Are we alive in a video game | Simulation Theory Debunked and explained

 

Photo by EVG Culture from Pexels

What is reality? 

Many brainiac lovers and psychedelia lovers have pondered that question for centuries, inventing ideas that drive the game from science to mystery.

From a cohesive perspective, the answer seems obvious: truth is anything we can see using one or more of the five senses: taste, smell, touch, hearing and sight. But other thinkers outside the box, including philosophers and naturalists, have argued that this is not the case. They think that the truth may simply be a high-tech computer in which we live, sim-work, sim-laugh and sim-love.

Ever since its inception, many have noted that the myth of imitation is actually a modern branch of Plato's “Allegory of the Cave” in the ancient Greek philosophy book “The Republic,” as well as René Descartes' evil demonic ideas from French philosophy and meditation The "first" of scientists Both contain enlightenment and the nature of being - topics that continue to confuse and irritate.

WHAT IS SIMULATION THEORY?

Imitation theory, a modern hypothesis with ancient roots, states that we actually live in an advanced digital architecture, similar to computer simulation, which can be controlled by some form of intelligence.

"Just because we see the world as 'real' and 'real' doesn't mean that," said Rizwan Virk, a technology entrepreneur and author of The Simulation Hypothesis. “In fact, the discovery of quantum physics could raise some doubts about the existence of the physical universe. The more scientists look for “tools” in the physical world, the more they discover that they do not exist. "

Virk referred to the famous philosopher John Wheeler, who worked with Albert Einstein decades ago. During his lifetime, W Wheeler said, physics evolved from the fact that "everything is particle" to "everything is knowledge." He also coined the most popular phrase in science circles: "It from a bit" - meaning everything is based on knowledge. Even the definition of particles in physics is "complex," adds Virirk, "and it could be qubit - quantum computing bit."

New York University professor of philosophy David Chalmers has explained that it is the cause of this absurd imitation that we may or may not be like "engineers in the next universe," perhaps we mortals may view it as a god of some sort - albeit not in the traditional sense. "He could be just a teenager," said Chalmers, "hacking into a computer and using five universal universal backs.

Brain spinning right now? Get used to it.

Even more intriguing is the fact that naturalist David Bohm once expressed the cynical view: “Truth is what we take for granted. What we take for granted is what we believe. Our beliefs are based on our own ideas. What we see depends on what we watch. What we watch depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we see. What we see determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take for granted. What we take for granted is our truth. ”

 Also Read : What's 5G technology ? When will it come in India ? Is it harmful ?

And what we take for granted, in addition to believing a few people - among them businessman Elon Musk, who famously claimed that the chances of being “billions” imitated - may now or at least one day be the result of imitated brain and sensory systems operating in the imaginary world. In Musk's view, the most controversial argument that we may be in the process of imitating is that, as he put it in 2016, “Forty years ago, we had Pong, two rectangles and a dot… That was the game. Now, 40 years later, we have 3D photorealistic comparisons with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it gets better every year. And we will soon have a more realistic reality. If you think there is a level of development at all, these games will not be separated from reality. ”

HOW, EXACTLY, WOULD THIS WORK?

In a 2003 hollow paper entitled "Are You Living in Computer Simulation?", Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom explained that future generations could have mega-computers that could perform many and detailed imitations of their ancestors, aka "imitation ancestors," in which impersonated creatures are full of .

“It may well be,” he explained, “that most of the minds like ours are not of the first race but of people who are imitated by the superior race of the first race. So it is possible that, if that were the case, it would make sense to think that we are more likely to be among the characters than we are of the first bloodshed. ”

This kind of "posthuman simulator," Bostrom also wrote, will require enough computer power to keep track of "detailed beliefs in all human minds at all times." Why? Because it will be necessary to talk about observations (of birds, cars, etc.) before it can happen and provide details of what is yet to be seen. In the event of a collapse, the director - whether a teenager or a big-headed person - can simply “fix the conditions of any brain that has detected a defect before it impairs the impersonation. Alternatively, the moderator can step back and forth for a few seconds and re-create the simulation in a way that protects the problem. ”

We’re not there yet, but Virk thinks we’ll be in for a while. There are ten checkpoints on the full simulation road, he told Built In, and we're almost in the middle of the destination. But there are bigger hurdles ahead, he said, namely the so-called brain computer interface. However, those are not yet. Consider the “Matrix.”

