The Matrix blog: Are we living in a simulation?
When I first started my research on this following question: "Are we living in a simulation?", the first article that showed up was Nick Bostrom's titled article "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?", where he explores scientific and philosophical arguments around the idea that we live in a virtual simulation. In this article, Bostrom proposes that advanced civilizations could create simulations so realistic that inhabitants within them would be unaware of their artificial nature, and that we may, in fact, live in such simulations as we speak at this very moment (Bostrom, 2003). Throughout this discussion, Bostrom mentions a race of posthumans, which are simulated beings--people--that are capable of being conscious entities amongst this simulated reality (like Neo, from The Matrix). However, such hypothesis is counterargued after asking the question: "if there were a substantial chance that our civilization will get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come we are not living in such a simulation?", since it will have to take a super mega computer and a convergent interest from post-human advanced civilizations in order to run such ancestor simulations.
Despite this hypothesis, Nick Bostrom's arguments are the vivid base of many other discussions surrounding the question of living in a computer simulation, since I have found numerous articles that referenced Borton's points. In an article titled We are living in a Computer Simulation", the author states that "In the future, the computer will be powerful enough to compute all details in physical reality, and will create a computer-simulated world. Currently, it is possible to simulate virtual reality by digital computer. Virtual reality is digital computer-simulated reality. Virtual reality is used in flight simulation to train people to be pilots," (Ding-Yu Chung, 2016), but also states that, interestingly: "For the narrative of our universe, our universe is in the reversible multiverse where all physical laws and phenomena are permanently reversible, and temporary irreversibility of entropy increase is allowed through reversibility breaking, symmetry violation, and low entropy beginning. The multiverse has been studied extensively" (Ding-Yu Chung, 2016), thus illustrating how physical laws are and can be broken when considering this hypothesis, where posthumans might have the ability to manipulate their existence and experiences, potentially allowing them to undo mistakes or explore different paths of existence (which is a consistent theme in The Matrix).
I also found a counterargument to the validation of such a hypothesis in Peter Kassan's article
I am not living in a computer simulation, and neither are you, where he states that "Descartes, whose cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am--was the first step in an attempt to figure out what can be reliably known, although he considered not a computer program creating the illusion of his body and his world, but an evil demon," (Kassan, 2016), which in The Matrix, robots and AI can interpreted as demons trying to manipulate and control humans under their minds and colonial hive. Nonetheless, Kassan also mentions an interesting concept such as the "brain-in-a-vat", which is the scenario where a brain is removed from a body and placed in a vat, connected to a computer that simulates experiences as if the brain were still in a normal body, thus interacting with the world (which is exactly what's happening in The Matrix when Neo takes the red pill and escapes from the hive). However, this statement just raises skepticism about our perception of reality. Even so, Kassan mentions that some rules to keep in mind in order to consider this computer simulation and to consider posthumans' similar cognition to humans of being true are:
"*The brain is an information processor.
* A computer is an information processor. (Computers used to be called data processors, but they've been promoted.)
* A computer can be programmed to process the same sort of information the brain processes in the same way that the brain processes information.
* The conscious mind arises from information processing in the brain.
* Therefore, a conscious mind will arise from equivalent information processing on a computer." (Kassan, 2016).
Despite these rules, Kassan argues that our brains are not like computers, since if we were programmed to think that aliens existed, or constantly wondered about our existence, then we are all screwed. He states: "If you believe you're living in a computer simulation, then everything you think you know about the world--including its vastness, the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and even the very existence of computers--is part of that simulation, and so is completely worthless. The evidence on which the entire chain of reasoning depends, in short, is illusory--and so nothing at all can be argued from it" (Kassan, 2016) since, as stated earlier, "the brain isn't actually a computer. What the neurons in the brain are doing isn't dependent on their interpretation" (Kassan 2016) and, in a more scientific way: "Our recordings of brain activity (for example, fMRIs) provide us data--but it's not data being processed by the brain itself. Our neurons are not interpreting signals, they're simply behaving as they evolved to behave" (Kassan, 2016).
In another article, the author states that for Louis Althusser "the computer is the mechanism of 'God’s intellect'" (Baker, 2015), thus suggesting a philosophical perspective on how computers mimic human though and/or intellect through AI, even surpassing human capacities as well. The article follows such a statement with the following one: "What has become known as the Turing test for artificial intelligence suggests that a machine capable of convincing a human being through blind question and answer that the latter is actually conversing with another human being (rather than with a machine) is therefore 'thinking'" (Baker, 2015), which is a principle appearing in Brostrom's paper. However, this principle, as articulated by Nick Bostrom, is far from universally accepted, since in John Searle’s paper "Minds, Brains, and Programs," he explains that "computers, although deemed capable of simulating human behavior, cannot understand the syntax of their computations" (Baker, 2015), which is a principle we see in The Matrix, but most certainly in AI with David, who doesn't understand how his behavior affects his family.
As for my own personal opinion, I don't necessarily think that we live in a simulation, because why would us, in such a simulation, should question about our existence constantly? We are not programmed to think, we are perhaps programmed to become someone as we develop into adulthood, as Jean-Paul Sartres would argue, but I do believe we have free will, unless we're under extreme circumstances that limit our choices in life. Wouldn't this certain "revelation" lead to a certain revolution against whoever is manipulating us, if that is even the case? I personally think that some people behave like NPCs (Non-Playable Characters), especially when they live under a rock or worship celebrities like mindless zombies, not learning about the world, and these people make me question if they are brain dead or part of such hypothesis of a simulation. Personally, I don't think we are, seeing how things are going from here on out with war, politics and technological advancements.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario