We Could Be Living Inside the Matrix
Source: (
https://bit.ly/3CpIbns)
What if we're all living inside an artificial computer-generated
simulation? Philosopher Nick Bostrom explains why this isn't
as far-fetched as it sounds.
ost of us assume that the world around us is real. We take it for
granted that everything we interact with is the true essence of
reality, and not an illusion created by someone else. After all,
this world is all we've ever known. We can explain how it works
using science and philosophy and other fields of knowledge
can't we? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom introduced his famous
"simulation theory" in which he explores the probability that we are
all living inside an artificial simulation. Bostrom discusses how
a future society could become so technologically advanced that its
inhabitants learn how to generate complex artificial worlds using
powerful computers. If this is possible, then the probability that
we are living inside a computer simulation, Matrix-style, is
extremely high.
The repercussions of this idea are unsettling. What if nothing we've
been taught about ourselves and the world is true? What if somebody
decides to switch off the simulation? Does this mean that there is
a God (in the form of our creators)? This article explores Nick
Bostrom's theory in more detail, as well as some of the philosophical
questions it raises.
In order to understand the simulation argument, Bostrom presents us
with a few premises to work with. He begins his theory by discussing
how an advanced "posthuman" society might go about developing an
artificial human mind. In this scenario, posthumans are types
of super beings who have managed to extend their cognitive and
physical capabilities beyond limits that we would consider normal.
Posthumans might be able to live longer than us, or have better
control over their emotions (i.e. they might possess immunity to
irrational phobias).
It's not unreasonable to believe that such an advanced society would
be capable of developing enormous computing power. Bostrom discusses
how much of this computing power could be used to replicate conscious
human minds. He also reflects on how posthumans might decide to
insert these artificial minds into a detailed and realistic
artificial environment. The only thing to remember here is that these
replicated minds must not be given any knowledge of the fact that
they exist inside a simulation.
When we think about the progress humans have already made in the
realm of video games, it's easy to see how giant, Earth-size computer
simulations could one day exist. When Pong first appeared in the
1970s, the game consisted of a few pixels on a screen that simulated
a 2D game of table tennis. Fifty years later, we can use virtual
reality headsets to enter 3D worlds and interact with life-like
simulated characters.
A future posthuman civilization could one day create a detailed world
on a much grander scale. A world where the characters believe they
are conscious, independent beings. A world where the environment
is so crisp and clear it is indistinguishable from reality. In other
words, a world like ours.
After working through a few calculations, Bostrom concludes the first
part of his paper by stating that posthuman civilizations would indeed
be able to generate enough computer power to run highly complex
simulations.
Bostrom believes that 'ancestor simulations' would be of particular
interest to posthumans. This is like us using computer power to
generate an accurate simulation of Ancient Rome or the Mongolian
Empire. But in this situation, we are the ancestors being simulated.
And somewhere out there, our technologically advanced descendants
are watching how we go about everyday life.
"We can conclude that the computing power available to a posthuman
civilization is sufficient to run a huge number of ancestor
simulations even if it allocates only a minute fraction of its
resources to that purpose" (Bostrom, 2003). So, what next? Well,
if we accept that one day humans will reach a posthuman stage capable
of running ancestor simulations, how do you know you aren't living
in such a simulation yourself?
Bostrom presents us with three possible answers. The first
proposition states that humankind will fail to reach a posthuman
stage to begin with. Humanity might go completely extinct, or
a disaster could occur on a massive scale which prevents further
technological advancement (i.e. worldwide nuclear war). In both these
scenarios, a posthuman civilization could never develop in the first
place. Therefore, ancestor simulations would never come into being.
Another option is that humans do reach a posthuman stage, but nobody
within this advanced society has any interest in running an ancestor
simulation. Perhaps they don't wish to use up their resources on such
an activity, or their society has instigated laws which ban this kind
of activity.
