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 fact, is also a 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?
A super-developed (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?
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 harsher: “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 for some reason (for example, ethical) posthumanity will not be interested in creating virtual worlds, Musk is not taking it seriously.
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 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 genuine 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 the article.
In Mikhail Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita", main character- The master, in a moment of despair, burns his manuscript, only to then learn from Woland that “manuscripts do not burn.” As beautiful as this expression is, it seems so far from the truth. Nikolai Gogol at one time burned the second volume of Dead Souls, which is now forever lost to the reader. Just as the novel “The Master and Margarita” would have been lost if Bulgakov had suddenly decided to burn it. No author in the world is able to write exactly the same novel.
But there is one area human knowledge, which quite well illustrates this expression “manuscripts don’t burn” - mathematics. If Pythagoras had not existed, or if his works had not survived to this day, surely some other scientist would have deduced that very theorem. Moreover, the meaning of this theorem has not changed over time. And it will not change, despite either new discoveries or technological progress. Mathematics - special kind knowledge. Its truths are objective, necessary and eternal.
What are mathematical objects and theorems, and why do we understand them in this way? Do they exist somewhere as intangible objects in enchanted gardens, waiting to be discovered? Or are they a figment of human imagination?
This question has tormented and divided scientists for centuries. It is scary to imagine that mathematical truths exist on their own. But if mathematics is a product of the imagination of individual scientists, then what to make of the fact that we all use the same mathematics? Some argue that theorems and axioms are like chess pieces, cleverly designed devices in a game of human invention. But compared to chess, mathematics is an integral part of all scientific theories, describing the structure of the universe.
Many mathematicians admit that they are adherents of Platonism. The Greatest Logician Kurt Gödel argued that mathematical concepts and theories “form an objective reality of our own, which we cannot create or change, but only feel and describe.” But if this is true, how were people able to get to this “hidden” reality?
We don't know. But one of the guesses is this: we live in a model universe created by a computer based on mathematical laws. According to this theory, some super-advanced programmer created this model universe, and we, without knowing it, are part of it. In this regard, when scientists make a discovery of any mathematical law- this means nothing more than the discovery of the mathematical code that this mysterious developer used.
Understandably, this seems unlikely. But Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that the likelihood that we inhabit just such a universe is much higher than it might seem at first glance. If such models are theoretically possible, then, in the end, a person will create such a universe - and maybe even several. In the future, scientists are convinced, the number of such simulation universes will be greater than real worlds. In statistical terms, with a large share the likelihood that you and I live in a life simulation universe.
But is there any way to experimentally test this hypothesis?
Yes, such a method exists. At least, this is what researchers Silas Bean, Zohra Davoudi and Martin Savage claim in their work.
Until now, physicists continue to develop their computer simulation of the universe. So far, scientists have managed to create a very small part of it, approximately at the level atomic nucleus based on the forces of nature. They use a discrete 3D lattice to simulate a part of space, and then launch special program to see how the laws of physics will work. Thus, they can trace the movement and collision of elementary particles.
Professor Bean and his colleagues involved in the project say that these computer models capable of generating weak, but quite distinguishable anomalies - certain types asymmetry. This is especially noticeable in high-energy cosmic rays falling on the earth. This asymmetry is evidence that we are quite possibly in a model universe.
Are we ready, like Neo, for everything? famous film"The Matrix", take the red pill to find out "how deep is the rabbit hole"? Not now. These are all just hypotheses.
Anyone who has watched the famous film “The Matrix” has probably asked themselves: are we living in a computer simulation of reality? Two scientists believe they have answered this question. Zohar Ringel (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Dmitry Kovrizhin (Kurchatov Institute) published a joint study of the problem in last issue scientific journal Science Advances.
Trying to solve the problem computer modeling quantum system, they came to the conclusion that such a simulation is impossible in principle. It is impossible to create a computer for it because physical capabilities Universe.
Scientists, by increasing the number of particles in the simulation, discovered that the computational resources required for the simulation did not grow linearly, but in an increasing manner. And to simulate the behavior of several hundred electrons requires a computer so powerful that it must consist of many more atoms than there are in the Universe.
Thus, it is impossible to create a computer that could simulate the world around us. This conclusion of scientists will console not so much those who doubt the reality of the Universe as theoretical physicists - after all, if it is impossible to create a computer that will simulate and analyze quantum phenomena, then robots will never take their jobs, noted the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science Advances.
One in a billion
It should not be surprising that serious scientists are discussing the plot of entertainment cinema. IN theoretical physics attention is also paid to much more bizarre theories. And some of them, from the point of view of an outside observer, look like pure fantasy. One of the interpretations quantum mechanics(Everett's interpretation) suggests the existence parallel universes. And some solutions to Einstein's equations theoretically allow time travel.
- Still from the movie "The Matrix"
The scientifically based hypothesis of the simulated nature of our world was not put forward by science fiction writers. The most famous justification for this was made by Oxford professor Nick Bostrom in his work “Proof of Simulation.”
