Are we real?
Or do we live in a simulation, and is there any proof?
Doubting the perception of reality has been an intriguing topic for centuries.
You’re about to discover why many believe there is a 50/50 chance that we do live in
a simulation.
Now get ready to explore the blurry lines of having our minds tricked into believing
that what we know as a certain reality, could simply be a digital creation.
[LOGO]
For those who don’t know what the simulation theory is, it is the concept that we’re
all virtual beings living in some kind of computer simulation, much like the setting
in some sci-fi movies like ‘The Matrix’.
And it’s no surprise that the subject keeps coming up over and over again considering
the current radical development and speed of advanced technology.
You might be wondering where this hypothesis originated, and it’s probably not what you
think.
In fact, we need to go as far back as ancient China, when Daoist philosopher Zhuang Zhou
had a dream and wrote that he was a butterfly with no recollection of his human form.
In the dream he was exploring the world, fluttering through the air without a care.
Suddenly, Zhou awakens and pinches himself to see if he was dreaming…and realizes he’s
human after all…or is he?
Could it be that he was a butterfly dreaming about being a human?
The important thing here is that Zhuang Zhou wrote that he believed his experience was
a transformation of consciousness and awareness.
One exists in reality, and the other is an illusion, leading one to wonder which one
is which.
Fast forward to the modern age, a Swedish-born philosopher by the name of Nick Bostrom made
several proposals based entirely around posthuman civilization.
He published a paper called ‘Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?’
which put forth the question, and we quote: ‘“If there were a substantial chance that
our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor‐simulations,
then how come you are not living in such a simulation?”
Since Bostrom published his work, there has been intense public speculation and debate
about the nature of reality.
In 2016, Elon Musk was on stage at Recode’s Code Conference when The Verge co-founder
Josh Topolsky was about to ask him if he thought our existence was simulated.
Musk jumped in real quick and began explaining an example that we’ve gone from the very
first video game; ‘Pong’ to massively multiplayer online games that have photorealistic
graphics with millions of simultaneous players, and now we’re going on to a new genre of
virtual and augmented reality games, which he believes will become so realistic that
it will be hard to tell what is real and what is not.
Now, whether or not you’re a fan of Elon Musk, he did have a point when he said that
if we assume any rate of improvement at all, then games would become indistinguishable
from reality.
He went on and said that even if the rate of improvement drops by a thousand from what
it is now, and imagining we’re 10,000 years into the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary
scale, the odds we are living in base reality is ‘one in billions’.
The scary thing is that Elon Musk said that if a civilization stops advancing, then it
is likely due to a calamitous event that erases civilization.
Musk said that there are two options: "Either we're going to create simulations that are
indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist."
But are we simply avatars being guided by some super-intelligent creatures in another
reality?
It’s a little mind blowing if you think that there is a 50/50 chance that we live
in a simulation.
In fact, even astrophysicist and planetary scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson has given the
idea some credence to the theory that we’re in a simulation.
But there are also many skeptics too.
Another physicist by the name of Frank Wilczek argued that there is too much wasted complexity
for our world and universe to be simulated.
Building complexity requires energy and time.
We need to ask ourselves the question: why would a conscious, intelligent designer of
realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be?
Others have argued that the question isn’t scientific anyway, and since the simulation
hypothesis can’t be tested or proven, it’s not really worth investigating.
However, all the discussions and studies of the simulation hypothesis may have missed
a key element of scientific inquiry: empirical assessment and data collection.
So to understand if we are actually living in a simulation, we need to start by looking
at the fact that we already have computers running different types of simulations for
lower level intelligences or algorithms.
To visualize this, imagine these so-called 'intelligences’ as NPCs or ‘non-player
characters’ that you’ll find in many massively multiplayer online role playing games.
These NPC’s don’t need to be intelligent or even conscious, and they don’t need to
be very complex because the evidence we are looking for is ‘experienced’ by all simple
or complex computer programs, running on all computers regardless if they are slow or fast.
All computer hardware leaves an artifact of its existence within the world of the simulation
it is running, and this artifact is processor speed.
For the record, when we say artifact in this context, we’re talking about the central
processing unit which was designed and made by human hands.
Imagine for a moment you are a software program running on a computer.
The only artifact of the hardware supporting you is the processor speed.
All other laws you would experience would be the laws of the simulation or the software
you are part of.
If you were a Sim from Sim City, or a character in something like World Of Warcraft, these
would be the laws of the game world.
However, anything you do to push the simulation would also be constrained by the processor
speed no matter the laws of the game.
