Proof that we live in a virtual universe. Scientists have disproved the theory about the unreality of our universe

He sometimes spoke of his belief that the Earth isn't even real and we're most likely living in a computer simulation: "The chances that we're living in mainstream reality are a billion to one."

Elon Musk is the only one in Silicon Valley who takes a deep interest in the “simulation hypothesis,” in which we perceive as reality what are in fact massive computer simulations created by more sophisticated intelligence. If after these words you experienced deja vu and began to compare the world around you with the Matrix, then it is. There is a long philosophical and scientific history with the basic thesis that reality is an illusion.

One popular argument for the "simulation hypothesis", outside of acid trips, comes from an Oxford University professor Nika Bostroma in 2003, although the idea itself was originally expressed by the 17th century philosopher René Descartes. In an article titled "Are you living in a simulation?" Bostrom suggested that members of an advanced "post-human" civilization with massive computing power might have chosen to run simulations of their ancestors in the universe. This argument is extrapolated from observing current trends in technology, including the rise in popularity of virtual reality.

If we believe that there is nothing supernatural about the origin of consciousness, and that it is just the product of a very complex architecture in the human brain, then we can reproduce it. “Soon there will be no technical obstacles standing in the way of creating machines with their own consciousness,” says Richard Terrill, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

At the same time, video games are becoming more and more complex, and in the future we will be able to simulate conscious entities inside them.

“Forty years ago we had Pong - two rectangles and a dot. That's where we were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing at the same time, and they get better every year. Soon we will have virtual reality, we will have augmented reality,” Elon Musk said earlier. This view is shared by Richard Terrill: “If progress continues at the present pace for several decades, then very soon we will live in a society with artificial creatures that live in simulations.”

Reasons to believe the universe is a simulation include the fact that it behaves mathematically and breaks down into subatomic particles like a pixelated video game. “Even time, energy, space, volume - everything has a finite limit. If so, then our universe is both computable and finite. These properties allow the universe to be modeled,” adds Terrill.

So who then created this simulation? “The future us,” replies Richard Terrill.

However, not everyone is in favor of the hypothesis. “Is it logically possible that we are in a simulation? Yes. Are we really in a simulation? I would say no,” says Max Tegmark, professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In order to make a convincing argument, it is necessary to understand the fundamental laws of physics that make it possible to run a simulation. “And if we live in a simulation, then we have no idea what the laws of physics are. Then what I teach at MIT will be simulated laws of physics,” adds Max.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall of Harvard University is more skeptical: "I don't see any real evidence."

Richard Terrill believes acknowledging that we are living in a simulation will be a game changer in the same way that Copernicus realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe. "It was such a deep thought that it wasn't even considered a guess." Scientists before Nicolaus Copernicus tried to explain the peculiar behavior of planetary motion with complex mathematical models. “When they stopped guessing, everything else became much easier to understand,” says Terrill.

That we can live in a simulation may be, according to Richard, a simpler explanation for our existence than the idea of ​​evolving into self-aware beings. The simulation hypothesis also accounts for oddities in quantum mechanics—in particular, measurement problems, whereby everything becomes certain only during observation. For Tegmark, this doesn't make sense: "We have problems in physics, and we can't blame the failures in solving them on a simulation."

How can a hypothesis be tested? On the one hand, neuroscientists can test whether it is possible to mimic the human mind. So far, machines have played chess well, but can a machine achieve consciousness? We do not know. On the other hand, scientists may find signs of a simulation.

For Richard Terrill, the modeling hypothesis has "beautiful and profound" implications. First, the hypothesis provides a scientific basis for some kind of life after death, or a realm of reality outside of our world: “You don't need a miracle, faith, or anything special to believe it. It comes naturally from the laws of physics.” Secondly, humanity in the future will have the opportunity to create their own simulations and inhabit them.

According to many experts, in about 50-100 years, the computing capabilities of computers will grow millions of times. Thanks to this, we will be able to create virtual worlds so realistic that their characters will actually become sentient, but will not know that they are living in a simulation.

Some scientists have even put forward the idea that, hypothetically, we can all be the heroes of a computer game.

The hypothesis of the virtuality of our world was first widely presented in 2003 by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. He suggested that if there are many sufficiently advanced civilizations, they tend to create simulations of the universe or parts of it, and we are very likely to live in one of them.

Nick Bostrom

In the summer of 2016, Elon Musk said that there is only one chance in a billion that our reality is not a fake. That is, in fact, he is 100% sure that we live in the matrix (we already made a separate video about this a few months ago).

Elon Musk

Well, today we will try to find evidence that our world is really just a simulation. Go!

video games

In order to understand the essence of the first evidence, one must go from afar, namely from how video games work.

Grand Theft Auto V

For example, playing gta v, being on one of the streets of the city of this game, you can see how cars drive along the road, people walk along the sidewalk and, in general, life is in full swing.

Turning the corner and crossing to another street, you see the same thing.

Because of this, the illusion is created that the same thing is now happening on other streets of this city. But it's not.

In fact, nothing is happening in other areas at this moment. Until you appear there, these streets will be empty, even the textures will not be loaded there. But as soon as you get there, unnoticed by you, all the same pedestrians, cars, animals, etc. will instantly appear there.

Well, that's how all video games work. This is done in order to optimize the load on the hardware of your computer. That is, when you look forward in the game, the computer focuses the image in front of your eyes as much as possible. At the same time, textures and objects behind you that you are not looking at are greatly simplified or disappear altogether.

This allows you to ease the load on your gaming platform, giving the most beautiful graphics.

Now let's try everything in the same gta v look at the city from above. Before us, everything becomes clear in the palm of your hand.

We can watch cars driving along numerous streets at the same time. The question is, how is the power of the game console enough to calculate such a number of machines? And the trick is that cars in the distance turn on very simplified physics.

For example, if we launch a rocket at those cars, then from the explosion they will not even scatter in different directions.

But as soon as we get closer to one of the streets, the physics of cars will immediately become more complicated, and they will finally begin to react to explosions.

Sid Meier's Civilization V

Now let's look at the game Civilization V.

If I quickly move the camera to the other end of the map, then we can see how the location quickly loads before our eyes, although it should have done this a couple of moments before we looked at it.

But the point is that Civilizations V imperfect game engine, so we can notice such delays. The location seems to understand that they began to observe it and quickly outwardly becomes what the developers intended it to be. It turns out that the observer affects the game world even by his simple observation.

