Professor Greene Preston recently wrote in the New York Times that we may be living in a simulation, but we must not find out because if the experiment we will conduct to prove it is indeed successful, then the creators of the simulation will decide, in simple words, to lower the switch and turn off the light for all of us
The New York Times is known as one of the most respected newspapers in the world. Articles published in the newspaper receive wide exposure, and the general public - as well as prime ministers and international leaders - read them eagerly. The newspaper carefully selects the articles published in it, so it is worth paying attention to an opinion piece published last week, in which it is written that -
It is even stranger to realize that the author of the article is not a nuclear physicist or a biological warfare expert. In fact, he is a professor of philosophy. And the experiment he finds so threatening, does not involve the creation of antiparticles or black holes, but is mainly a thought experiment based on data analysis, and has one goal: to prove that we live in a simulation.
The author, Professor Green Preston, is afraid that if the experiment is indeed successful, the creators of the simulation will decide, in simple words, to lower the switch and turn off the light for all of us.
But maybe it's better to start at the beginning.
The simulation hypothesis
Philosopher Nick Bostrom is known as a 'professional irritant'. Among other things, he visits conferences of computer people and warns them that they may unintentionally develop a super-intelligence, and it - you probably guessed - could destroy the world. Still, his ideas are always interesting and worth reading, and in 2003 one of his most fascinating hypotheses was published: we might all be part of one big simulation.
What is meant by simulation? Think about the popular computer game - The Sims. This is a very simple simulation of human civilization today. You can raise a whole family of people in the game, who thanks to the computer get their own 'life'. It is clear to us that our sims do not feel anything, and are not endowed with independent thought of their own. But what will happen in a hundred, a thousand, or ten-thousand years, when the computing powers that will be at our disposal will be much greater?
Bostrom believes that our distant descendants will be armed with computers so powerful that they will be able to run simulations of human history at such a high level of detail that the animated characters will be able to think for themselves and make their own decisions. They will live and work in these simulations, fall in love with each other, get married and even give birth to children - that is, new characters in the simulation. And they will do all this without knowing at all that this is a computer simulation of a reality from the past.
Why would our grandchildren even want to create and run simulations of this kind? The answer is simple: just as we want to better understand the history of the human race, and for this we develop complex computer models, so our descendants will also want to understand how their parents existed and lived. Or maybe, when the computing powers are big enough, any child will be able to run a sim-like simulation, but at a much higher level. Perhaps such a simulation can be called a sim-universe.
And now, pay attention to Bostrom's logic: if even one future child runs such a simulation, then the chance that we are living in the simulation is 50:50. Why? Because if you have to guess whether you are 'real' or living in a simulation, and you know that you have no way of deciphering the answer, but there is at least one simulation in the world, then there is an equal chance that you live in a simulation, or in the physical-real world.
But Bostrom doesn't stop there.
When we want to understand the climate better, we don't create just one computer model. We run tens and even thousands of simulations of possible climatic situations, in each of which we change only one parameter: the wind speed, the humidity and so on. Even our descendants, when they want to understand the past, will not want to develop only one model. They will run - on their infinitely more sophisticated computers than ours - billions of different simulations of the past. Each of these simulations will run at a level of detail that will not allow the characters participating in it to understand that it is a simulation.
What are the chances now that you are living in a simulation? About one in a billion, according to the logic we described earlier. I,Roey Tsezana, cannot know for sure if I am the originalRoey Tsezana born in 1980, or if I am one of the billions of computerized characters created thousands of years later, each one of them believing that she--she is the onlyRoey Tsezana. The chance that I'm the only originalRoey Tsezana is ridiculously small. It's much more likely that I'm a character participating in the simulation, than I am the originalRoey Tsezana.
Sound crazy? Well, yes, but the idea began to take root in the hearts of some impressive people. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, who is probably the most respected scientific commentator in America, has already admitted that The probability that we are living in a simulation "may be very high". Elon Musk announced Because "there is a one in a billion chance that we are living in the base reality". George Smoot, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, believes that the odds are even more extreme, and that the chance that I am the original Roe Cezanne is only one in a trillion (Although he didn't specifically refer to me, but I guess it's just because he doesn't know me personally)
This, then, is the simulation hypothesis. As of today, it does not affect people's way of thinking, among other things because it is only an idea, which has not yet been proven.