In other words, the processing speed dictates a physical reality onto the operation that
is detached from the simulated reality of the operation itself, and no matter how complete
the simulation is, the processing speed would limit the operations of the simulation.
That said, if we do indeed live in a simulation, then our universe should also have an artifact.
Therefore, we need to look at some properties of our universe to figure out exactly what
this artifact could be.
It would have to be an artifact that presents itself in the simulated world as an upper
limit.
Also, the artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated
universe.
It would have to be accepted as an assumption or given within the operating laws of our
simulated universe.
And the last thing is that the artifact, or anomaly, would be absolute…no exceptions.
Now that we have defined some properties of the artifact, we’ll give you a few seconds
to see if you have already guessed what this artifact in our universe might be.
If you guessed the artifact is the speed of light, then pat yourself on the back.
It surely fits the properties and the limit of the artifact in a simulation running on
any computer, and it remains the same regardless of observer speed, it’s defined as a maximum
limit, and so far, it is unexplainable by the physics of the universe..and it certainly
is absolute.
Therefore, we could easily come to the conclusion that the speed of light ‘hardware artifact’
proves we live in a simulated universe.
This brings up an interesting observation about the nature of space in our universe.
If we are indeed living in a simulation, then space is an abstract property written in code.
In other words, it’s not real.
Considering our universal speed limit, this is probably why we are not able to move from
galaxy to galaxy, because they might not be real either, and we have no way to reach them…ever.
But this isn’t the only thing that proves we might be living in a simulation.
The most likely clue might be hiding right in front of our eyes, or rather ‘behind
them’.
To explain this, imagine a character from a role playing game such as The Sims or World
Of Warcraft.
The algorithm that represents the character and the algorithm that represents the game
environment, which the NPC operates in, is intertwined on many levels.
However, if we assume that the character and the environment, or game world, are separate,
the non-player character doesn’t need a visual projection of its point of view to
interact with the environment.
The simulation algorithms take into account some of the environment variables and some
of the characters' state variables to project and determine the behavior of both the character
and the environment.
What we see on the screen is for our benefit, or to be able to experience the sensation
of being in the game.
Another similar example is movies.
Some films often go into the point of view of characters to show us what is going on
from their perspective.
This has no purpose for the characters of the film and once again, is only for our benefit.
But this brings us to something else that needs to be considered, and that is consciousness.
Why do we need it and what purpose does it serve?
If we concede that we are living in a simulation, the purpose is easy to define.
Consciousness can be described as an integrated interface between the self and the rest of
the universe.
Therefore, the only reasonable explanation for its existence is that it simply exists
to be an experience.
And think about this for a moment; there is nothing in philosophy or science, theories
or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience that we call consciousness.
Natural laws don’t call for its existence, and it certainly doesn’t offer us any evolutionary
advantages.
So there can only be two explanations for the existence of consciousness.
One is that perhaps there are evolutionary forces at work that we don’t know about
yet that select for the emergence of consciousness, or experience.
The second is that the experience is some function that we serve, or perhaps a product
that we create…experience generated as human beings.
But if this is the case, and consciousness doesn’t serve us in any way, who are we
creating this product of experience for?
How would they receive this experience?
One thing is certain, we do create it.
We only know that it exists, and there is no theory to explain why we need it.
If we are generating a product called consciousness that we don’t seem to have any use for,
the most logical conclusion is that this product serves someone else.
Now, consciousness is another big topic, and if you would like to see a video on that,
how it began and evolved, let us know!
Think about when you’re playing a game.
In a role playing game, the experience of the characters is different from the experience
of the player.
Players feel some of the joys or disappointments that are designed for the character to feel,
and the character experiences the consequences of the player's behavior.
Yes, it’s a rudimentary connection between the player and the NPC, but with virtual reality
devices the boundaries start to blur.
For example, when riding a roller coaster as a character in a virtual reality game,
we feel the gravity.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the feeling of gravity coming from?
Well, it exists in the space between the character riding the roller coaster, and our minds occupying
the ‘mind’ of the character.
We could be experiencing some small part of the experience ourselves while a more information-rich
version of the experience is being projected to some other mind for whose benefit the experience
of consciousness first came into existence.
The simplest explanation for the existence of consciousness is that it’s an experience
being created by us, but not for us.
In other words; our product is most likely for the benefit of someone experiencing our
lives through us.
Now that we’ve given the possibilities for the simulation hypothesis, do you think there
are powerful forces at play controlling our lives?
Or is the simulation theory the ultimate conspiracy theory?
We’d like to hear what you’ve got to say.
If it’s true, then all we can do is come to terms with the reality of the simulation,
and make the best of it.
Thanks for watching.