At first this second proposition seems highly improbable. After all,
many of us would love to be able to create a highly-detailed
artificial simulation of our favorite time in history, whether for
academic purposes or simply as pure entertainment. But we have
no idea what a posthuman society would look like. Although it seems
improbable now, human interests could well change radically in the
future. As Bostrom states: "Perhaps many of our human desires will
be regarded as silly by anyone who becomes a posthuman" (Bostrom,
2003). In this case, ancestor simulations would once again fail to
come into being.
In the third scenario, humans reach a posthuman stage and also choose
to run powerful ancestor simulations. Bostrom argues that if this
third proposition is correct, "then we almost certainly live in
a simulation."
The real world inhabited by this advanced society is often referred
to as the 'base reality'. If a base reality world is powerful enough
to create a thousand simulated ones, then what are the odds we are
living in the one 'true' reality? It's far more likely that we are
living inside one of the thousands of simulated worlds, rather than
the original real world. This is a deeply unsettling thought.
It means that everything we know about the universe is nothing but
a speck within a much larger reality that is completely hidden from
us.
Why would people bother running a simulation? Even in an advanced
society, creating a series of highly complex artificial worlds would
require a lot of resources and computer power. Depending on how the
simulation works, its creator might need to spend a fair amount
of time overseeing its operation too. So why would someone want
to do this in the first place?
In some ways, the first response to this question is: why not? Humans
already entertain themselves with games like The Sims. 'Playing God'
with a group of simulated humans is an acceptable and fun way to pass
the time. There is no reason to think this will somehow change in
future. This argument harks back to Bostrom's second proposition and
how unlikely it feels that posthumans would have zero interest in
running a simulation.
Some philosophers believe that an advanced civilization could also
use simulations to play out various disaster scenarios. For example,
you might run a sim in order to analyze which conditions are most
likely to cause permanent climate change. Or how a potential World
War III might play out. In this scenario, our simulation might run
right up until the disaster in question is about to occur. Or our
overlords might decide to keep running it and learn how humans would
survive such a catastrophic event too.
Bostrom does speculate that posthumans might be banned from running
simulations due to ethical reasons. Similar to arguments surrounding
advanced robotics, posthumans may decide that it's immoral to run an
entire universe in which human-like creatures believe they are real
and can feel pain, suffer and inflict violence on other conscious
beings.
The implications of simulation theory are fascinating and
occasionally terrifying. Bostrom discusses the main consequences
of the third proposition in his paper. For example, he speculates on
the religious implications. Posthumans would become god-like creators
overseeing their creation.
Eventually, their created simulations could become so advanced that
the simulated humans reach a (simulated) posthuman stage too, and run
their own simulations. And so on, forever! Bostrom reflects on the
possibility of a hierarchical religion emerging from this set-up, in
which the creators are the Gods and the simulations-within-simulations
are lower down the spiritual chain of being.
Many people also react with instinctive fear at the idea that we are
'unreal' in some way. Simulation theory increases the probability
that everything we think we know about the world is a lie. However,
Bostrom doesn't believe that proposition three should send people
into a frenzied panic.
"The chief empirical importance of (3) at the current time seems to
lie in its role in the tripartite conclusion established above. We
may hope that (3) is true since that would decrease the probability
of (1), although if computational constraints make it likely that
simulators would terminate a simulation before it reaches
a posthuman level, then our best hope would be that (2) is true"
(Bostrom, 2003).
Nick Bostrom wrote this paper in 2003. Technology has already
developed rapidly in the last couple of decades. Yet nuclear war,
climate change and even advances in AI threaten humanity's future
survival. It's still hard to say whether or not our human descendants
will reach a posthuman stage, and if they do - will they want to run
ancestor simulations?
Bostrom believes that we should place the same amount of belief
in all three propositions. He finishes by stating: "Unless we are now
living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never
run an ancestor simulation" (Bostrom, 2003). By his reckoning, if we
aren't already unwitting participants in a giant version of The Sims,
then it's highly unlikely we ever will be