But there are those - physicists, mainly - who try to prove that we really live in a simulation. And Preston believes that if they do, they could lead to the destruction of the entire universe.
Go prove that you don't have a trusted sister
Eight years after Bostrom proposed the simulation hypothesis, some physicists decided to take the matter seriously, suggesting ways to test the idea in reality. Or maybe in a simulation. If you are already confused, don't feel bad - you are in good company. In any case, in an article published in a modest but respected scientific magazine (The European Physical Journal A), the researchers guessed that even in the future computers will have limited computing power. It may be trillions of times greater than today's computing power, but still - it will be limited.
If indeed the computers will be limited in their power in the future, then the creators of the simulations will want to minimize the amount of calculations performed within each simulation. In other words, instead of running all the interactions between the subatomic particles in the entire universe, in trillions of parallel universes, the developers will use 'shortcuts'. They will, for example, focus much more on the Earth (the center of the universe, of course), and will not bother to invest to the same extent in the far ends of the globe. The researchers believe that through space observations we can detect irregularities in the way the universe works, which coincide with The simulation hypothesis.
Let's be clear for a moment: no one thinks we can prove with certainty that the simulation hypothesis is correct. At least not in the near future. But this, in the end, is how the scientific community works: put forward a hypothesis, create a series of predictions that should come true if the hypothesis is true, and then check whether these predictions are true. If so - then the hypothesis gets some merit points and becomes more plausible in the eyes of the scientific community. If the simulation hypothesis provides a large number of predictions that agree about the way the universe works... well, the scientific community may well accept the verdict, and conclude that the most likely hypothesis is that we are living in a simulation.
And this, as we have already said, may lead to the most terrible catastrophe of all, and to stopping the simulation in the middle.
Tower of Babel simulation
In one of the early stories in the Torah, the Tower of Babel is described - a tower of immense dimensions, which is supposed to reach up to the heavens themselves. The curiosity of the ancient Jewish god is aroused by the sight of the tower, and he descends for a moment from the clouds, and then decides to ruin the business for everyone. He makes all the workers speak different languages, and in this way stops the construction of the tower.
It is not entirely clear why God set foot on this impressive enterprise, but biblical commentator David Moshe Kasuto suggested that the construction of the tower was a form of defiance against God - a clearly bad idea, which led to the expected backlash from a being whose original solution to problems was to drown all humans and The foundation in the flood.
Let's return for a moment to the simulation hypothesis. Preston expresses concern that the creators of the simulation do not want us to understand that it is a simulation. After all, if they want to understand the history of humanity, they certainly don't want the characters in their simulations to understand that this is not really the actual reality! What will happen, therefore, if we discover that we are living in a simulation? What would happen if we started to explore the same simulation to understand it better? If we try to build the modern 'Tower of Babel' - ways to test the simulation, as a way to defy the creators who are not ready to accept the situation as it is?
The reaction of the simulation fans may be simple. They have billions of other simulations where the brainwashed humans behave nicely and remain ignorant. If the characters trained in one simulation do not behave properly, one can simply turn off that simulation, and redirect the computational resources that were freed up to the benefit of the other computerized universes. The problem is solved, you can continue. That is, unless you are one of the characters in that simulation, then you will disappear, all of you, with one push of a button from the great creators beyond the sky.
Or maybe the creators will choose to end the simulation in a way that is not immediately obvious. In one of the stories of Philip K. Dick, for example, describes a simulation of the middle of the XNUMXth century, which takes place in the distant future in a museum. When one of the viewers in the simulation enters it and thus 'contaminates' it, the managers decide to end the run in a short time - by inciting the computerized entities to start a nuclear war that will destroy all of humanity within the simulation.
So what is the solution? How can we decipher if we are living in a simulation or if we are 'original', without provoking the wrath of the creators?
Preston believes, quite simply, that we cannot do this. Or rather, he believes the risks are so great that we'd better avoid doing experiments that might prove we're living in a simulation. This is the same "catastrophic danger" that Preston warns about. He concludes that -
"The results of the proposed experiments will only be interesting when they are dangerous. There may be great value in understanding that we live in a computer simulation, but the price involved - the risk of destroying our universe - is many times greater. … Is it really worth the risk?”