Bostrom did not directly claim that the world around us was created using computer technology, but put forward three possible futures (Bostrom's trilemma). According to the scientist, humanity will either die out before it can reach the stage of “posthumanity” and be able to create a simulation, or, having reached this stage, will not create it, or we are already living in a computer simulation.
Bostrom's hypothesis is no longer physics, but philosophy, but the example of the discovery of Ringel and Kovrizhin shows how physical experiment philosophical conclusions can be drawn. Especially if this philosophy allows mathematical calculations and predicts the technological progress of mankind. Therefore, not only theorists, but also practitioners are interested in the trilemma: the most famous apologist of Bostrom’s calculations is Elon Musk. In June 2016, Musk left virtually no chance " real world" Answering questions from journalists, general manager companies Tesla and SpaceX said that the probability of our world being real is one in a billion. However, Musk did not provide convincing evidence of his assertion.
- Elon Musk
- Reuters
- Brian Snyder
The theory of Ringel and Kovrizhin refutes Musk’s words and insists on full reality our existence. But it is worth noting that their calculations only work if the simulation of reality is considered as a product of computer technology.
However, Bostrom suggested that the simulation does not have to be of the nature computer program, because dreams can also simulate reality.
Humanity does not yet have technologies for producing dreams, their approximate technical specifications unknown. This means that they may not require the computing power of the entire Universe. Therefore, it is too early to discount the likelihood of the emergence of simulation technologies.
Scary dream
However, neither physicists nor philosophers deal with such details as a specific description of the modeling of reality - science will have to make too many assumptions.
So far, writers and directors are coping with this. The idea of virtual reality is young, but a simple listing of books, films and computer games about her will take more than one page. At the same time, most of them are based in one way or another on fear of technology.
The most famous work This kind of movie, The Matrix, shows a bleak picture: reality is simulated to exploit humanity, to create a golden cage for it. And this is the character of the majority fantastic works about world simulations that almost always turn into dystopia.
In British science fiction writer Harlan Ellison's eerie story "I Have No Mouth But I Want to Scream," the surviving members of humanity exist under total control a sadistic computer that models reality in order to come up with new sophisticated tortures.
The hero of "The Tunnel Under the World" by Frederik Pohl is horrified to learn that he and his whole life were created only within the framework of a model major accident in which he dies every day terrible death to be resurrected the next morning with an erased memory.
- Still from the film “Vanilla Sky”
And in the film “Vanilla Sky,” a simulation of reality is used to make sick people in a state of cryogenic freezing feel happy, although their problems remain unresolved.
Humanity is afraid of simulating reality, otherwise all these films and books would hardly be so pessimistic. So thanks to Ringel and Kovrizhin for instilling optimism for all humanity. Of course, if their research is not a distracting maneuver of the matrix.
Still from the movie "The Matrix"
Physicists from the universities of Bonn and Washington believe they have found a way to test the hitherto considered purely philosophical theory that we live in a giant computer universe simulation.
As Silas Bean, Martin J. Savage and Zohra Davoudi write on arXiv.org, any imitation, including very expensive ones Universe modeling using a super-powerful computer has limits. It is these limits, if any, that can be recognized by their effects and the resulting disruptions in continuous physical processes.
The researchers first tested the method of identifying these boundaries themselves on their own models of the universe - but only on a very small part of it. Because of high degree the complexity of the Universe is now only possible to simulate 0.00000000001 millimeters of its already measured part. However, even this small part is hardly distinguishable from the entire sample. It is theoretically possible that our Universe is simply a huge model.
Theoretical background universe simulation
Based on quantum chromodynamics (QCD), scientists have determined nuclear interaction between protons and neutrons, between nuclei and their interaction with each other. To replace the space-time continuum, and therefore structure of the universe , they used a fine cubic "lattice" as the smallest modeling unit.
This is just the beginning, but researchers are already imagining large simulations in which it will be possible to generate molecules, cells and one day - today this computing power is unimaginable - even people. It would be impossible to distinguish them from the original. However, modeling of cosmological processes and the search for the limits of this universe modeled at the micro level is already available.
Is our Universe a simulation? Scientists suggest conducting Universe modeling
To indicate the boundaries of the potential simulation in which, according to theory, we may “live,” the researchers used the so-called Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK effect). The GZK limit is theoretical upper limit energy cosmic rays emanating from distant sources. High-energy particles interact with the background cosmic radiation and, passing long distances, lose energy.
If our Universe is a simulation, then the underlying lattice structure will give additional properties to phenomena such as the GZK limit. In this case, particles having high energy, should move along the axes of the lattice, and not scatter throughout the Universe evenly in all directions, as happens in ordinary observations.
Is it possible Universe modeling?
No matter how fantastic this theory looks, it can already be tested using the technologies available to us today. The problem may be that the lattice structure of the supposedly simulated Universe could be built on a completely different basis than scientists imagine. In addition, the described effect can only be assessed if upper limit lattice structure, indeed, corresponds to the GZK limit.
And yet, it’s worth searching for the effect described above at least once to see that our Universe is not the result of a computer simulation, writes