DO WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION?

The question of whether we live in an artificial environment has been the subject of heated debate since the time of enlightenment. Today, scientists, scientists, and psychologists are still debating whether we are living in our own truth or whether we are just pawns in imitation of a higher form of life.

What is not the wisdom of making a dystopian blockbuster called "The Terminator," the imitation of the Wachowski siblings, depicts a world after the catastrophe in which most people were kidnapped by a race of thermometers and tied their minds to an artificial Matrix object. ”(Thank you, IMDB.) In this film, people who make up their daily lives did not realize that they were actually living in imitation because the cable is connected to their neocortices (where things like spatial thinking and sensory perception occur) illuminate signals in their brain and learn their reaction.

Another way to achieve that (or something similar) in the real world, Virirk went on, would be to gain a greater understanding of human consciousness and how it works so that we could produce "AI that knows better." One less-than-ideal technology approach, he said, was "to deceive our imagination into thinking we're actually in a video game" in which non-actor characters display a clever, human-like behavior passing the Turing test.

"This," he concluded somewhat alarmingly, "is coming."

Preston Greene, a professor of philosophy at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told Built In that he thinks we can stay in imitation right now. But too much evidence, you have warned and some have tried, can be disastrous.

Just as modern researchers use imitation to create digital environments to aid scientific research (e.g., what can happen if we eradicate mosquitoes?), Our planet and every moment of our past existence can be a simulated test of future humans. And just as scientists can eliminate imitation (earthquakes, weather, etc.) when they no longer provide useful information, so our thoughtful managers can pull the plug at any time, without warning.

But rest assured, Greene said, "It would be a quick and painless death."

"If our scientists use experiments to prove that we live in imitation, and they tell everyone about this and that has a profound effect on the way our culture behaves," he explains, "then our imitation would no longer be helpful in answering questions about the [basic] truth, which contains computers. This is because the evidence for such experiments will never occur at a lower level.Therefore, while there are many possibilities for our characters to respond to our use of experiments to prove that we live in imitation, closing simulations should be taken at least as seriously as anything else, because ”

SKEPTICISM ABOUNDS 

Like any out-of-the-box concept, the simulation hypothesis has a lot of skeptics. In 2016, during the 17th annual Isaac Asimov Panel debate at the American Museum in New York, the article was discussed by a team of August experts including Chalmers, astronomer Neil de Grrasse Tyson, University of Maryland professor of physics Zohreh Davoudi and and Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall.

Randall, it became apparent, was a clear skeptic of the group. While acknowledging the possibility that nothing could be seen, including the observation process, he also questioned the decision of our actors who thought they were choosing humanity in their best efforts.

"It's not based on well-defined expectations," he said. “The argument is that you have too many things to imitate. I have a problem with that. We are very interested in ourselves. Why are you imitating us? I mean, there are a lot of things that need to be imitated… .I don't know why this high class would want to worry about us. "

You have a point. See: evidentiary and ever-growing evidence that human growth is destroying the natural world.

It was widely thought that the idea of ​​imitation was permanently disapproved when, in 2017, environmental scientists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi published an article in the journal Science Advances entitled "Answers to gravity, signal problem, and quantum difficulty." Here's the catch: their work was directly indirectly directed at imitation, which Zohar released later said "you have no scientific question."

Specifically, they proved that the classical computing process called "quantum Monte Carlo," which is used to measure quantum particles (photons, electrons and other particulars), was not enough to mimic the quantum computer itself - development could destroy us the need to physically build these next-generation machines, which is not an easy task. And if it is impossible to imitate a quantum computer, forget about copying the universe.

According to Cosmos.com, "Researchers calculate that simply storing information about a few hundred electrons would require computer memory that would require more physical atoms than is present in the universe."