Is it worth the risk?
Each person will answer Preston's question for themselves, but I would like to end this entry on a more optimistic note: Yes, I believe it is worth the risk.
why? Because even if the simulation hypothesis is correct, and we do live in a computerized world that runs a supercomputer, it is not clear what the purpose of the creators of the simulation is. Preston assumes that the creators want to learn about the history of the human race, and any deviation from human history will lead to the simulation stopping. But why choose this interpretation? Another possibility is that the creators want to test - for example - how long it will take the computerized entities to decipher that it is a simulation. Perhaps, from the moment we understand that this is a computer program, the creators will agree to 'pull' us out of the current simulation and transfer us to a better computerized world, without hunger, poverty and disease.
Or they will applaud us for our cleverness, then stop the simulation and delete us all, because they got the answer they wanted. Or they will consider the sanctity of life, and let us continue our lives inside the computer. Or they'll turn us all into pink flamingos. Hey, why not? Maybe they have such a hammer. Prove me wrong.
You can surely see the problem: it is very difficult to guess the motives of the creators of the simulation. Everyone can impose their way of understanding the world on them. Preston is right that if the simulation hypothesis is indeed true, then we run a risk when we come to this understanding. But it is not clear whether this risk is greater than the dangers of continuing life as usual, with all the catastrophes that the human race can cook for itself: from climate change to nuclear war.
So I believe that we should definitely examine the simulation hypothesis seriously, and I am ready to add one important reason: we might still be able to rebel against the creators.
the road to freedom
In one of the animated science fiction stories in the excellent TV series - "Love, Death, Robots" - a civilization of tiny 'lilliputs' is described, all living inside an old refrigerator. The couple who bought the apartment were surprised to find out that their refrigerator was inhabited by those tiny people who were the size of a pin head, but they didn't stop them from developing. The dwarves developed their technology quickly, jumped from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution and from there to the modern world, got into a nuclear war against each other, recovered and continued to advance science and technology. In a short time they reached a technological level more advanced than that of the humans in the story, and in a flash of light - they disappeared and moved, supposedly, to another universe.
It goes without saying that this is a science fiction story, but maybe it can also provide lessons about the simulation hypothesis and the way we choose to move forward.
If creators do exist, and they really developed - and are still running - the simulation we live in, then they have a lot to answer for. They could have made a better world, surely. They could have created a world without death, without pain, without depression. They chose, consciously, not to. This means that if those creators really exist, they are responsible for the suffering of every starving child, every elderly person who loses a human image due to insanity, every 'witch' put on the stake throughout history.
But if we realize that the simulation hypothesis is really true, we might still be able to rebel against them. Perhaps, as the science fiction series describes, we can develop our technology to an even more advanced level than the creators themselves - and then there will come a time of reckoning. And maybe, if not with the desired punishment, we can at least understand the laws of the simulation we live in, design it as we wish, and improve the computerized - but still completely real - lives of all human beings in the artificial 'universe' in which we live.
We will not reach these achievements by burying our heads in the sand. They require courage, boldness and a willingness to expose ourselves to truths that may undermine everything we believe in. They oblige us, among other things, to dare to test the simulation hypothesis seriously. If we find that the evidence supports it - we will have to accept the new world view and start acting accordingly. And if we find that the evidence doesn't support it, well, we'll have to stick with the status quo and realize that there are never any creators that can be blamed for the way things are today. So, once we understand this, humans will take responsibility for themselves, cooperate with each other, and improve the world on their own.
Right?
More of the topic in Hayadan:
41 תגובות
This is a theoretical idea
I did not understand,
So there is a creator of our world, who sees everything and can decide how to reward us including destroying us in a second?
I didn't think that the scientist would strengthen my faith
When it was written in Genesis that God created man in his image, this is what they meant. The creators of the simulation created human models just like them
The creators of the simulation will not decide to take down the shelter for a simple reason, they will want to know what happens to us after we found out that it is a simulation.
In my opinion the experiment will fail, or rather will not be effective-
If I had to create a resource-efficient simulation, I would create it according to the following rule:
What any person observes will follow the laws of the simulation, depending on his level of observation
What some person does not observe will act randomly or even not at all.
