Debate whether the universe is a computer simulation. Is the Universe a computer simulation? What does official science say about this?

Science doesn't have all the answers. There are many things that science may never be able to prove or disprove. For example, the existence of God. However, there is a topic that is much more interesting in the current scientific and pseudo-scientific realities. It was proposed by the Swedish contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom, as well as several other very prominent scientists. It goes like this: Are we living in a computer simulation? A supporter of this.

"I'm not saying it's impossible," Hossenfelder explains. “But I want to hear not only words, but also see what can support them.”
Confirming such an opinion will require enormous work and countless amounts of time. mathematical calculations. In general, so much effort will have to be spent that it will be enough to solve most of the most difficult problems. complex problems and gaps in theoretical physics.

So you want to prove that the universe is actually a simulation created by some "programmer". No, you are not approaching the issue from a religious point of view and saying that God created the Universe. You just think that some “omnipotent higher power"designed the Universe according to her vision, and when you say that, you don't mean God at all.

To begin with, to make it more clear to people who have just joined us and don’t understand at all what we’re talking about we're talking about, the term “computer simulation of the universe” implies that we live in a universe where all available space and time are based on discrete bits of data. That is, somewhere there must exist some kind of ultra-megasupercomputer with “ones” and “zeros”, creating everything that surrounds us. But in this case, absolutely everything that is in the Universe, even on the smallest scales, must have its own certain properties, certain states or values ​​- “yes” or “no”, “1” or “0”. However, according to Hossenfelder, science already knows that this cannot be.

Let's take quantum mechanics. There are some things in it that can really have certain meanings, but the basis, the basis itself quantum mechanics is not contained in the properties of objects. The basis of quantum mechanics is probabilities. Elementary particles, like electrons, have a property called spin (angular momentum). Quantum mechanics says that if we do not observe particles, then we cannot say with accuracy what value their spin has at this moment. We can only guess. This is the principle behind the parable of Schrödinger's cat. If a certain process like radioactive decay for example, it can be determined quantum mechanics and be responsible for whether the cat locked in the box will live or not, then in this case, according to our current understanding classical physics, the cat should actually be in two states at the same time - alive and dead - until we open the box to look. Quantum mechanics and classical computer bits are based on different, unrelated things.

If you dig deeper, it turns out that some “programmer” will have to encode many classical bits, whose values ​​are fixed, into quantum bits, governed by the uncertainty principle. Quantum bits, in turn, do not have specific values ​​- they are not represented by zeros and ones - but instead tell us the probability of taking on any of these values ​​(including the so-called superposition state). Physicist Xiao-Gang Wen of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics tried to model all of this and imagine the Universe as something made up of “qubits.” Hossenfelder says Wen's models seemed to be largely consistent with ours standard models physicists and mathematicians describing the properties of our particles, but still could not correctly predict relativity.

“But he didn't claim that we were living in a computer simulation. He simply tried to explain the possibility that the Universe could be made of qubits,” Hossenfelder commented.

Any evidence that we are living in a simulation would require us to revise all our laws of particle physics (general and special theory relativity) and the use of a different interpretation of quantum mechanics, on the basis of which its current laws are derived, so that it can ideally describe our Universe. What’s most interesting is that there are people who devote their whole lives to this, but at the same time they are not an inch closer to their cherished goal.

Scott Aaronson, Theorist computers and systems, speaks about the likelihood of the existence of theories capable of combining gravity with quantum mechanics. And if our Universe really consists of quantum bits, then sooner or later someone will be able to deduce and correctly justify these theories. Therefore, if among people there are those who would like to solve one of the most difficult mysteries V theoretical physics, then you are welcome. Aaronson himself considers himself more likely to be in the “camp of those not interested” in resolving the question of whether our Universe is virtual or not, but nevertheless he also has his own opinion on the topic: this hypothesis, excluding “aliens” or someone else from the equation there was no one at the head, if the presence of this factor does not carry any practical benefit in solving a hypothesis?” Aaronson asks.

Definitely, if these were “aliens” or some “chief programmer” - they would all appear in in this case higher “forms of life” that we, most likely, would never be destined to understand. And if our theories work without the assumption that we can all live in a simulation, then why bother trying to find an explanation for something that essentially we don’t need?

