Elon musk explained why humanity lives in the matrix. Elon Musk: We live in a huge virtual game The Red Pill and the persuasiveness of The Matrix
At Code Conference 2016: There's only a one in a billion chance that humanity Not lives in a computer simulation.
Our reality is hardly the main one. It is much more likely that the world around us and ourselves are virtual entities created by an overdeveloped civilization, a level that we may reach 10 thousand years later.
Musk argues his thesis as follows:
In the 1970s we had "Pong" - two rectangles and a dot. Now, forty years later, we have realistic 3D simulations with millions of people all over the world at the same time.
Elon Musk
founder of Tesla Motors, SpaceX and PayPal
Gradually we learn to create more and more realistic copies of reality. Consequently, sooner or later we will come to the point where reality will be indistinguishable from simulation. It is quite possible that some civilization has already traveled this path before us, and our world is one of its many experiments.
Musk made his argument even harsher: “Either we create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.”
Musk’s answer clearly reflects the ideas of the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who back in 2003, in his famous work “Are we living in a computer simulation?” (Russian translation) proposed three versions of the existence of humanity:
Civilizations die out before reaching the post-human stage, at which they can surpass human biological capabilities with the help of technical inventions and build artificial models of consciousness.
Civilizations that reach the level where they can simulate artificial reality at will are, for some reason, disinterested in doing so;
If points 1 and 2 are wrong, then there is little doubt that we are living in a computer simulation.
Within the framework of this hypothesis, reality may not be singular, but multiple.
The post-humans who developed our simulation may themselves be simulated, and their creators, in turn, too. There may be many levels of reality, and their number may increase over time.
Nick Bostrom
Professor at Oxford University
If the hypothesis is correct, after some time we ourselves will be able to reach the stage of “creators” of the virtual world, which will become “real” for its new inhabitants.
Apparently, it was Bostrom’s model that made Elon Musk assume that we have little choice: either create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or cease our existence and development. The option that posthumanity, for some reason (for example, ethical) will not be interested in creating virtual worlds, is not seriously considered by Musk.
Bostrom himself, however, is not sure which of the three scenarios is closer to the truth. But he still believes that the virtual reality hypothesis must be taken seriously. Shortly after Musk’s statement, the philosopher gave his comments, in which he confirmed this once again:
It is important to understand that the fact that we are in a simulation carries not a metaphorical, but a literal meaning - that we ourselves and this entire world around us, which we see, hear and feel, exist inside a computer built by some advanced civilization.
Some time later, a detailed article by philosopher Riccardo Manzotti and cognitive scientist Andrew Smart, “Elon Musk is wrong,” appeared on the Motherboard portal. We don’t live in a simulation” (a short version of the article in Russian was published by Meduza).
Simulation is always objects of the material world that exist in reality. Information does not exist separately from atoms and electrons, virtual worlds - from computers, which, in turn, are part of the physical world. Therefore, we cannot separate the “virtual” from the “real”.
A simulation that is indistinguishable from reality ceases to be a simulation. Mere technological progress does not make virtual models more realistic: a drawn apple will not become more real if we add even more pixels to it. If we create an apple that can be eaten - a chemical and biological material apple - then by definition it will cease to be a simulation.
Any simulation needs an observer. Simulation is inseparable from the consciousness that perceives it. But the brain, which serves as the source of consciousness, is not a computing device. This is an extremely complex biological machine that can hardly be reproduced using algorithmic components. If full-fledged artificial intelligence is created, it will be very different from human intelligence.
Opponents accuse Musk of Cartesian dualism and Platonic idealism, which dates back to the earliest philosophical debates about the nature of reality. Indeed, his hypothesis suggests that simulation can somehow be separated from material reality, as well as a distinction between the basic, most "real" world - and its virtual emanations. No matter how many levels of simulation there are, behind them there is always one, the last one, which is the source of all the others.
But for those inside the simulation, this division makes no sense. If other, more genuine levels of reality are inaccessible to us, then it is useless to talk about them. All we know is that the apples are real and not simulated, even if on some “deeper” level they are a simulation.
This dispute is reminiscent of Borges's old story about a country in which cartographers created a map that, in size and in all details, was an exact copy of this country itself (this metaphor, by the way, was used by Baudrillard in his famous work “Simulacra and Simulation”).
If a map is an accurate reproduction of a territory, then is there any sense in the division between “map and territory”, “reality and simulation”?
Moreover, Musk's model revives theological quandaries on which people have (for lack of a better word) spent their intellectual resources for centuries. If the world has creators, then why is there so much evil in it? Why do we live: is this just a random experiment, or is there some kind of secret plan in our lives? Is it possible to reach that “deeper” level of reality, or can we only make our own assumptions about it?