Sound complicated? Not especially, if you start under the assumption that the simulation recognizes the person's consciousness and knows how to follow its actions, which seems to me at least reasonable.
And it's very economical - how many people are there? And how many atoms/atomic particles and reaction options are there?
The simulation does not need to fully support itself even in a CAD environment.
Such an experiment will only succeed if and when we learn to observe everything, at every level, at every time and in every space. possible?
An additional independent methodology is needed to test a cost-effective simulation in the way I proposed.
A theory with a rather materialistic premise.
The whole statistical thing starts only after the assumption that our ability to create a "person" with "awareness" depends solely on the power of our computers.
A theory with a rather materialistic premise.
The whole statistical story exists only after the assumption that the ability to create a "person" with "self-awareness" depends on the power of our computers.
And here again is a "Torah" from the Midrash of "Grass Science" that there is nothing, no purpose, no benefit
One purpose it does serve is to relieve us of personal responsibility
We sages said: He who wants to lie will distance his testimony
And just as other futurists postpone their prophecies of rage until the days when we cannot come to an account with them for the pile of nonsense they spewed and constantly chewed just to justify their academic salary, so is the above
This is a theory equivalent to "splitting parallel universes" "Jehovah and everything else" and the like
If we assume that we are living in a simulation, does our simulation aim for us to destroy ourselves, whether with the help of nuclear weapons or by causing global warming? For all those who believe in God, he must be laughing at us when he promised not to cause another flood, and the one who causes the flood (sea level rise) is ourselves.
Is it possible to replace simulation? you are welcome…
If God is the creator and there are rules of reward and punishment, what else needs to be proven? This is a question that basically asks if there is a God or not?
This is a good opportunity to recall what one of the most important physicists of the 20th century, Dick Feynman (a Nobel laureate for his contribution to the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which still breaks all-time records in matching the accuracy of its predictions to experimental results) thought and said about the contribution of philosophers to the understanding of nature. zero. And in detail "those who do not understand why quantum theory challenges human logic, simply do not understand the basics of the theory".
Even if we live in a simulation, it shouldn't scare or change anything and we don't need to research it for years, it's better to deal with more important things and just enjoy and live life ("life") because in any case those who live now will die in less than a hundred years (maybe a little more ).
And belief in God is like belief that we live in a simulation - someone who created or built the world controls it...
Wow what a jerk the man is!!
Another point to think about, if the lives of all of us are conducted within a computer simulation designed to satisfy someone's curiosity/entertainment, why is it so important to continue this life? There is nothing to fear, either it will get better or it will stop being at all. It won't be worse.
Is there a situation that the entities that symbolize us are themselves symbolized? Most likely yes and even if this is the logical situation. There is no reason to assume that this is not the case. And if so - it must be assumed that everything is recommended because the entity that recommended our symbols - is also recommended. In other words, all conscious existence in the universe is intentional. And from here it is a short way to assume that all this leads to the conclusion that there is one source for everything from which the chain of symbols began. In other words - God. Those who believe in God - can connect to the idea that appears in the article. And those who don't - will probably not connect because otherwise they will be forced to conclude that God exists. Capish?
The argument that we are creators of a simulation and that if we try to outwit our simulation situation we will incur the wrath of the creator or the operator who will destroy the simulation - the same as the Tower of Babel scenario in the book of Genesis and probably other myths that have sprung up in the minds of people who have no life.
Everyone has the right to scare himself and others by believing in God Almighty, and to call him "the great programmer" or whatever "sophisticated" nickname he thinks. It is also possible to crown him with the title of "prophet" or with the title of "philosopher" but still this will not make him worthy of attention.
It is really megalomaniacal to think that humans are able by running an algorithm on a computer to destroy the entire universe
As they say: nonsense in tomato juice.
The reporter does not understand anything and a half about biological evolution.
Another philosophy that deals with this nonsense of the samsaric wheel of life. Conduct the experiment. I am ready to donate all my money to that end and even work an extra job overtime. Just so that masturbating philosophers of this type will shut up already and get an answer. We will not stop the universe or our existence even if we do eights in the air. -We- have no control over the universe or what lies beyond it. In any case, we do not have direct and active control. Even if there is a conscious being who created the entire universe, he really doesn't care what insights we did or did not reach and how close we are to uncovering him and his intentions. Complete indifference towards his lost "children".
