Reality goes into the melting pot, and there is no reason to believe we are living in anything but a Matrix-style simulation. Science is then reduced to a charade, because the simulators of our world — whoever or whatever they are — can create any pseudo-laws they please, and keep changing them. Then again, you might be wondering, why does any of this matter?
The broad answer, Virk said, is that which all good science pursues: truth. More specifically, our truth. If we do in fact exist inside a video game that requires our characters i.
What Is Simulation Theory? Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? What is reality? Simulation theory tackles some heavy questions. Mike Thomas. April 1, Updated: August 20, Do We Live in a Simulation? The question of if we live in a simulated universe has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment period.
There is no definitive answer, but simulation theory posits the universe as we know it is an advanced digital construct overseen by some higher form of intelligence.
Elon Musk on Simulation Theory In an interview with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, Elon Musk said, "If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then games will be indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will end. One of those two things will occur," Musk said. You might as well call them reality, or you could call them multiverse. Great Companies Need Great People. Whether it be an inquisitive friend or the anonymous writer of an edgy sign outside your local coffee shop, your perfectly peaceful life was interrupted by the outlandish thought.
Even astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave it a chance. But on the flip side, some consider it an unscientific , unprovable mental exercise. What we need to talk about, however, is how the original argument hints that existing in a weird hyperrealistic video game might just be the best-case scenario for us.
Perhaps we should hope we're living in a computer simulation. Existing in a digital reality may mean the world won't fall to some terrible demise, like humans suddenly going extinct or tech advancements reaching a standstill. Musk seems to agree. Alluded to for centuries, from Plato's allegory of the cave to Descartes' evil demon concept, the simulation theory's grasp on our attention -- including Musk's -- is most attributed to the argument concocted in by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom.
His entire work is super complex, involving hardcore calculations and symbols that take me back to my days as a philosophy student. But in a nutshell, he says one of the following must be true :. Option A: We reach the point where we can make a simulation indistinguishable from the natural world. So we make one. Option B: We acquire the technology to make one, but for some reason, no one ever does. Option C: We never reach that point.
That is, humans become extinct before we can build one. Technically, Bostrom believes people will strive for a simulation that'll help us understand our ancestry. But given our unwavering attachment to The Sims and Skyrim, I'd say it could really be anything. From the lab to your inbox. Get the latest science stories from CNET every week.
Let's first talk about the important day Bostrom refers to. That's the theoretical point at which we can finally make a simulation identical to all aspects of our world. Of course, technology has a ways to go before such a false reality can reach fruition, but it can't be ignored that digital advances have become seemingly unstoppable. Musk often cites that certitude while discussing the existential theory. At a conference, he explained that "40 years ago we had Pong -- two rectangles and a dot.
That's where we were. They are conscious aware beings who can touch, taste, move, smell and feel happiness and sadness. Read more: Curious Kids: is time travel possible for humans? But these futuristic beings are also running many simulations of the past — different versions they made up. Our guessing-game then is a bit like rolling a die with , sides. This means in every other scenario we are simulated, which is what you guessed. So your bet is a far better one.
The odds are only against my guess if we are assuming these beings exist and are running simulations. Suppose this is very unlikely. Then it would also be unlikely our world is simulated. Second, how likely is it such beings would run simulations even if they could? Maybe they have no interest in doing this.
0コメント