So, as I said, according to this principle, video games will always work. Even after many years, when computers are so powerful that they can simultaneously calculate all the large objects in a virtual big city, there will still be some small details, for example, insects or microbes, which will be loaded only when an observer looks at them, i.e. player. And all for the sake of optimization! This was an important introduction.

Now let's move on to the first proof of the matrix theory.

Double slit experiment

Let's get acquainted with quantum mechanics, and more precisely with the experiment with two slits. This is the most famous experiment in the history of physics. It was repeated more than any other experiment, because it had stunning results, and all scientists wanted to get them personally. It was this experiment that turned physics on its head and inspired many scientists to study quantum mechanics.

solid particles

To understand the essence of this experiment, we first need to look at how the particles behave.

If we shoot at a shield with a slot with small hard balls, then on the screen they hit, we will see one strip.

If we add another slot and fire at the shield, then we will naturally see two stripes on the screen.

Waves

Now let's see how the waves behave in this case.

The waves passed through the slit and propagated, hitting the screen with the greatest force strictly along the line of the slit.

A bright bar on the screen shows the force of impact. It looks like the band in the first hard ball experiment.

But! When we add the second slot, something different happens. If the top of one wave meets the top of another, then they cancel each other out, and on the screen we will see an interference pattern of many stripes.

The point where the two tops of the waves intersect gives the highest impact force, and we see bright bands, and where the waves cancel each other out, there is nothing.

Thus, if we pass solid balls through two slots, we see two stripes.

But with waves, we see an interference pattern of many stripes.

While everything is clear.

Elementary particles

Now let's look at quanta. A photon is a very small particle of light. If we pass photons through one slit, we will see one stripe on the screen, as in the case of hard balls.

But if we pass photons through two slits, we expect to see two stripes. But no!

In some mystical way, an interference pattern of many stripes appears on the screen.

How so? We fired photons - small particles of light - expecting to see two streaks, but instead we see many streaks, as is the case with waves. It's impossible!

Later, scientists found that not only photons show the same strange behavior, but also electrons, protons and various atoms. Physicists have long puzzled over this riddle.

They thought: maybe these small balls are hitting each other, which is why they repel each other and therefore create an interference pattern of many stripes?

Then the physicists began to shoot at one microparticle one after another, so that there was not the slightest chance of their interaction. And here the scientists had a cognitive dissonance: soon an interference pattern reappeared on the screen, violating all the laws of physics.

How so? How can elementary particles create a pattern, like waves? After all, they were released one at a time! Nobody understood this.

Logically, it turned out that the particle seemed to split in two, pass through both slits and hit itself. Just some bullshit!

Physicists were completely discouraged by this. They decided to peep through which slit the particle actually passes. They placed a measuring device near one of the slots and released an electron.

But there is more mysticism in quantum mechanics than scientists could imagine. When they began to observe, the particles began to behave like small balls again and produced an image of two stripes, rather than an interference pattern of many stripes.

That is, the mere fact of measuring or observing which slit the electron went through revealed that it was going through one slit, not two. Electron decided to act differently, as if he knew he was being watched. The observer destroyed the wave function of the particle just by the fact of his observation! Doesn't this remind you of anything?

Yes, all this is very similar to the work of the game engine. It seems that our Universe seems to be running on some kind of computer, the power of which is not enough to accurately calculate the movement of each individual microparticle in space, so it does this according to a simplified model in the form of a probability wave. And he begins to make more accurate calculations only when they begin to observe a particular particle, so as not to break the illusion of the reality of his world for the observer. This technique eases the load on the "iron" of the computer - everything is like in video games!

But the whole problem is that 100 years ago, when scientists tried to explain the anomalous results of the double slit experiment, there were no video games, and therefore physicists did not think to put forward the hypothesis that we live in virtual reality.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics

Instead, many other theories have been put forward. The most famous of them was invented in 1927 in the city of Copenhagen.

Copenhagen interpretation

Scientists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg suggested that elementary particles are, as it were, both waves and particles at the same time.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg

So, in order to measure an electron, that is, to conduct an observation on it, it must be hit against the quanta of the measuring device. And precisely because of this impact, the wave functions of the electron "collapse", and it becomes only a particle. Thus, the observer himself does not influence the particle with his observation - only the quanta of the measuring device do.

Since this explanation of quantum mechanics was formulated in the city of Copenhagen, it has been called the Copenhagen Interpretation.

It's funny, but if this interpretation is correct, then it still does not refute the matrix hypothesis, since it can be adjusted to this explanation as well.

For example, a photon program can propagate through the network as a wave, and then restart when the node is overloaded, turning into a particle. This explains both quantum waves and the collapse of the wave function.

Many Worlds Interpretation

After the Copenhagen Interpretation, the second most popular explanation of the reasons for the strange behavior of microparticles in the experiment with two slits has become the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Its essence lies in the fact that, perhaps, there are, as it were, parallel universes, in each of which the same laws of nature operate.

And that at each act of measuring a quantum object, the observer is, as it were, split into several versions. Each of these versions "sees" its measurement result and acts in accordance with it in its own universe.

What a strange explanation!

In which of these interpretations to believe more - decide for yourself.

For example, a survey of scientists conducted in 1997 at a symposium sponsored by UMBC(University of Maryland, Baltimore County - University of Maryland in Baltimore) showed that most physicists do not believe in either the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretation. The votes were distributed as follows:

• 13 the person voted for the Copenhagen Interpretation;
• 8 - for the Many Worlds;
• several scientists for other, less popular interpretations;
• 18 physicists spoke out against all proposed interpretations at that point in time.

Until now, the debate about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics continues around the world. It is conducted between university scientists, at conferences and even in bars and cafes.

In the meantime, in 2006, advances in technology made it possible for the first time to conduct an even more ingenious version of the double-slit experiment.

It's called the delayed choice experiment.

Delayed choice experiment

In a simplified version, the essence of the experiment is something like this: microparticles are still passed through a barrier with two holes. However, this time the physicists were able to make an observation when the particles had already passed through the holes, but had not yet hit the projection screen.

Imagine that you are standing in front of the screen with your eyes closed, and microparticles in the form of waves pass through the holes, but at the last second before they hit the screen, you decided to open your eyes. And here something amazing happened.

At this point, the electrons become particles, as they were when launched from the electron gun.