Our attempt to attribute human motives to someone (...just for the sake of discussion...) whom we do not know and do not know about him or her or...thing and it is clear that his/her ability far exceeds ours is illogical. The Greeks created Zeus and Hera as instinctive human beings, the Jewish Jehovah is an infantile creature without empathy who constantly destroys his creatures, etc... The ancient Greeks and we belong to the same race, but since we know nothing and a half about the one who supposedly operates a simulation, any inferences to the reasons for the existence of the simulation or the conditions for its existence or non-existence in the future are not correct or more likely than idols for its name.
Happy to share
According to Kabbalah, this world is the third sketch - XNUMX. First, God created.
And the purpose of this 'simulator' is to see if we will be able to decipher from the data in the simulator that we are in the simulator and who is its operator. "All the orders of creation... until he is gifted in feeling divinity as he feels his neighbor" owner of the ladder.
And this simulator also had 2 restarts, the flood and the tower of Babel.
Belief in God = simulation
Can I share the article?
By the way, it is likely that the intentional consciousness is the one that will direct whether we can prove it in the future or not
What about the possibility that the creators of the simulation are also trapped in the simulation? Maybe our simuhmia is meant to help them find a way out of their simulation? And who created their simulation? Obviously, it is difficult to prove or impossible to prove that we are in a simulation, a dream, some kind of trance, which supposedly makes this issue legitimate or relevant. She still reeks of a real difficulty to contain the absence of a creator / god / spaghetti monster who created us in the camera, or as a simulation of her, some being that has goals and ideas, and is working to achieve something of...some human qualities...I wonder why she would have those...and why the ideas These arise precisely in our human minds... maybe because it's hot and getting hotter, who knows...
Comment "To Lorem Ipsum"
Yes, there are cheats in our simulation, in the holy language it is called "practical acceptance" and it is forbidden to use it because the goal is that everything behaved according to the laws set for us, the goal of these cheats is to help in cases where there is no other way, but they have a high price and are prohibited for anyone deal with it
What is allowed to be learned is defined as "Hasidism", the purpose of which is the recognition of the powers and limitations that exist within the simulation boundaries of our world (which is the second out of 50 thousand)
By the way, in our simulation we were only assigned 10 counts out of infinity, this is a very interesting and intriguing field to study
We are in a simulation but not computerized. Some kind of god created us as a simulation and has since died. We were left stranded without a supervisor.
The topic of simulation was discussed at length and extensively on different floors and occasions.
One of them is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jqyFChpqe4
The guest of the discussion Isaac Arthur has his own YouTube channel, which deals quite a bit with these questions and deals with future technologies next to the not very impressive space elevator.
I can't believe I read everything and all the risks, and still want to know
Apparently the answers about life are more important than life
If we live in a simulation then why should we be interested if they stop it.
The topic of the article is interesting though
The uplifting opening to the "respectable" New York Times media outlet is embarrassing and detracting, what is the purpose of us taking it seriously? Like the opening déjà vu which is a kind of copy of many media outlets who want you to understand that they are being quoted from something reliable and not just some bastioner, something along the lines of the widely known great father Yarom India, the sun of the nations, in his great wisdom agreed to accept the article so you can safely read it, trust him? In the real, non-recommended world, this media system failed to identify the reality and the trends in the context of some of the most important developments in human history at the geopolitical level in our regions and other spaces without any serious due diligence, not only that they mocked with arrogant and dismissive contempt for those who saw things differently, these are very serious mistakes that cast a shadow Heavy on their judgment, this was due to haste and ideological blindness of the writers there, a system that exists in a self-loop with the feds flattering themselves to the "amazing" articles, only to wake up the next morning in shock that everything is happening 180 opposite to the forecast, unfortunately there is no light at the end of the tunnel that is closed in a self-loop, all this Of course it doesn't invalidate everything they write, but sometimes it's appropriate to recalculate a route, no matter how beautiful your equation is, reality is the one that determines whether it's true or not - Richard Feynman https://youtu.be/LIxvQMhttq4,
