High technologies and the virtual reality we are creating have so absorbed the attention of mankind that some physicists and cosmologists suddenly asked themselves the question: is our Universe real? Could this be her gigantic simulation of reality? And should we think about it seriously or take such messages as a plot for the next fantastic film?
Not so long ago, "Am I the real one?" were of a purely philosophical nature. By asking it, thinkers tried to penetrate into the philosophical essence of the structure of the world. But now inquiries from inquisitive minds have gone to a different plane. A number of physicists, cosmologists and technologists console themselves with the thought that we all live inside a giant computer model, being nothing more than a part of the matrix. It turns out that we exist in a virtual world that we mistakenly consider to be real.
Of course, our consciousness is unable to cope with this: this reality, "given to us in sensations," is too bright, and it certainly cannot be a simulation: the aroma of coffee, the weight of a cup in the hand, the breeze blowing from an open window - how can we fake what our feelings tell us?
However, advances in information technology have given us computer games with supernatural realism, with autonomous characters that react to our actions. And we unwittingly plunge into virtual reality - a kind of simulator with tremendous power of persuasion. This is enough to make a person paranoid.
The virtual world, which has become a habitat for man and is perceived by him as reality, was shown to us by the Hollywood blockbuster "The Matrix". The universe created by our minds is perfectly revealed in the film by Terry Gilliam "Brazil" and David Kronberg's "Videodrome". All these dystopias gave rise to a number of questions: what is true and what is fiction? Are we living in delusion, or delusion - a virtual universe, the idea of which is imposed by paranoid science?
In June 2016, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk stated that the odds are "billion to one" against us living in "basic reality." Following him, artificial intelligence guru Ray Kurzweil suggested that "maybe our entire universe is a scientific experiment of some young schoolboy from another universe."
By the way, some physicists are ready to consider this possibility. In April 2016, the issue was discussed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Evidence? Adherents of the idea of a virtual universe give at least two reasons in favor of the fact that we cannot live in the real world.
So, cosmologist Alan Guth suggests that our universe may be real, but so far it is something like a laboratory experiment. The idea is that it was created by some kind of superintelligence, similar to how biologists grow colonies of microorganisms.
Promotional video:
Basically, there is nothing that precludes the possibility of "making" the universe with an artificial Big Bang, says Guth. At the same time, the Universe in which the new one was born was not destroyed. A new "bubble" of space-time was simply created, which could be pinched off from the mother universe and lost contact with it. This scenario could have some variations. For example, the universe might be born in some kind of test tube equivalent.
However, there is a second scenario that can nullify all our ideas about reality. It lies in the fact that we are fully modeled beings. We can be nothing more than lines of information that are manipulated by a giant computer program, like characters in a video game. Even our brains mimic and respond to simulated sensory inputs. From this point of view, there is no "escape from" matrix. This is where we live, and this is our only chance to "live" at all.
But why believe in such a possibility? The argument is simple enough: we've already done the simulation. We carry out computer modeling not only in games, but also in scientific research. Scientists are trying to model aspects of the world at different levels - from the subatomic to entire societies or galaxies. For example, computer modeling of animals can tell how they develop, what forms of behavior they have. Other simulations help us understand how planets, stars and galaxies are formed.
We can also imitate human society with fairly simple "agents" who make choices according to certain rules. It gives us insight into how collaboration between people and companies happens, how cities develop, how traffic rules and the economy function, and much more.
These models are becoming more complex. Who's to say that we cannot create virtual beings that show signs of consciousness? Advances in understanding the functions of the brain, as well as extensive quantum computing, make this prospect all the more likely.
If we ever reach this level, a huge number of models will work for us. There will be much more of them than the inhabitants of the "real" world around us. And why can't we assume that some other intelligence in the universe has already reached this point?
The idea of the multiverse. No one denies the existence of many universes, formed by the same way of the Big Bang. However, parallel universes are a rather speculative idea, suggesting that our universe is just a model, the parameters of which have been modified to give interesting results, such as stars, galaxies and people.
So we got to the heart of the matter. If reality is just information, then we cannot be "real" either, information is all that we can be. And is there any difference whether this information was programmed by nature or a superintelligent creator?
Apparently, in any case, our authors can, in principle, interfere with the simulation results or even "turn off" the process. How should we feel about this?
And yet, back to our reality. Of course, we love the cosmologist Kurzweil's joke about that genius teenager from another universe who programmed our world. Yes, and most adherents of the idea of virtual reality proceed from the fact that now is the 21st century, we make computer games, and it is not a fact that someone does not make super beings.
There is no doubt that many proponents of "universal modeling" are avid fans of science fiction films. But we know deep down in our hearts that the concept of reality is what we experience, and not some hypothetical world.
Today is the age of high technologies. However, philosophers have fought over the issues of reality and unreality for centuries. Plato wondered: what if what we perceive as reality are just shadows projected onto the walls of the cave? Immanuel Kant argued that the world around can be some kind of "thing in itself" that underlies the appearances we perceive. René Descartes, with his famous phrase "I think, therefore I am", proved that the ability to think is the only significant criterion of existence that we can testify.
The concept of a “simulated world” takes this ancient philosophical idea as its basis. There is no harm in the latest technology and hypotheses. Like many philosophical riddles, they prompt us to rethink our assumptions and biases. But while no one can prove that we exist only virtually, no new ideas change our understanding of reality to a significant extent.
In the early 1700s, philosopher George Berkeley argued that the world was just an illusion. In response, the English writer Samuel Johnson exclaimed: “I refute it like this!” - and kicked a stone.