The electrons behave as if they went back in time, as if they did not go through two holes, but only through one, as if they never exhibited the properties of a wave. It doesn't fit in my head!

Universe, space, time, speed of light

The next hint that we live in the matrix may be the fact that our universe has a maximum speed, although it is not clear why.

Thanks to Einstein, we all know that nothing can move faster than photons in a vacuum. The speed of light is a constant.

The fact is that our world is arranged in such a strange way that the faster an object moves, the more its time slows down. This has been proven by numerous experimental tests.

Reaching the speed of 300 thousand km / s, time stops altogether. In simple terms, if you had a spaceship capable of accelerating up to 300 thousand km / s, and you would decide to fly on it to a distant galaxy, which is located at a distance of 3 billion light years from us, then you would fly there in one instant, because during the flight time on the ship would stop completely, and at that moment 3 billion years would have passed on Earth.

So, photons of light move at a speed of 300 thousand km / s, and therefore their time is at zero, and therefore it is simply impossible to accelerate even faster. After all, to increase the speed, you need to slow down time even more, and it is already at zero. So the question arises: why is our Universe arranged in such a way that speed slows down time? Why are space and time related? This is very, very strange for the real world, but quite understandable for the virtual one.

If we live in a matrix, then the speed of light is a product of information processing, therefore, our world is updated at a certain speed.

The processor of a supercomputer is updated 10 quadrillion times per second.

And our universe is updating a trillion times faster, but the principles are basically the same.

Well, as the speed increases, time slows down, because virtual reality depends on virtual time, where each processing cycle is one "tick".

Many gamers know that when the computer freezes due to lag, the game time also slows down. In the same way, time in our world slows down with increasing speed or near massive objects, which indicates the virtuality of the universe in which we live.

In a ship flying at high speed, all the processing cycles of its system are suspended in order to save money. In any case, this can be allowed.

quantum entanglement

The uncertainty principle

Imagine a microparticle flying in space, for example, a photon of light. During the flight, the photon, so to speak, rotates up or down, that is, it has a spin.

Although the photons do not actually rotate, but for ease of understanding, this comparison fits here.

So, when all the physicists of the planet puzzled over the reasons for such mystical results of the experiment with two slits, scientists came to the conclusion that, most likely, before the microparticle is observed, it does not even have a specific spin.

That is, until we look at the photon, it flies and at the same time cannot decide in which direction to spin, being in a superposition of uncertainty. As if mother nature is too hard to accurately calculate the rotation of each individual elementary particle in space.

Therefore, this is all done according to a simplified scheme, and only after the observer looks at the particle, it becomes more physically complex and its rotation finally begins to be calculated in one of two directions.

Ability to transfer information faster than the speed of light

So, what happened next was even more incredible. When Einstein was thinking about the theory of quantum mechanics, he proposed a very interesting experiment, which, in his opinion, was supposed to show the fallacy or incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Albert Einstein

The essence of the experiment is this. If a cesium atom emits two photons in different directions, then their state becomes interconnected due to the law of conservation of momentum. This is called quantum entanglement.

To make it easier to understand, let's explain it this way: if one of the entangled photons rotates from top to bottom, then the second photon must rotate from bottom to top, that is, in the opposite direction. Otherwise it can not be.

You and I already know that scientists assumed that before making an observation, a photon cannot decide in which direction it should spin. It turned out that this happens even if it is entangled with another photon and their rotation must go in opposite directions to each other.

It turns out that by making a measurement on one of the entangled photons and knowing which way it is spinning, we will automatically make the second photon spin in the opposite direction, although we did not even observe it. Moreover, the second photon must instantly take on its spin, no matter how far it is from the first photon, over which we carried out the measurement.

It turned out that even if the entangled photons are separated from each other to different ends of the Universe and an observation is made over one of them, the second photon will receive information about this quadrillion times faster than the speed of light and instantly change its spin to the opposite one. Just unbelieveble!

It violated the laws of physics. After all, as far as we know, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Then how does the second photon know so quickly that the first one was measured? How does he get information so quickly? Something doesn't add up...

That is why Einstein did not agree with the explanation of quantum mechanics, saying that instant communication between microparticles in physical reality is simply impossible. He suggested that, most likely, when entangled photons fly out of an atom, they already initially contain information about who will rotate in which direction when they are observed. That is, photons are programmed to rotate in a certain direction even before measurement. Then it turned out that, having carried out a measurement on one particle, we did not affect the other in any way, but only recognized its spin.

But there is much more mysticism in quantum mechanics than Einstein supposed. 17 years after he died with a sense of rightness, it turned out that this genius was cruelly mistaken.

Irish physicist John Bell did something impossible.

John Bell

He came up with one incredibly ingenious and very complex experiment that would prove or disprove the theory that elementary particles are pre-embedded with information about which direction they will need to turn when they are observed.

The results of the experiment were astonishing: they clearly and clearly showed that, prior to observation, a particle really has no idea which way it should spin, even if it is in an entangled state with another particle. Only strictly after the measurement, the photon randomly chooses a spin for itself. It turns out that entangled elementary particles can very easily transmit information to each other much faster than the speed of light!

Physicists were completely stunned by this. No one could understand how this was even possible. There are even more mysteries in quantum mechanics than ever before.

Practical measurement of information transfer rate between elementary particles

In 2008, a group of Swiss researchers from the University of Geneva set out to find out how quickly the second entangled particle learns that the first one was measured?

They separated two entangled photons 18 km apart, measured one particle, and began to record how fast the second particle would respond.

The scientists had the technology to detect a delay 100,000 times the speed of light.

But there were no delays. This meant that entangled photons could communicate with each other at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light, and most likely instantly!

Simulation theory

But while Einstein was wrong about entangled photons, he may have been right about one thing, which is when he said that instantaneous communication is impossible in the physical world.

Well, in the real physical world, it might, indeed, be impossible. What Einstein didn't think was that we probably live in a digital virtual reality.

And that's it and in it just an instantaneous connection is very easily explained.

From this point of view, when two photons become entangled, their programs combine to guide the two points together. If one program is responsible for the top spin and the other for the bottom, their combination will be responsible for both pixels, wherever they are.

At the moment of measurement of one entangled particle, its program randomly selects one of its spins, and the program of the second entangled particle reacts accordingly.