Regarding the subject of the article in the original argument, there is a projection of the author of the idea, the philosopher Green Preston, on the creator of the simulation for his goals, but the argument can also be the other way around - a universe in which the living systems do not come to the recognition that they lived in the simulation after X years will be deleted because the purpose of the simulation is how the living creatures will behave after arriving In recognition of this, the idea of simulation is an interesting philosophical argument that was also raised by the philosopher Nick Bostrom and others (in the field other than AI, his warnings are certainly important), but it remains in the idea of simulation that it is worth remembering that there is no scientific proof for this
This is just a philosophical idea and it is known that when there is a big argument it should of course have a very serious proof to support it,
At the base of the claim is the assumption that an advanced civilization can achieve a calculation ability that simulates reality and here
It is worth mentioning that there is also a theoretical study by researchers who examine the limitations of calculation, one of the consequences of which is that we do not live in a simulation because it is not possible to create a classical computer that will contain all the possibilities of quantum systems, regarding a quantum computer it would be interesting to know what its limitations are and whether it can describe every piece From reality? And on the other hand, it is possible that you don't need a full description of reality to create a system with self-awareness within a simulation? Is there another possibility that self-awareness is a biological potential with survival value that evolved evolutionarily in a biological system and cannot exist in any other system? As other liquid can wait
Some of the properties of water but not all of them, so it is possible that self-awareness can only develop on a biological system with properties like we have and cannot be fully simulated these are only partially of the type in which
The recommended system will not have internal self-awareness, it will only present it as an external interface,
We will probably know the answers to this later,
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation
https://youtu.be/CUudAJQUK0o
Very interesting content, the physicist Brian Greene wrote in his book "The Hidden Reality" that creating universes that are a simulation is much simpler than creating a real universe, therefore statistically we live in a simulation.
And so my conclusion is that there is a God (is he the one who runs the simulation)?
interesting and "nice",
Except for the vanities of the religious believers
manage to derive from the philosophical exercise
It has no real meaning.
Just a small translation into Hebrew:
"simulation" = simulation,
"hypothesis" = assumption,
Anyone who has played a simulation is clear that there are "cheats" - modes of operation that "bypass" the laws of the universe. Given such an option in our universe, it is possible for people to exist who have the ability (which may be inherited) to activate this mechanism, which may bypass the laws of conservation of matter and energy, cancel gravity locally, and similar abilities. Obviously, a person born with this ability will need a long period of study to learn it and control his "powers" fully. It is also possible that the environment will not welcome those with this ability with open arms and they will withdraw into closed and secret communities, where they can make use of their powers. They probably did not know the source of their power and attributed it to "magic". They will create objects that may help them concentrate their consciousness to activate these "Zits" more effectively, and trade them in their hidden society.
In short, given the possibility of simulation, "Harry Potter" and his entire hidden society can exist, as well as a long series of fantastic realities, which include hidden gateways to other realities.
I wonder if there are cheats
Amazing, according to the teachings of Islam, all Muslims are part of God above and then at the end of the world when we unite with Allah...
Amazing according to Christianity, all Christians are part Jesuit from above and then at the end….
Amazing according to my theory of Tzachi Phai all the Tzahi are part of the huge Tzahi and then in the end it seems that we are inside one big Tzahi and that I was right, I am the great creator. Please send allowances to support my sublime ideas...
This question has no practical meaning!
(Except that I know they probably didn't invest in the "Next World" simulation)
An impressive article that rests strongly on the basis of the Torah of Israel
According to the Torah of Israel, we are indeed alive and surrounded by the Creator, or if translated into the language of the article, we are in a simulation and we are really not a real reality, the real reality is only the Creator, so far in relation to the world
With regard to Israel, the situation is different, they are truly a part of the Creator "a part of God from above" and yes, in the stage of redemption there will be no hunger, war, jealousy and competition, because then we will return to our highest rank and therefore at the end of the sixth millennium the world will be destroyed, or in the language of the article, the simulation will stop and we will truly be us
It's amazing that they brought an article with such depth that completely describes what is taught in the Torah of Israel and in a newspaper with such a wide influence
The creator of the simulation should be warned not to take down the shield, because he himself lives in the simulation, and he should not annoy its creators.
Very interesting, thank you very much
I pray every day for the simulation operators!