The first question, of course, can be answered with the words of Agent Smith from The Matrix that “humanity as a species does not accept a reality without suffering and poverty,” so even an artificial reality should be just like that. But this does not remove the basic difficulties. In addition, it is very easy here to switch to conspiracy logic, assuming that everything around is an illusion, the fruit of a conspiracy of intelligent machines (aliens, masons, the US government) against humanity.
In many ways, the "virtuality" hypothesis is theology in disguise. It cannot be proven and cannot be disproven.
Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of this hypothesis is the assumption that consciousness can be simulated using computer technology. Our brains are not made of silicon chips, and algorithmic calculations are far from their main function. If the brain is a computer, then it is an unregulated computer with many contradictory operators and components with unclear purposes. Human consciousness cannot be separated not only from matter, but also from the environment - the social and cultural context in which it participates.
So far, no one has reliable evidence that all these components can be technically “simulated.” Even the most powerful artificial intelligence will most likely be as far from human consciousness as a real apple is from the Apple logo. It will be no worse and no better, but completely different.
A frame from the film Inception was used in the design of this article.
When Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk made waves during Code 2016 by declaring the high probability that humanity exists within an artificial, virtual universe, the public reacted strongly. Fans of The Matrix were delighted, but some were truly horrified. Alas, new research has shown that there is no and cannot be any supercomputer that supports the existence of millions of people in a simulated reality. We are not talking about philosophy or a special view of life - only about bare facts.
Is The Matrix a lie?
A recent study by theoretical physicists from the University of Oxford, which was published in the journal Scientific Advances just last week, finally confirms that life and reality are not products of computer simulation. Researchers led by Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi came to this conclusion after noticing a new connection between gravitational anomalies and the complexity of quantum computing.
Proponents of the simulated universe theory, such as Musk himself and popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, often point to the increasing capabilities of modern computer systems as evidence that reality can be emulated. In concept simulated universe, which became popular thanks to the British philosopher Nick Bostrom back in 2003, there is a high probability that in a hypothetical future, highly developed civilizations will develop realistic virtual simulations that create the illusion of past eras. For us, this “past” is quite present, and the simulations themselves would be appropriate to compare with computer games, which also recreate interactive pictures of ancient civilizations.
However, according to a new study, creating such a complex simulation seems impossible even in theory. The reason is simple: in the known part of the Universe there are simply no elements capable of forming mechanisms with such high computing power to simulate something so colossal.
Reality or simulation: physicists against speculation
The Oxford team wondered: Is it possible to build a computer simulation powerful and complex enough to capture the quantum effects of many physical bodies? For those who are poorly versed in quantum physics, we explain that in our Universe the number of interactions of quanta with each other is so great that it simply defies description. Specifically, the scientists tested an anomaly known as the quantum Hall effect using Monte Carlo, a computational technique that uses random sampling to study complex quantum systems.
The researchers found that to accurately model quantum phenomena occurring in matter, the system must be extremely complex. This complexity increased exponentially as the number of particles needed to model the full picture increased. As a result, it became clear that this impossible purely physically - and this despite the fact that physicists included in their calculations only part of the world known to mankind, and not the entire Universe. Scientists especially noted that to store complete information about even a couple of hundred electrons, a computer memory with a larger number of atoms than there are in the world is needed. “However, we cannot exclude the possibility that some physical property (meaning a characteristic of a hypothetical simulation) specifically creates an obstacle to efficient classical simulation of many-particle quantum systems,” they write.
The physical limitation demonstrated by the researchers is quite enough to negate all hypotheses about superintelligence forcing people to live in a huge computer simulation. Contrary to the statements of Musk or Tyson, the achievements of mankind, apparently, are still the merit of the people themselves and their painstaking work, and not of a predetermined program that leads the development of mankind along a course set from above.
However, it cannot be said that a person knows the Universe so well as to make such statements with 100% confidence. The assumption of probabilities, even fantastic ones, is one of the qualities thanks to which people make more and more breakthroughs in science, time after time pushing the boundary of the “impossible” further and further.
Elon Musk, the founder of the private aerospace company SpaceX, Tesla and the Boring Company, believes that we are all probably locked in a world like the matrix. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old, so any civilizations that could arise during this period in space would have had time to create super technologies that would allow them to simulate reality.
“If you assume a certain rate of progress, eventually games will become indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist. One of these two things has to happen,” Musk said. - “Since we still exist, we are most likely in a simulation.”
Musk suggests that there are many different simulations, united in a multiverse. According to the entrepreneur, the "substrate" on which these simulations run (whatever that may be) is quite boring, at least compared to the simulations themselves. At the same time, he refers to video games and films that humanity makes, because they, as a rule, are also more interesting than reality.
