The lack of proof of existence is recognized, but then we are faced with the task of proving that this is not true…
Recently, the widespread but largely faith-based idea of the existence of intelligent beings on other planets has been discussed. Despite the lack of convincing evidence, this idea is popular among many scientists.
The obsession that we live in a computer simulation is also of a similar nature. This hypothesis is supported by such famous personalities as scientific popularizer Neil Degrasse Tyson, X owner Elon Musk and astronomer Martin Rees. This idea is not so much a belief as a suspicion: the world around us is created by artificial intelligence.
Late last year, physicist Melvin Wopson of the University of Portsmouth published a study exploring the idea that we are just characters in an advanced virtual world.
"The simulated universe hypothesis suggests that what people perceive as reality is actually an artificial reality, similar to a computer simulation in which people themselves are constructs," says Wopson's paper.
Of course, if the simulation is as sophisticated as you might expect from an extraterrestrial intelligence, it's impossible to detect it. Unless a "red pill" is provided, as in the movie "The Matrix" (1999). But if we assume that our universe is a simulation, why should we believe in the existence of these "red pills"?
Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of Stony Brook University takes a "maybe" approach to this question. In his article for Ars Technica, he writes: "Once we realize that we can be simulated, we can be tempted to reject life — why is it necessary if it is not real? But the simulated universe is not a fake universe; it is simply real in a different way. The simulated pain still hurts. Simulated love is still strong. We can continue to be good guardians of our planet and generous to our neighbors."
However, this does not answer the question of why we should believe that we live in a simulation. To do this, Sutter refers to the arguments of the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom. Bostrom claims that our advanced descendants can simulate multi-consciousness universes. Thus, the number of simulated minds will significantly exceed the number of organic ones.
Dartmouth College theoretical physicist Marcelo Glaser is skeptical of the idea of simulation: "This is nothing more than an elaborate excuse to escape from reality." He worries that such ideas may interfere with solving real problems. Even if the simulation hypothesis is correct, the question arises: "Who is the First Simulator?"
It is pointless to oppose the proponents of the theory of simulation of reality, claiming that there is no evidence that we live in a simulation. After all, they will simply demand to prove the opposite. Here, the evidence is not decisive. The idea of a simulated universe is a way to come to terms with incomprehensible aspects of reality, without resorting to traditional religious beliefs. Similarly, engaging in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence allows you to avoid feelings of cosmic loneliness without turning to faith in God. Interestingly, in these concepts, alien civilizations are usually presented as more advanced than ours.
It is interesting that within the framework of these quasi-religious beliefs, extraterrestrial civilizations are often thought of as more advanced than human ones. If we understand the psychological functions of such beliefs among the scientific community, it will become clear why they continue to exist and attract interest, despite the lack of significant empirical evidence. Ideas about simulations of reality or highly developed extraterrestrials play a compensatory role, allowing us to come to terms with the limitations of our knowledge and loneliness in the Universe without resorting to traditional religious dogmas.
Recently, the widespread but largely faith-based idea of the existence of intelligent beings on other planets has been discussed. Despite the lack of convincing evidence, this idea is popular among many scientists.
The obsession that we live in a computer simulation is also of a similar nature. This hypothesis is supported by such famous personalities as scientific popularizer Neil Degrasse Tyson, X owner Elon Musk and astronomer Martin Rees. This idea is not so much a belief as a suspicion: the world around us is created by artificial intelligence.
Late last year, physicist Melvin Wopson of the University of Portsmouth published a study exploring the idea that we are just characters in an advanced virtual world.
"The simulated universe hypothesis suggests that what people perceive as reality is actually an artificial reality, similar to a computer simulation in which people themselves are constructs," says Wopson's paper.
Of course, if the simulation is as sophisticated as you might expect from an extraterrestrial intelligence, it's impossible to detect it. Unless a "red pill" is provided, as in the movie "The Matrix" (1999). But if we assume that our universe is a simulation, why should we believe in the existence of these "red pills"?
Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of Stony Brook University takes a "maybe" approach to this question. In his article for Ars Technica, he writes: "Once we realize that we can be simulated, we can be tempted to reject life — why is it necessary if it is not real? But the simulated universe is not a fake universe; it is simply real in a different way. The simulated pain still hurts. Simulated love is still strong. We can continue to be good guardians of our planet and generous to our neighbors."
However, this does not answer the question of why we should believe that we live in a simulation. To do this, Sutter refers to the arguments of the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom. Bostrom claims that our advanced descendants can simulate multi-consciousness universes. Thus, the number of simulated minds will significantly exceed the number of organic ones.
Dartmouth College theoretical physicist Marcelo Glaser is skeptical of the idea of simulation: "This is nothing more than an elaborate excuse to escape from reality." He worries that such ideas may interfere with solving real problems. Even if the simulation hypothesis is correct, the question arises: "Who is the First Simulator?"
It is pointless to oppose the proponents of the theory of simulation of reality, claiming that there is no evidence that we live in a simulation. After all, they will simply demand to prove the opposite. Here, the evidence is not decisive. The idea of a simulated universe is a way to come to terms with incomprehensible aspects of reality, without resorting to traditional religious beliefs. Similarly, engaging in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence allows you to avoid feelings of cosmic loneliness without turning to faith in God. Interestingly, in these concepts, alien civilizations are usually presented as more advanced than ours.
It is interesting that within the framework of these quasi-religious beliefs, extraterrestrial civilizations are often thought of as more advanced than human ones. If we understand the psychological functions of such beliefs among the scientific community, it will become clear why they continue to exist and attract interest, despite the lack of significant empirical evidence. Ideas about simulations of reality or highly developed extraterrestrials play a compensatory role, allowing us to come to terms with the limitations of our knowledge and loneliness in the Universe without resorting to traditional religious dogmas.
