," which claims that what we take to be reality is actually a giant computer simulation created by more sophisticated intelligence. Sounds like the movie The Matrix? This is true.

What are the signs that we live in the "matrix"?

Sam Altman, venture capitalist and head of Y Combinator, writes in his The New Yorker profile that the two billionaires high technology are secretly hiring scientists to get us out of the simulation. But what does it mean?

The now common argument in favor of the simulation hypothesis was proposed by Oxford professor Nick Bostrom (although the idea dates back to the 17th century and belongs to René Descartes). In an article titled "Are we living in a computer simulation?" Bostrom suggests that members of a progressive "post-human" society, with sufficient computing power, could run simulations of their ancestors in the universe. This assumption has spread through observations of current trends in technology, including the rise of virtual reality and efforts to map the human brain.

Is humanity ready to create its own simulated worlds?

Suppose there is nothing supernatural about what creates consciousness, and it is just the product of a very complex architectural design in the human brain. In this case, we can reproduce it. “Soon, there will be no technical limitations standing in the way of creating machines that have their own consciousness,” said Rich Terrill, a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

At the same time, they are becoming more and more complex, and in the future we will be able to create simulations of thinking beings in them.

“Forty years ago we had “Pong” - two triangles and a dot. Those were the games. We now have photorealistic 3D simulations that millions of people are playing at the same time. These simulators are getting better every year. And soon we will, Musk predicts.

Pong-one of the first video games. Developed by Atari in 1972. Photo: de.wikipedia.org CC BY-SA 2.0

"A few more changes and games will be indistinguishable from reality"

This point of view is shared by Terill. “If someone makes progress a few decades ahead, very soon we will become a society where artificially created creatures live in simulations in which living conditions are much more favorable than ours.”

If there are many more simulated intelligences than organic ones, then the chances that we are among real intelligences are less and less. Terill puts it this way: “If there are more digital versions of people living in simulated spaces in the future than there are now, then why not say that we are already part of it?”

Who could create a simulation of our universe?

Fragmented into parts (subatomic particles) the universe operates mathematically. It's like a pixelated video game, another reason to believe the universe is a simulation. “Even the phenomena we think of as infinite—time, energy, space, sound—have limits in size. If so, then our universe is quantifiable and has a limit. These properties allow it to be simulated,” Terill said.

“To be honest, we are most likely living in a simulation.”

So who created this simulation? "The future us," he replied pointedly.

How to understand that we are in a simulation?

Not everyone was convinced by this hypothesis. Musk Tegmark, professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, answered a few questions:

- Is it logically possible that we are in a simulation?

- Are we really in a simulation?

I would say no. To make such an argument, we first need to know what fundamental laws of physics are involved in simulations. And if we are in a simulation, we have no idea about these laws. I just teach simulated laws of physics at MIT,” Tegmark explained.

Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall is even more skeptical. “I see no reason for this. None real evidence No. It is arrogant to think that we would be what we are if we were simulated,” comments Ms. Randall.

Rich Terrill believes that realizing that we are probably living in a simulation would be the same shock that Copernicus experienced when he realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe. "It was so complex theory that they couldn't allow it." Before Copernicus, scientists tried to explain the unusual behavior of planetary movements using complex mathematical models. “Once they made the assumption, everything else became much easier to understand,” adds Rich Terrill.

Terill argues that it is easier to believe that we are living in a simulation. More difficult is that we are the first generation that rose from the mud and evolved into conscious beings. The simulation hypothesis also takes into account the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, especially the problem of measurement, on the basis of which things become certain only after observations. Tegmark does not see the point in this: "We have problems in physics, but we cannot blame the failures in solving them on the simulation."

How to test this hypothesis?

“This has been a problem for decades. Scientists have gone out of their way to eliminate the idea that we need an intelligent observer. Maybe the solution is that you really need a sentient entity like a sentient video game player,” Mr. Terrill said.

On the one hand, neuroscientists and artificial intelligence researchers can test whether it is possible to simulate human mind. So far, machines have been proven to be good at playing chess and go, correctly captioning images. However, can a machine have consciousness? We do not know.

On the other hand, scientists may try to find signs of a simulation. “Imagine that someone is simulating our universe… For some, the idea of ​​simulation will be tempting. You could find evidence for this in an experiment,” notes Tegmark.

For Terill, the simulation hypothesis has a "beautiful and deep" meaning. Photo: Unsplash , CCO

First, the hypothesis offers a scientific basis for some form of life after death or a space of reality beyond our world. “You don't need a miracle, religion or anything special to believe. It follows naturally from the laws of physics,” he says.

Secondly, it means that soon we will be able to create simulations ourselves.

"We will have the power of mind and matter, and we will be able to create anything and take over all the worlds"

Translation and adaptation Tatyana Lyulina, editorial