The billionaire entrepreneur is far from alone in this interpretation. A number of physicists, cosmologists and philosophers find the simulation hypothesis compelling. If even one advanced alien civilization once developed a passion for creating simulations, there could theoretically be millions or even billions of “fake” universes. At the same time, it would be difficult for residents of the digital spheres to find out the truth, since they can only get any evidence from the creators.
The idea of modeling is also one of many possible explanations for the famous Fermi paradox, the main question of which is “Where is everyone?” (by “everyone means aliens”).
Believes that there is only one chance in a billion that our reality is not a fake. Mashable journalists provided 21 proofs of his words.
The simulation hypothesis was first introduced in 2003 by philosopher Nick Bostrom. He suggested that if there are many sufficiently advanced civilizations, they tend to create simulations of the universe (or parts of it), and we are likely to live in one of them.
According to Musk, the chances that this is not the case are negligible.
“There is only a one in a billion chance that our reality is genuine,” he said. As evidence for his claim, he cited the fact that humanity has achieved amazing technological progress in just a few decades.
“Forty years ago there was only Pong with two rectangles and a dot. This is what the games looked like. Now we have photorealistic 3D simulations that are played by millions of people at the same time, and they get better every year. […] If we assume that games continue to improve, then very soon they will become indistinguishable from reality.”
If these prospects do not seem rosy to you, do not rush to get upset. Musk believes that living inside a simulator has its advantages.
“It may happen that our civilization will stop developing due to some catastrophe that will put an end to it. So we have to hope that this is all just someone's simulation."
Many people consider Musk's theory dangerously irrational, but watching the news, you might come to the opposite opinion. Here are some facts to support the fact that the world we live in cannot be real.
We "most definitely" live in a virtual "Matrix", says Elon Musk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitel...
Adam Boult
Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, told an interviewer there was only a "one in a billion" chance that we do not live in a virtual matrix.
Speaking at San Francisco's Code Conference this week, Musk said he had "so many discussions about modeling this madness" and that it had converged to a point where "every conversation [he was involved in] was an AI/'virtual conversation'" .
He also argued that if we do not get used to the "matrix", the world could be approaching the end of the world.
Making what he described as a "strong argument" for achieving a "consensus of reality in virtuality," Musk said: "Forty years ago we had 'Pong.' Like, two rectangles and a dot [on them]. That was back then." games like this.
"Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulated games with millions of people playing at the same time, and they get better every year. Soon we will have "virtual reality, augmented reality."
"If we assume that this rate of 'improvement' continues, then games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if the rate of 'advancement' drops to a thousand times what it is now. Then you just say, 'Okay, let's pretend that it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale."
"So given that we clearly remain on a trajectory where games are no different from reality, and those games can be played on any set-top box or PC or whatever, and there will probably be billions of them out there on computers or terminals, It would seem that this would imply that the probability that we are in basic reality is one in billions.
"Perhaps we should hope that this is true," he continued, "because if a civilization stops developing, it may be due to some natural event that wipes out civilizations. So perhaps we should hope that it is a simulation , because, otherwise, we will create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist. We are unlikely to move into some kind of multi-million-year-old state.
Philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed the idea that "we could be living in a computer simulation controlled by our descendants" in 2003. Ten years later, Discover magazine reported that physicists had found a way to test whether we were living in a simulation by studying radiation from space.
The "cosmic ray test", developed by nuclear physicist Silas Beeney, involves scientific methods of modeling space using a lattice or grid.
Beeney told the magazine that the "simulators" that control our universe may well be simulated themselves; such as the “dream within a dream” effect, which can make any scientific research meaningless.
He said: "If we are, in fact, an imitation, then it would be logical, perhaps, that what we are measuring are not actually the laws of nature, they are some kind of models in some other "artificial law" which " imitators came up with."
Some scientists are skeptical about the “matrix theory”.
Professor Peter Milliken, who teaches philosophy and has a computer science degree at Oxford University, said: “The theory seems to be based on the assumption that a 'superintelligence' would behave in the same way we do.
"If they think this world is a simulation, then why do they think that the 'superintelligence' - which is beyond the simulation - will be limited to the same kinds of thoughts and methods that we have?"
However, he does not deny that it was interesting to conduct research on such theories.
"It's an interesting idea, and it's great to have crazy ideas like that. We don't want to censor ideas on the basis that they seem reasonable or not, because sometimes important new advances can seem crazy at the outset."
"You never know when good ideas can come from a mind 'outside the box.'" This matrix is a thought experiment, in fact, a little reminiscent of some of the ideas of Descartes and Berkeley, hundreds of years ago.
“Even if this world turns to nothing, the fact that you have a habit of thinking crazy things may mean that at some point you will think about something that initially may well seem like a way out, but then it turns out that You can't be crazy about everything."