And yet, being a computer specialist, Aaronson could not ask himself one more thing: interesting question: Is it possible, according to our rules of computer computing, to create a simulation the size of the Universe? In the case of modeling our Universe, according to Aaronson, according to the most rough and optimistic assumptions, 10^122 qubits would be needed. (This number would be a one followed by 122 zeros, although some estimates put the approximate number of atoms in our Universe at 10^80.) No less interesting would be the question of whether this hypothetically created virtual Universe is capable of bypassing the problem of stopping and calculating its end in advance, that is, doing something that ordinary computer programs are not capable of.

After all, those who believe in a “simulation model of the universe” can simply change the parameters in the simulation to ultimately confirm their assumptions. But this will no longer be science. It will be a religion, with aliens or some kind of “chief programmer” instead of God. Yet neither Hossenfelder nor Aaronson is arguing that we all may or may not be living in a simulation. They are just saying that if you can prove it, then you will need a lot more effort than just shaking your hands and having philosophical conversations. You will need irrefutable evidence indicating that the architecture of the Universe works like one giant computer and does not contradict the most complex laws of our physics.

“I’m not trying to convince anyone or force anyone to give up trying to prove it. Quite the opposite. I challenge you to prove it,” concludes Hossenfelder.
“What irritates me most about all this is the attempt to refuse everyone fundamental theories and laws that we already have in our hands.”

The hypothesis about a computer simulation of our universe was put forward in 2003 by the British philosopher Nick Bostrom, but has already received its followers in the person of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk, who expressed that the probability of the hypothesis is almost 100%. It is based on the idea that everything that exists in our universe is the product of a simulation, like the experiments carried out by machines in the Matrix trilogy.

Simulation theory

The theory believes that, given a sufficient number of computers with large computing power, it becomes possible to simulate in detail the entire world, which will be so believable that its inhabitants will have consciousness and intelligence.

Based on these ideas, we can assume: what is stopping us from living in a computer simulation? Maybe a more advanced civilization is conducting similar experiment, having received the necessary technologies, and our whole world is a simulation?

Many physicists and metaphysicians have already created convincing arguments in favor of the idea, citing various mathematical and logical anomalies. Based on these arguments, we can assume the existence of a cosmic computer model.

Mathematical refutation of the idea

However, two physicists from Oxford and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhin, proved the impossibility of such a theory. They published their findings in the journal Science Advances.

Having carried out the simulation quantum system, Ringel and Kovrizhin found that to simulate just a few quantum particles huge computational resources will be required, which due to the nature of quantum physics will increase exponentially with the number of simulated quanta.

To store a matrix describing the behavior of 20 spins of quantum particles, a terabyte of RAM will be required. Extrapolating this data over just a few hundred spins, we find that to create a computer with this amount of memory would require more atoms than them total number in the universe.

In other words, given the complexity quantum world, which we observe, it can be proven that any proposed computer simulation of the universe will fail.

Or maybe it’s a simulation after all?

On the other hand, continuing philosophical reasoning, a person will quickly come to the question: “Is it possible that more advanced civilizations deliberately put this complexity of the quantum world into the simulator in order to lead us astray?” To this Dmitry Kovrizhin answers:

This is interesting philosophical question. But it is outside the scope of physics, so I would prefer not to comment on it.

At Code Conference 2016: There's only a one in a billion chance that humanity Not lives in a computer simulation.

Our reality is hardly the main one. It is much more likely that the world around us and ourselves are virtual entities created by an overdeveloped 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 all over the world 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. Consequently, sooner or later we will come to the point where reality will be indistinguishable from 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 more harsh: “Either we create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.”

Musk’s answer clearly reveals the ideas of the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who back in 2003 in his famous work“Are we living in a computer simulation?” (Russian translation) proposed three versions of the existence of humanity:

Civilizations die out before reaching the post-human stage, at which they can surpass human biological capabilities with the help of technical inventions and build artificial models consciousness.

Civilizations that reach the level where they can simulate artificial reality at will are, for some reason, disinterested 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 may not be singular, but multiple.

