%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 Items to fit into your overhead compartment |
|
From The Conversation: No. There. Article over. Question answered. Done. Let's move on. Is the whole universe just a simulation? – Moumita B., age 13, Dhaka, Bangladesh Sigh. Okay. Fine. It's a kid's question. Probably best to not be all Calvin's Dad  on this one.How do you know anything is real? Some things you can see directly, like your fingers. Other things, like your chin, you need a mirror or a camera to see. Other things can’t be seen, but you believe in them because a parent or a teacher told you, or you read it in a book. And then there are things that are not real, but you think they are, because someone lied to you. Maybe the world we live in our whole lives inside isn’t the real one, maybe it’s more like a big video game, or the movie “The Matrix.” Okay, here's my biggest problem with the simulation hypothesis, apart from it being inherently untestable and non-falsifiable: I question the motives of anyone who insists that this is a simulation. I question them even more when someone uses the word "just" as a modifier. Now, I'm not going to apply that distrust to a 13-year-old who lives on damn near the exact opposite side of the planet from me, if indeed that person is real, but for grown adults, I wonder. Because when I'm in a simulation, and I know it's a simulation, my ethics go right out the window. I have no issue with depopulating entire towns in single-player games, for example. There are no consequences outside of the game. I also question them because this only became a popular question after The Matrix. Like, you couldn't come up with it yourself but had to have it fed to you on a screen? It was a science fiction movie, for fuck's sake. (So much for targeting this to kids.) It's like asking if Klingons are real, or if replicants are real. And to add another layer of whatever to it, I've studied religion, and the simulation hypothesis is just a modern incarnation of gnosticism. The simulation hypothesis is a modern attempt to use logic and observations about technology to finally answer these questions and prove that we’re probably living in something like a giant video game. This shouldn't be too advanced for a 13-year-old: the burden of proof is on the hypothesizers. It is not on the rest of us to prove that we're not living in a simulation. Twenty years ago, a philosopher named Nick Bostrom made such an argument based on the fact that video games, virtual reality and artificial intelligence were improving rapidly. The argument has been around longer than that. Matrix came out in what, 1999? 27 years ago. That's when people in my circles started asking the question. Here’s Bostrom’s shocking logical argument: If the 21st century planet Earth only ever existed one time, but it will eventually get simulated trillions of times, and if the simulations are so good that the people in the simulation feel just like real people, then you’re probably living on one of the trillions of simulations of the Earth, not on the one original Earth. And here's where that "logical" argument falls flat on its face: We do not currently have the capability to create a simulation where the people in the simulation feel just like real people. Maybe we're close, maybe not, but we're not there. This eliminates every one of the trillions (some say infinite, which is a hell of a lot more than trillions) of intermediate simulations, leaving us with exactly two possibilities: we're in the real world, or we're in an unadvanced simulation. The argument from probability thus evaporates like the words on a computer you've just turned off. If we are living in a simulation, does that explain anything? Maybe the simulation has glitches, and that’s why your phone wasn’t where you were sure you left it, or how you knew something was going to happen before it did, or why that dress on the internet looked so weird. Or, maybe, our brains are just plain weird. See, there is one simulation hypothesis that I am pretty well convinced of, which is that what we experience is filtered to our brains through our senses. No outside influence, no god, no monster, no advanced technology is required for that hypothesis, just natural evolution. But Bostrom’s argument doesn’t require any scientific proof. It’s logically true as long as you really believe that many powerful simulations will exist in the future. No, that doesn't work, and it takes real mental gymnastics to make it work. But, you know... our brains are weird and can make such gymnastics. That’s why famous scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and tech titans like Elon Musk have been convinced of it, though Tyson now puts the odds at 50-50. Calling Musk a "scientist" is like calling me a football player. Or a scientist, for that matter. He's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And apparently I get to mention Tyson twice in two consecutive entries; he seems to have reached the same conclusion that I did. Even though it is far from being resolved, the simulation hypothesis is an impressive logical and philosophical argument that has challenged our fundamental notions of reality and captured the imaginations of millions. Here's my essential caveat, though: I don't think we should dismiss these ideas out of hand, any more than we should dismiss the idea of space aliens out of hand. It's just that, in the words of a real scientist, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But I am moved to ask: even if this is a simulation, what difference would that make? If it's so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, like when I "kill" everyone in a fantasy town, then we're going to have a problem. If it's so you can believe there's some higher power guiding it all, then it's basically techno-gnosticism. Religion. Which is not science. If it's so you can believe you're special and everyone else is an NPC, then it's techno-solipsism. And borders on conspiracy theory thinking. If it's merely an academic question, then fine. I'm all for searching for deeper realities. That's what science does, in part. And then it's not "just" a simulation; it's just reality. If it's true. Which it's not. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
Puzzle Hub
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