This reallocation code ignores distances because the processor doesn't have to go to the pixel to ask it to turn over, even if the screen is as big as the universe itself!

For many years there has been a stable expression that no one understands quantum mechanics. However, if we assume that our world is virtual, then everything becomes very clear.

To describe the world of elementary particles and their interactions, scientists resort to quantum mechanics, and to study the macrocosm, that is, large objects, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is used. But nature somehow united these two worlds, which means that there must be a theory that would equally fit the description of the subatomic world and the world of the largest bodies in the Universe. And that's just the simulation hypothesis perfectly copes with this!

It can also easily explain the mystery of the Big Bang, the curvature of space, the tunnel effect, dark energy, dark matter and much more.

Lately, some minds have been saying that the simulation theory, even if confirmed, won't change anything.

However, it is very difficult to agree with this statement, since official confirmation can greatly spur deeper research in this direction, thanks to which we may be able to find new flaws in our world, i.e. conventions, and they can already be used to create new technologies.

For example, if quantum effects are caused precisely by the fact that we live in a simulation, then the creation of such things as quantum computers or quantum cryptography can be called using the conventions of our world. Therefore, the simulation theory, if confirmed, can change a lot ...

Be that as it may, every year scientists find more and more indirect hints that we live in the matrix. And if this continues at the same pace, then in 30 years the theory of the virtuality of our world will become as official in the world of science as the theory of evolution.

Perhaps soon in schools, students will be told that they do not live in the real world. Although knowing that you are just a complex program with feelings, self-awareness, is a little demotivating.

However, Elon Musk, on the contrary, believes that this just motivates, because this simulation hypothesis solves the Fermi paradox and shows that intelligent civilizations are able to avoid self-destruction and technologically reach the creation of their virtual worlds. Therefore, for Musk, life in the matrix is ​​a pleasant utopia, and he really wants it to be true.

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Maybe Keanu Reeves lives in the matrix and off the set

Some scientists believe that our universe is a giant computer simulation. Should we be concerned about this?

Are we real? What about me personally?

Previously, such questions were asked only by philosophers. Scientists, on the other hand, tried to understand what our world is like and to explain its laws.

But the considerations that have appeared recently regarding the structure of the Universe pose existential questions before science as well.

Some physicists, cosmologists, and artificial intelligence experts suspect that we are all living inside a giant computer simulation, mistaking a virtual world for reality.

This idea contradicts our feelings: after all, the world is too realistic to be a simulation. The heaviness of the cup in the hand, the aroma of the coffee poured into it, the sounds around us - how can one fake such a wealth of experiences?

But think about the progress that has been made in computer and information technology over the past few decades.

Today's video games are populated by characters interacting realistically with the player, and virtual reality simulators sometimes make it indistinguishable from the world outside the window.

And this is quite enough to make a person paranoid.

In the fantastic film "The Matrix" this idea is formulated very clearly. People there are imprisoned in a virtual world, which they unconditionally perceive as real.

However, The Matrix is ​​not the first film to explore the phenomenon of the artificial universe. Suffice it to recall "Videodrome" by David Cronenberg (1982) or "Brazil" by Terry Gilliam (1985).

All these dystopias raise two questions: how do we know that we live in a virtual world, and does it really matter?

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX

The version that we live inside a simulation has powerful supporters.

As the American entrepreneur Elon Musk stated in June 2016, the probability of this is "a billion to one."

And Google's CTO of AI, Ray Kurzweil, suggests that perhaps "our entire universe is a science experiment by a junior high school student from another universe."

Some physicists are ready to consider this possibility. In April 2016, scientists took part in a discussion on this topic at the New York American Museum of Natural History.

None of these people claimed that we are actually swimming naked in a sticky liquid, studded with wires, like the characters in The Matrix.

But there are at least two possible scenarios according to which the universe around us could be artificial.

Cosmologist Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that the universe may be real, but is also a laboratory experiment. According to his hypothesis, our world was created by some kind of superintelligence - just like biologists grow colonies of microorganisms.

In principle, there is nothing that would exclude the possibility of the creation of the universe as a result of an artificial Big Bang, Guth says.

The universe in which such an experiment would be carried out would remain intact and unharmed. The new world would form in a separate space-time bubble, which would quickly separate from the mother universe and lose contact with it.

This scenario does not affect our lives in any way. Even if the Universe originated in a "test tube" of superintelligence, it is physically as real as if it had formed naturally.

But there is a second scenario that is of particular interest because it undermines the very foundations of our understanding of reality.

Image copyright TAKE 27 LTD/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY Image caption It is possible that our universe was created artificially. But by whom?

Musk and other supporters of this hypothesis argue that we are entirely simulated beings - just streams of information in some kind of giant computer, like video game characters.

Even our brain is a simulation, responding to artificial stimuli.

In this scenario, there is no matrix from which one could get out: our whole life is a matrix, beyond which existence is simply impossible.

But why should we believe in such a convoluted version of our own existence?

The answer is very simple: humanity is already capable of simulating reality, and with the further development of technology, it will eventually be able to create a perfect simulation, inhabited by intelligent beings-agents, would perceive it as an absolutely real world.

We create computer simulations not only for games, but also for research purposes. Scientists simulate various interaction situations at various levels - from subatomic particles to human communities, galaxies and even universes.

For example, computer simulations of the complex behavior of animals help us understand how flocks and swarms form. Through simulations, we study the principles behind the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies.

We can also simulate human communities using relatively simple agents that make choices based on certain rules.

Image copyright SPL Image caption Supercomputers are getting more powerful

Such programs model the cooperation between people, the development of cities, the operation of traffic and the state economy, and many other processes.

As the computing power of computers grows, simulations become more complex. Elements of thinking are already being built into separate programs that imitate human behavior - as yet primitive.

Researchers believe that in the not so distant future, virtual agents will be able to make decisions based not on elementary logic from the category of "if ... then ...", but on simplified models of human consciousness.

Who can guarantee that soon we will not witness the creation of virtual beings endowed with consciousness? Advances in understanding the principles of the brain, as well as the vast computing resources that the development of quantum computing promises, are steadily bringing this moment closer.

If we ever reach this stage of technological development, we will be simultaneously running a huge number of simulations, the number of which will far exceed our only "real" world.

Is it really impossible, then, that some intelligent civilization somewhere in the universe has already reached this stage?

And if so, it would be logical to assume that we just live inside such a simulation, and not in a world in which virtual realities are created - after all, the probability of this is statistically much higher.

Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption Scientific Simulation of the Origin of the Universe

Philosopher Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford has broken down this scenario into three possible scenarios:

(1) civilizations self-destruct before reaching the level of development at which it is possible to create such simulations;

(2) civilizations that have reached this level, for some reason, refuse to create such simulations;

(3) we are inside such a simulation.

The question is which of these options seems the most likely.

American astrophysicist George Smoot, a Nobel laureate in physics, argues that there are no convincing reasons to believe in the first two options.

Undoubtedly, humanity is persistently creating problems for itself - suffice it to mention global warming, the growing stocks of nuclear weapons and the threat of mass extinction of species. But these problems will not necessarily lead to the destruction of our civilization.

Image copyright ANDRZEJ WOJCICKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY Image caption Are we all part of a computer simulation?

Moreover, there is no reason why it would be fundamentally impossible to create a very realistic simulation, the characters of which would believe that they live in the real world and are free in their actions.

And given how common Earth-like planets are in the Universe (one of which, recently discovered, is located relatively close to Earth), it would be the height of arrogance to assume that humanity is the most advanced civilization, notes Smoot.

How about option number two? Theoretically, humanity could refrain from conducting such simulations for ethical reasons - for example, considering it inhumane to artificially create creatures convinced that their world is real.

But even that seems unlikely, says Smoot. After all, one of the main reasons why we run our own simulations is our desire to learn more about our own reality. This can help us make the world a better place and possibly save lives.

So there will always be sufficient ethical justification for conducting such experiments.

It looks like we're left with only one option: we're probably inside a simulation.

But all this is nothing more than speculation. Can they find conclusive evidence?

Many researchers believe that everything depends on the quality of the simulation. The most logical thing would be to try to find errors in the program - like those that betrayed the artificial nature of the "real world" in the movie "The Matrix". For example, we might find contradictions in physical laws.

Or, as the late AI pioneer Marvin Minsky suggested, there could be inherent rounding errors in approximations.

Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption We are already able to simulate entire groups of galaxies

For example, in the case when an event has several outcomes, the sum of the probabilities of their occurrence should be one. If this is not true, we can say that something is missing here.

However, according to some scientists, there are enough reasons to think that we are inside a simulation. For example, our universe looks like it was artificially constructed.

The values ​​of the fundamental physical constants are suspiciously ideal for the emergence of life in the Universe - one might get the impression that they were set intentionally.

Even small changes in these values ​​would lead to the loss of stability of the atoms or the impossibility of forming stars.

Cosmology still cannot convincingly explain this phenomenon. But one possible explanation has to do with the term "multiverse."

What if there are many universes that came into being as a result of events similar to the Big Bang, but subject to different physical laws?

Randomly, some of these universes are ideal for the origin of life, and if we were not lucky enough to be in one of them, then we would not ask questions about the universe, because we simply would not exist.

However, the idea of ​​the existence of parallel universes is highly speculative. So there remains at least a theoretical possibility that our universe is actually a simulation, the parameters of which are specifically set by the creators to obtain the results they are interested in - the emergence of stars, galaxies and living beings.

Although such a possibility cannot be ruled out, such theorizing leads us in circles.

In the end, one can just as well assume that the parameters of the "real" Universe in which our creators live were artificially set by someone. In this case, accepting the postulate that we are inside a simulation does not explain the mystery of the values ​​of constant physical quantities.

Some experts, as evidence that something is wrong with the Universe, point to very strange discoveries made by modern physics.

Image copyright MARK GARLICK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY Image caption Is our Universe nothing more than a set of mathematical formulas?

Quantum mechanics, a branch of physics that operates on extremely small quantities, has given us a particularly large number of such discoveries. Thus, it turns out that both matter and energy have a granular structure.

Moreover, the "resolution" at which we can observe the universe has its own minimum limit: if you try to observe smaller objects, they simply will not look "sharp" enough.

According to Smoot, these strange features of quantum physics could just be signs that we are living inside a simulation - just like when you try to view an image on a screen from a very close distance, it breaks up into individual pixels.

But this is a very crude analogy. Scientists are gradually coming to the conclusion that the "graininess" of the Universe at the quantum level may be the result of more fundamental laws that determine the limits of cognizable reality.

Another argument in favor of the virtuality of our world says that the Universe, as it seems to a number of scientists, is described by mathematical equations.

Cosmologist Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology emphasizes that just such a result would be expected if the laws of physics were based on a computational algorithm.

However, this argument threatens to lead us into a vicious circle of reasoning.

To begin with, if a superintelligence decides to simulate its own "real" world, it is logical to assume that the physical principles underlying such a simulation will reflect those that operate in its own universe - after all, that's what we do.

In this case, the true explanation for the mathematical nature of our world would not lie in the fact that it is a simulation, but in the fact that the "real" world of our creators is arranged in exactly the same way.

In addition, the simulation need not be based on mathematical rules. You can make it function in a random, chaotic way.

Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption The universe may be based on mathematics, some scientists believe

Whether this would lead to the emergence of life in a virtual universe is unknown, but the bottom line is that one cannot draw conclusions about the degree of "reality" of the universe, starting from its supposedly mathematical nature.

However, according to physicist James Gates of the University of Maryland, there is a more compelling reason to believe that computer simulations are responsible for the laws of physics.

Gates studies matter at the level of quarks, the subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei. According to him, quarks obey rules that are somewhat reminiscent of computer codes that correct errors in data processing.

Is it possible?

May be so. But it is possible that such an interpretation of physical laws is only the most recent example of how humanity has interpreted the world around us from time immemorial, based on knowledge of the latest achievements of technological progress.

In the era of classical Newtonian mechanics, the universe was represented by a clockwork. And later, at the dawn of the computer era, DNA was considered as a kind of digital code storage with the function of storing and reading information.

Perhaps we just extrapolate our current technological passions to the laws of physics every time.

It seems to be very difficult, if not impossible, to find conclusive evidence that we are inside a simulation.

Unless there are many bugs in the code, it will be difficult to create a test whose results cannot be explained in some other, more rational way.

Even if our world is a simulation, says Smoot, we may never find a clear confirmation of this - simply because such a task is beyond the power of our minds.

After all, one of the goals of simulation is to create characters that would function within the established rules, and not violate them intentionally.

