Do we live in a computer simulation like in The Matrix? Proposed new law of physics backs up the idea
Do we live in a computer simulation like in The Matrix? Proposed new law of physics backs up the idea
Do we live in a computer simulation like in The Matrix? Proposed new law of physics backs up the idea
The simulated universe theory implies that our universe, with all its galaxies, planets and life forms, is a meticulously programmed computer simulation. In this scenario, the physical laws governing our reality are simply algorithms. The experiences we have are generated by the computational processes of an immensely advanced system.
While inherently speculative, the simulated universe theory has gained attention from scientists and philosophers due to its intriguing implications. The idea has made its mark in popular culture, across movies, TV shows and books—including the 1999 film "The Matrix."
The earliest records of the concept that reality is an illusion are from ancient Greece. There, the question "What is the nature of our reality?" posed by Plato (427 BC) and others, gave birth to idealism. Idealist ancient thinkers such as Plato considered mind and spirit as the abiding reality. Matter, they argued, was just a manifestation or illusion.
Fast forward to modern times, and idealism has morphed into a new philosophy. This is the idea that both the material world and consciousness are part of a simulated reality. This is simply a modern extension of idealism, driven by recent technological advancements in computing and digital technologies. In both cases, the true nature of reality transcends the physical.
Within the scientific community, the concept of a simulated universe has sparked both fascination and skepticism. Some scientists suggest that if our reality is a simulation, there may be glitches or patterns within the fabric of the universe that betray its simulated nature.
However, the search for such anomalies remains a challenge. Our understanding of the laws of physics is still evolving. Ultimately, we lack a definitive framework to distinguish between simulated and non-simulated reality.
If we are, we're emergent behavior, not the topic of study.
Frankly, simulation theory feels a lot like other previous "humans are super special!" ontologies. We're not, we're just organic bags of complex chemical processes like every other lifeform on Earth, with all the cool potential and shitty vulnerabilities that such a thing entails. I've yet to see anything which truly sets us apart as a species beyond the need to ascribe a meaning to our mortality.
Also, phys.org is (yet again) trash and have just reposted this piece as "news" from a book advertisement by the author on theconversation.com but altered the title in a small but meaningful way that conceals the disclosure
Phys.org title:
Original title:
I got dubious as soon as the author talked about “my theory” and then there was the plug for his dumb book.
We are though. As far as we know, we're the only advanced life forms in the known universe. We've scanned the sky for decades and haven't found evidence of even a single culture, not within hundreds of millions of light years from us. That's pretty special. Yes, other animals are likely sentient, but there are no other animals that can build computers, jet engines, and spacecraft. There are no other animals that even have a spoken language as far as we know.
Compared to a being that can build a universe? A spacecraft might as well be a bird's nest. I'm inclined to agree with the guy that you're replying to. If this universe is a simulation, I personally doubt that its creator is specifically aware of us as a species, let alone as individuals. The fact that life appears so rare in this universe only tells me that if the universe was designed, it wasn't designed for us or entities like us.
Also are you sure about that last sentence? Surely none have language as sophisticated as we do, but don't dolphins have a sort-of language? I genuinely don't know
Actually, it mostly just means our detection methods probably still suck. We are still just trying to identify biomarkers by light refraction, which not only requires that the orbital body transit a star in our line of sight, but that it be large and close enough to register refraction through the atmosphere. And that's pretty new. The old methods were trying to intercept radio and other em signals.
"Decades" ago we had identified 1 or 2 potential planets in the "Goldilocks Zone", and people declared that it was in fact exceedingly rare for a solar system to even have planets, much less planets in the habitable zone. Now we have identified a LOT more potentials, nevermind planets.
You're looking through heavily dirtied goggles at a room that could be full of people and saying, "I don't see anyone, so I must be alone. I must be special."
This is very much a situation in which the "lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack" rule applies.
We only just noticed that Europa is probably a good candidate for life and it's been in our back yard forever. Saying we have no evidence for life in the universe is like saying that someone with vision too blurry to read signs sees no evidence of life across the street. Like, okay, but that doesn't really tell us much of anything.
Our sky scanning is also looking for radio waves, which is probably not a great candidate for finding advanced life outside of our own neighborhood.