The post-humans who developed our simulation may themselves be simulated, and their creators, in turn, too. 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 assume that we have little choice: either create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or cease our existence and development. 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 he still believes that the hypothesis virtual reality needs to be taken seriously. Shortly after Musk’s statement, the philosopher gave his comments, in which he confirmed this once again:

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

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

Simulation is always about objects material world, existing 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 technical 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. Simulation is inseparable from the consciousness that perceives it. But the brain, which 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 full artificial intelligence and will be created, he will be very different from the human.

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

But for those inside the simulation, this division makes no sense. If other, more authentic levels of reality are inaccessible to us, then it is useless to talk about them. All we know is that the apples are real and not simulated, even if on some “deeper” level they are a simulation.

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

If a map is an accurate reproduction of a territory, then is there any sense in the division between “map and territory”, “reality and simulation”?

Moreover, Musk's model revives theological quandaries on which people have (for lack of a better word) spent their intellectual resources for centuries. If the world has creators, then why is there so much evil in it? What we live for: it's just random experiment, or is there some kind of secret plan in our lives? Is it possible to reach that “deeper” level of reality, or can we only make 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 a reality without suffering and poverty,” so even an artificial reality should be just like that. But this does not remove the basic difficulties. In addition, it is very easy here to switch to conspiracy logic, 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 disproven.

Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of this hypothesis is the assumption that consciousness can be modeled using computer technology. Our brains are not made of silicon chips, and algorithmic calculations are far from their main function. If the brain is a computer, then it is an unregulated computer with many contradictory operators and components with unclear purposes. Human consciousness cannot be separated not only from matter, but also from the environment - 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 will most likely be also far from human consciousness like a real apple from the Apple logo. It will be no worse and no better, but completely different.

A frame from the film Inception was used in the design of this article.

Yaroslav “NS” Kuznetsov became interested in the simulation hypothesis and speculated about who, when and why could have created our Universe. Not a word about Dota!

Although Dota, in essence, is also computer simulation for the characters inside it. And they are not at all aware that the players give them commands, just as all our thoughts and actions can be programmed from the outside.

The main work on the simulation hypothesis is considered to be an article by Oxford University professor Nick Bostrom, “Proof of Simulation,” published in 2003 in the journal Philosophical Quaterly. It was her Yaroslav Kuznetsov I advised everyone who would also be interested in this philosophical position to read it. The article, by the way, is not long at all: its translation can be found, and the original is at English - .

NS also quoted Elon Musk (without his billions, he is an engineer, entrepreneur, inventor, creator of PayPal and SpaceX, the main inspiration behind Tesla) from the Code conference: “The probability that we are not living in a computer simulation is one in billions.”

How can you prove that you are living in a simulation while being inside the simulation?

This good question and there is no answer to it, and perhaps there will not be one.
Nevertheless, the idea itself is very interesting, and it has gained popularity due to the fact that in one generation, people have seen before their very eyes the growth of computing power by almost geometric progression. And no one knows what the powers will be in 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 years, but don’t go to a fortune teller, and it’s clear that they will be extremely great. It doesn’t matter when this happens, but the fact that, sooner or later, humanity will be able to completely simulate its own Universe does not look fantastic. It's probably just a matter of time.

If the Universe was created, then why are we in it?

People are such creatures that they try anything on themselves. Some authors ask the question: “How to model humanity?”, others: “How to model human brain and 7kkk people?" and so on and so forth.

Everywhere you spit, practically everywhere, the idea is that if the simulation was launched, it was solely in order to create a civilization inside it, and of course ours. The fact that space is limitless, that another billion civilizations can live there, about which we simply know nothing, is not important. The simulation was created in order to simulate a person! Therefore, it was done by the same people, only from the future, and they are now sitting looking at us under a microscope.

The last paragraph is the main topic of this text. And my question is: why, if the Universe is simulated, then it must be connected with humanity? Is it really impossible to abandon the idea that a person is not a navel? Man is not even the navel of the Earth, let alone the Universe. It seems to me that the simulation may well be reality. But only if you imagine the scientist (or maybe a student, or maybe a schoolboy, or maybe anyone else) who created it... Did he really want to create a civilization (especially ours specifically) or life, was that even what it was? his goal? Why should he necessarily want to simulate, roughly speaking, himself? Doesn't the following option seem much more logical?

An overdeveloped (by our standards) civilization that has long ago learned to simulate anything.