However, there's a bigger reason why we probably shouldn't worry too much about being just lines of code.

Some physicists believe that the real world is just that anyway.

The terminological apparatus used to describe quantum physics is increasingly beginning to resemble a dictionary of computer science and computer technology.

Some physicists suspect that, at a fundamental level, nature may not be pure mathematics but pure information: bits, like computer ones and zeros.

Leading theoretical physicist John Wheeler called this conjecture "It from Bit".

According to this hypothesis, everything that happens at the level of interactions of fundamental particles and above is a kind of computational process.

“The universe can be thought of as a giant quantum computer,” says Seth Lloyd, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “If we look at the “internal mechanism” of the universe, that is, at the structure of matter at the smallest possible scale, we see [quantum] bits involved in local digital operations".

Image copyright RICHARD KAIL/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY Image caption The quantum world is blurry and unclear to us

Thus, if reality is just information, then it doesn't matter if we're inside a simulation or not: the answer to that question doesn't make us any more or less "real."

Be that as it may, we simply cannot be anything but information.

Does it matter for us whether this information was programmed by nature or some kind of superintelligence? It is unlikely - well, except in the second case, our creators are theoretically able to intervene in the course of the simulation and even stop it altogether.

But what can we do to avoid this?

Of course, this is a joke. Surely any of us will have more compelling motives to live life to the fullest than the fear that otherwise we will be "erased".

But the very formulation of the question points to certain flaws in the logic of reasoning about the reality of the Universe.

The idea that some higher-order experimenters will eventually get tired of messing with us and decide to run some other simulation smacks too anthropomorphically.

Like Kurzweil's statement about the school experiment, it implies that our creators are just cranky teenagers having fun with game consoles.

The discussion of the three versions of Bostrom also suffers from similar solipsism. This is nothing more than an attempt to describe the Universe in terms of the achievements of mankind in the 21st century: “We develop computer games, after all. I bet that superintelligent beings would do this too, only their games would be much cooler!”

Of course, any attempt to imagine how superintelligent beings might act will inevitably lead to an extrapolation of our own experience. But this does not negate the unscientific nature of this approach.

Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption The universe can also be represented as a quantum computer. But what will it give us?

It is probably no coincidence that many proponents of the idea of ​​"comprehensive simulation" admit that in their youth they read science fiction avidly.

It is possible that the choice of reading predetermined their adult interest in the problems of extraterrestrial intelligence, but it also encourages them now to clothe their thoughts in the forms familiar to the genre.

They seem to be viewing space through the window of the starship Enterprise [from the American television series Star Trek - Approx. translator].

Harvard physicist Lisa Randell cannot understand the enthusiasm with which some of her colleagues dabble with the idea of ​​reality as a total simulation. For her, this does not change anything in the approach to the perception and study of the world.

According to Randall, everything depends on our choice: what exactly is meant by the so-called reality.

It is unlikely that Elon Musk spends days thinking that the people around him, his family and friends are just constructs consisting of data streams and projected into his mind.

In part, he does not do this because it simply does not work to constantly think in this way about the world around him.

But much more important is what we all know in the depths of our souls: the only definition of reality worth our attention is our immediate sensations and experiences, and not a hypothetical world hidden "behind the scenes".

However, there is nothing new in the interest in what may actually be behind the world accessible to us in sensations. Philosophers have been asking similar questions for centuries.

Image copyright Mike Agliolo/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY Image caption From our point of view, the quantum world is illogical

Even Plato believed that what we take for reality can only be shadows projected onto the wall of the cave.

According to Immanuel Kant, although some "thing in itself" that underlies the images we perceive may exist, it is not given to us to know it.

The famous phrase of Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am" means that the ability to think is the only clear criterion for existence.

The concept of "the world as a simulation" presents this old philosophical problem in a modern high-tech wrapper, and there is no big deal.

Like many other paradoxes of philosophy, it forces us to take a critical look at certain entrenched ideas.

But until we can convincingly show that the deliberate separation of "reality" and the sensations we experience from it leads to obvious differences in our behavior or in the phenomena we observe, our understanding of reality will not change in any significant way.

In the early 18th century, the English philosopher George Berkeley argued that the world was an illusion. To which his critic, the writer Samuel Johnson, exclaimed: "Here is my rebuttal!" and kicked a stone.

In fact, Johnson did not disprove Berkeley with this. But his answer to such statements was perhaps the most correct possible.

Have you ever thought that our real world might not be real at all? What if everything around us is just an illusion invented by someone? This is what the computer simulation hypothesis says. Let's try to understand whether this theory is worth considering seriously, or is it just a figment of someone's imagination, which has no basis.

“He is your illusion”: how the simulation hypothesis appeared

It is completely wrong to think that the idea that our world is just an illusion has appeared only recently. This idea was expressed by Plato (of course, in a different form, not referring to computer simulation). In his opinion, only ideas have true material value, everything else is just a shadow. Aristotle shared similar views. He believed that ideas are embodied in material objects, therefore, everything is a simulation.

The French philosopher René Descartes in the 17th century declared that "some wicked genius, very powerful and prone to deception" made mankind think that everything around people is the real physical world, in reality, our reality is just a fantasy. this genius.

Despite the fact that the very idea of ​​simulation theory is rooted in the distant past, the heyday of the theory occurred with the development of information technology. One of the main terms in the development of computer simulation is "virtual reality". The term itself was coined in 1989 by Jaron Lanier. Virtual reality is a kind of artificial world where the individual is immersed through the senses. Virtual reality imitates both the impact and the reactions to these impacts.

In the modern world, simulation theory is increasingly becoming the subject of discussion in the context of the development of artificial intelligence. In 2016, Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, Ph.D. in physics, conducted debate with scientists and researchers on the simulation hypothesis. Even Elon Musk has claimed to believe in simulation theory. According to him, the possibility that our "reality" is basic is extremely insignificant, but it is even better for humanity. In September of the same 2016, Bank of America issued an appeal to customers, in which they warned that with a probability of 20-50% our reality is a matrix.

Marina1408 / Bigstockphoto.com

Simulation Hypothesis: How It Works

How long have you been playing computer games? It's time to brush up on how you and your friends played GTA missions when you were young. Remember: the world in a computer game exists only around the hero. As soon as objects or other characters disappear from the field of view of the virtual hero, they disappear completely. There is nothing outside the hero's space. Cars, buildings, people only appear when your character is there. In computer games, this simplification is done in order to minimize the load on the processor and optimize the game. Proponents of the simulation hypothesis see our world in much the same way.

Evidence for the theory

Swedish philosopher and Oxford University professor Nick Bostrom in his 2001 article “Are we living in the Matrix?” offered three proofs that the simulation hypothesis is indeed true. As he says, at least one of these pieces of evidence is unambiguously correct. In the first proof, the philosopher states that humanity as a biological species will disappear, “before reaching the“ posthuman ”stage” (read about this in our other). Second, any new posthuman society is unlikely to run a large number of simulations that would show variants of its history. His third statement is “we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.”

In his reasoning, Bostrom gradually refutes his first two proofs, which automatically gives him the right to speak about the correctness of the third hypothesis. It is easy to refute the first statement: according to the researcher, humanity is able to develop artificial intelligence to such an extent that it can simulate the work of many living organisms. The fidelity of the second hypothesis is refuted by probability theory. The conclusions about the number of terrestrial civilizations cannot be attributed to the entire Universe. Therefore, if both the first and second judgments are wrong, then it remains to accept the latter: we are in a simulation.

In favor of the simulation theory, a study by scientists at the University of California at San Diego in 2012 also speaks. They found that all the most complex systems - the Universe, the human brain, the Internet - have a similar structure and develop in the same way.

One of the proofs of the virtuality of our world can be considered the strange behavior of photons when observing them.

The experience of Thomas Young back in 1803 turned “modern” physics on its head. In his experiment, he fired photons of light through a screen with a parallel slot. Behind him was a special projection screen to record the result. Shooting photons through one slit, the scientist found that the photons of light built a single line on this screen that was parallel to the slit. This confirmed the corpuscular theory of light, which states that light is made up of particles. When another slit was added to the experiment for the passage of photons, it was expected that there would be two parallel lines on the screen, however, despite this, a series of alternating interference fringes appeared. Through this experiment, Jung confirmed another - wave - theory of light, which says that light propagates as an electromagnetic wave. Both theories seem to contradict each other. It is impossible that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

Young's experiment, where S1 and S2 are parallel slits, a is the distance between the slits, D is the distance between the screen with slots and the projection screen, M is the screen point on which two beams fall simultaneously, Wikimedia

Later, scientists found that electrons, protons, and other parts of the atom behave strangely. For the purity of the experiment, the scientists decided to measure exactly how a photon of light passes through the slits. To do this, a measuring device was placed in front of them, which was supposed to fix the photon, and put an end to the disputes of physicists. However, scientists were in for a surprise. When the researchers observed the photon, it again exhibited the properties of a particle, and two lines appeared again on the projection screen. That is, one fact of extraneous observation of the experiment caused the particles to change their behavior, as if the photon knew that it was being observed. The observation was able to destroy the wave functions and make the photon behave like a particle. Does this remind you of anything, gamers?

Based on the foregoing, adherents of the computer simulation hypothesis compare this experiment with computer games, when the virtual world of the game “freezes” if there is no player within it. Similarly, our world, in order to optimize the relative power of the central processor, lightens the load and does not calculate the behavior of photons until they begin to observe them.

Criticism of the theory

Of course, the proofs of the simulation theory presented are criticized by other scientists who are opponents of this hypothesis. Their main emphasis is on the fact that in scientific articles where evidence of the theory is presented, there are gross logical errors: “a logical circle, autoreference (a phenomenon when a concept refers to itself), ignoring the non-random position of observers, violating causality and neglecting the control of simulation with side of the creators. According to the candidate of economic sciences, one of the founders of the coordinating council of the Russian transhumanist movement, Danila Medvedev, Bostrom's basic principles do not withstand philosophical and physical rules: for example, the rule of causality. Bostrom, contrary to all logic, allows the influence of future events on the events of the present.

Besides, our civilization is probably not of interest to simulate at all. The global society, according to Danila Medvedev, is not as interesting as, for example, states and local communities, and from a technological point of view, modern civilization is still too primitive.

Simulating a huge number of people does not carry any merit compared to a small number. Such large civilizations are chaotic, and there is no point in simulating them.

In 2011, Craig Hogan, director of the Center for Quantum Physics at the Fermi Laboratory in the United States, decided to check whether what a person sees around is really real and these are not “pixels”. To do this, he invented the "holometer". He analyzed the beams of light from the emitter built into the device and determined that the world is not a two-dimensional hologram, and it really exists.

Wikimedia

Simulation theory in the film industry: what to watch to be in the subject

Directors are actively trying to reveal the idea of ​​life in the matrix. It is safe to say that it was thanks to cinema that this theory reached a mass audience. Of course, the main movie about computer simulation is The Matrix. Brothers (now sisters) Wachowski quite accurately managed to depict a world where humanity from birth to death is controlled by computer simulation. Real people in The Matrix can jump into this simulation to create a "second self" and transfer their consciousness into it.

The second film to watch for those who want to learn more about computer simulation is The Thirteenth Floor. It reflects the idea that in the simulation it is possible to move from one level to a new one. The film embodies the possibility of several simulations. Our world is a simulation, but the American company has created another new one - for a separate city. Heroes move between simulations by moving their consciousness into the body shell of a real person.

In Vanilla Sky, with a young Tom Cruise, it is possible to enter a computer simulation after death. The physical body of the hero is subjected to cryogenic freezing, and the consciousness is transferred to a computer simulation. This film is a remake of the Spanish Open Your Eyes filmed in 1997.

Now it is very difficult to unequivocally answer the question: do we live in a computer matrix or not. However, such a hypothesis takes place: our Universe keeps too many mysteries and white spots. These mysteries cannot be explained even by physics. And even after their solution, new, much more complex questions appear.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

Ecology of life. People: Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk seriously believes we are living in a game. In a virtual reality created by some advanced civilization - something like the proposal of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, which he put forward back in 2003.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk seriously believes we are living in a game. In a virtual reality created by some advanced civilization - something like the proposal of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, which he put forward back in 2003.

The idea is that sufficiently complex simulations of virtual reality with conscious beings will generate consciousness; the models will become self-aware and believe they are living in the "real world". Funny, is not it?

This is the latest version of the thought experiment, which was also proposed by Descartes, only he had an evil demon who mocks him. Over the years, the idea has taken many different forms, but it is based on the same assumption.