A scientist lives in it and does some research. He starts his computer, starts the simulation program, sets the Universe certain parameters, fundamental laws, elementary particles, various interactions. Next, it creates a singularity that explodes (conditionally, of course, in the program), our favorite " Big bang", and then the scientist observes what happened. Perhaps the parameters were so-so, so even hydrogen didn’t work out and the Universe is just a raging ocean of energy where nothing is formed, then he changes something in the parameters, tries, experiments, and the output is a working Universe, ours, i.e.

And this simulation may generally be needed to study some global things and processes, black holes, dark matter, clusters of galaxies or anything else. And the life that appeared somewhere in the outskirts may simply be an absolutely by-product, it may not even be interesting to anyone. If you imagine that simulations are created without any problems and this has been done millions of times, then you can also imagine that any kind of life has already appeared there millions, and maybe billions of times, who said that this main reason simulate worlds?

<...>Well, the question always remains, if the Universe was created for man, then why did humanity appear ~14 billion years (according to our ideas) after its appearance, and why was the rest of the Cosmos needed if not a trace of man is visible there?

What happens if we learn to create simulations?

Surely the very first simulation of the Universe that our civilization will create will be an exact copy of our Universe and it will be created for its own study, for the creation of humanity, for studying the development of the Earth and solar system, well, in general, everything is exactly as the adherents of these very simulations imagine it. But what will the tenth simulation be like? What about the hundredth? What about the millionth? Surely it will be far from a copy of our Universe, scientists (students, schoolchildren, ordinary people) will want to see what will happen if the fundamental laws are different, will anything work out at all or not? Is it possible to create a different type of Universe, where everything works differently? It is likely that yes, the theory of multiverses, with other physical constants, it exists in science, and even without any science it’s not hard to imagine.

If you are interested in this topic, you can watch the debate held by astrophysicist, Ph.D. in physics and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific conference named after Isaac Asimov. He discussed the simulation hypothesis with experts such as:

• New York University professor and director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness David Chalmers;
• Nuclear physicist and research fellow at the University of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Zoreh Davoudi;
• University of Maryland theoretical physicist James Gates;
• Harvard University Professor of Physics, Physics Specialist nuclear particles Lisa Randall;
• MIT astrophysicist Max Tegmark.

Look

What do you think - is the Universe a computer simulation? If so, who created it and why? If not, why not?

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Scientists' conversations about the unreality of our world fall on the prepared popular culture soil

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

Educated humanity has never been so confident in the illusory nature of everything that is happening.

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

In September, Bank of America warned its clients that there was a 20-50% chance they were living in the Matrix. The bank's analysts considered this hypothesis along with other signs of the future, in particular, the offensive (that is, if you believe the original hypothesis, virtual reality within virtual reality).

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

Should we take this hypothesis literally?

The short answer is yes. The hypothesis assumes that the “reality” we experience is determined by only a small amount of information that we receive and that our brain is able to process. We perceive objects as solid because electromagnetic interaction, and the light we see is only small section spectrum of electromagnetic waves.

The more we expand the boundaries of our own perception, the more we become convinced that the Universe consists mostly of emptiness.

Atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space. If the nucleus of a hydrogen atom was enlarged to the size of a football, its single electron would be located 23 kilometers away. Matter consisting of atoms makes up only 5% of the Universe known to us. And 68% is dark energy, about which science knows practically nothing.

In other words, our perception of reality is Tetris compared to what the Universe actually 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- they are testing a hypothesis that was put forward by the philosopher Rene Descartes back in the 17th century. He suggested that "some malicious genius, very powerful and prone to deception," could make us think that there is an external to us physical world, while in fact the sky, air, earth, light, shapes and sounds are “traps set by genius.”

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

The 2006 book “Programming the Universe” by MIT professor Seth Lloyd received much greater recognition in the professional community. He believes that the Universe is quantum computer, which calculates itself. The book also says that to create a computer model of the Universe, humanity lacks a theory quantum gravity- one of the links in the hypothetical “theory of everything”.

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

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?

Is it possible to confirm the hypothesis experimentally?

The only such experiment was carried out by the director of the Center for Quantum Astrophysics at Fermilab in the USA, Craig Hogan. In 2011, he created a “holometer”: analysis of the behavior of light beams emanating from the laser emitters of this device helped answer at least one question - whether our world is a two-dimensional hologram.

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

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