Everything we know about this world, we comprehend through five senses., which we experience internally (when neurons fire, although Descartes did not know about this). How do we know that these neurons correspond to anything real in the world?

After all, if our senses systematically and universally deceived us, by the will of a demon or someone else, we would never know. Well, how? We have no tools other than our feelings to test our feelings for relevance.

Since we cannot rule out the possibility of such a deception, we cannot know for sure that our world is real. We could all be Sims.

This kind of skepticism sent Descartes on a journey within himself in search of something of which he could be absolutely sure, something that could serve as the basis for the construction of a true philosophy. Finally he came to cogito, ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am." But the philosophers who followed him did not always share his convictions.

In short, all we know is that thoughts exist. Wonderful.

(Short digression: Bostrom says that the modeling argument is different from the brain-in-the-vat argument because it increases the probability much more strongly. After all, how many brain-in-the-vat evil geniuses can exist? Even though any sufficiently advanced civilization could run virtual reality simulation.

If such civilizations exist and are ready to run simulations, there could be an almost unlimited number of them. Therefore, we are most likely in one of their created worlds. But this does not change the essence of the matter, so let's get back to our sheep).

The red pill and the persuasiveness of The Matrix

The most iconic pop culture representation of the idea of ​​living in a simulation is the 1999 Wachowski Brothers film The Matrix, in which humans are either brain-in-a-vat or cocooned bodies living in a computer simulation created by the computers themselves.

But The Matrix also shows why this thought experiment relies a bit on deception.

One of the film's most poignant moments is the moment when Neo takes the red pill, opens his eyes and sees real reality for the first time. This is where the thought experiment begins: with the realization that somewhere there, behind the vat, there is another reality, to see which it is enough to understand the truth.

But this realization, tempting as it is, ignores the basic premise of our thought experiment: our senses can be deceived.

Why should Neo decide that the "real world" he saw after taking the pill is really real? After all, it could be a different simulation. After all, what better way to keep determined people than by allowing them to carry out a sandbox-modeled uprising?

No matter how many pills he takes or how persuasive Morpheus is about how real the new reality is, Neo still relies on his senses, and his senses can theoretically be fooled. So he goes back to where he started.

Here's a seed for a thought simulation experiment: it cannot be proven or disproven. For the same reason, it may not make sense. What, after all, is the difference, if so?

As long as the deception is perfect, it doesn't matter

Let's say you were told the following: "The universe and all its contents are turned upside down." This will blow your mind for a minute as you imagine swallowing a red pill and seeing everything upside down. But then you realize that things can only be upside down relative to other things, so if everything is upside down... what difference does it make?

The same is true of the "it's probably all an illusion" argument on which the simulation thought experiment is built. Things are real in relation to people and other parts of our experience (just as the world of the red pill is real in relation to the world of the blue pill in The Matrix). We are real in relation to other things and people. "Everything is an illusion" makes no more sense than "everything is upside down."

These assumptions cannot be called true or false. Because their truth or falsity does not refer to anything else, has no practical or epistemological implications, they are inert. They cannot matter.

Philosopher David Chalmers put it this way: the idea of ​​modeling is not an epistemological thesis (about what we know about things) or a moral thesis (about how we value or should value things), but a metaphysical thesis (about the ultimate nature of things). If this is so, then the point is not that people, trees and clouds do not exist, but that people, trees and clouds do not have the finite nature that we thought.

But again, this is equivalent to the question: so what? One ultimate reality, which I cannot reach, turns into another ultimate reality, which I also cannot reach. Meanwhile, the reality in which I live and with which I interact through my feelings and beliefs remains the same.

If this is all computer simulation, then so be it. This does not change anything.

Even Bostrom agrees: “Upon closer inspection, it turns out that you will have to live in the Matrix in exactly the same way as if you did not live in the Matrix. You still have to communicate with other people, raise children and go to work.

Pragmatists believe that our beliefs and language are not abstract representations that correspond (or do not correspond) to some supernatural realm of independent reality. These are the tools that help us live - in organizing, in navigating, in predicting the world.

Rejecting Certainty in favor of Probability

Descartes lived in an era that preceded the Enlightenment and became an important precursor because he wanted to build a philosophy on what people could extract for themselves, and not on what religion or tradition could impose - take nothing for granted.

His mistake, like many Enlightenment thinkers, was that he believed that such a philosophy should imitate religious knowledge: hierarchical, built on the foundation of a solid, indisputable truth from which all other truths follow.

Without this solid foundation, many feared (and still fear) that humanity would be doomed to skepticism in epistemology and nihilism in morality.

But once you give up religion - once you trade authority for empiricism and the scientific method - you can give up certainty too.

What people can extract for themselves, choose, prefer, is always partial, always temporary, and always a matter of probabilities. We can weigh parts of our experience with other parts, check and repeat, remain open to new evidence, but there will be no way to go beyond our experience and create a solid foundation under it all.

Everything will be good, true, real only in relation to other things. If they are also good, true, real in some transcendent, independent, "objective" framework, we will never know.

After all, in fact, human existence comes down to making decisions in the face of insufficient data and information. Feelings will always give an incomplete picture of the world. Direct experience with other people, visiting other places will always be limited. To fill in the gaps, we have to rely on assumptions, biases, beliefs, some internal framework, qualifications and heuristics.

Even science, by which we try to suspend our assumptions and get at hard data, is full of value judgments and cultural attachments. And it will never be specific - only up to a certain degree of probability.

Whatever world we live in (in the present or not), we will act on the basis of probabilities, use unreliable and inaccurate tools of knowledge, live in a constant haze of uncertainties. Such is the life of man. But because of this, people are worried. They crave certainty, points of fixation, so they force philosophers to dig to the truth and simply believe in predestination, a higher plan, or free will.

If there are no clear reasons, we will have to learn to live with uncertainty and relax. If they are not there, philosophy will not help us. (This statement belongs to Richard Rorty, one of the supporters of American pragmatism).

This will be of interest to you:

Elon Musk believes that the whole world in which we live, where his relatives and friends live, is an illusion, a simulation. He is not real, his family is not real, climate change is not real, Mars is not. And yet, what does Musk spend his time on? Working hard and doing everything he can to reduce carbon emissions on Earth, and we settled on another planet. Would he have worked so hard if he knew that the world was unreal?

Somewhere in the depths of his soul, he knows that the world is real exactly to the extent that all this will be important.. published