Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
Is Our Reality Actually a Simulation?
The idea that our reality could be the result of a simulation generated by an advanced intelligence is one that is becoming increasingly embraced. Before Elon Musk and other popular influencers brought this idea to the forefront of media attention, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at The University of Oxford, formulated his simulation argument that has since gained significant traction.
Imagining a day in which technology is capable of mimicking and stimulating our daily senses is easier to fathom with our seemingly exponential advancements. If or when we have the ability to run computer simulations by creating sentient beings would we do it and for what purpose? This question comes with numerous ethical and moral dilemmas.
It seems that a precursor or parallel to this reality would be one in which our consciousness could be uploaded to a computer or ulterior platform. While this may seem implausible, the idea of substrate-independence provides a possibility. Bostrom posits this idea in the possibility of imprinting consciousness. Essentially, the assumption is that if the system generating consciousness is built sufficiently it can be applied to man or machine.
Practically Implementing Consciousness
Although the computing power necessary to mimic our brain function is not yet attainable, Bostrom broke down how much computing power it would hypothetically take. He equated that the amount of power it would take to stimulate the central nervous system would be tantamount to the amount of energy it would take to stimulate a human mind. This amount of power would equate to between ~1014 and ~1017 operations per second. Other difficulties arise in harnessing the computing power to create an environment. Bostrom thinks that to save computing power it would be possible to implement ad hoc realities as they are discovered, giving the example of humans discovering quantum particles and their ambiguities.
The Holographic Universe: Living in a Simulated Reality with Linda Moulton Howe
Linda Moulton Howe explores the possibility that we are but one simulated universe nested within a series of simulated universes. Far beyond the limits of our corporeal reality a strange holographic projector transmits information that we perceive as physical reality. An increasing number of scientists are accepting the idea that our reality is a holographic projection and new data comes to light which suggests that this projection is artificial in nature
Error-Correcting Codes
In his study of string theory and more specifically supersymmetry, Dr. Jim Gates a physicist from the University of Maryland, claims to have discovered error correcting codes in fundamental particles like quarks and leptons. These types of codes are more commonly known for their use in computing. Gates claims that these codes found in his study of nanoparticles are essentially the same as a very particular type of code that allows for the functioning of browsers.
“When you then try to understand these pictures you find out that buried in them are computer codes just like the type that you’d find in a browser when you go to surf the web. And so I’m left with the puzzle of trying to figure out whether I live in The Matrix or not,” Gates said.
What’s the Probability
When Elon Musk was asked recently about whether he believes we live in a computer simulation, he said that the chance of us living in what he calls ‘base reality’ or an organic, non-computer simulation is one in billions. Others believe that there is a proportionate possibility that we are or are not living in a simulation.
Bostrom’s simulation argument believes that there are three possibilites:
- The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage
- Any “posthuman” civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)
- We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
The idea that we live in a computer simulation has lead theorists to the idea that there could potentially be layers of simulations, like a Russian Matryoshka doll. These layers of simulation could present myriad questions as to the source reality or how this may fall in line with string theory’s idea of a multiverse in which numerous if not infinite universes exist.
About the Author
Electric Universe Theory: The Science, Models and Controversy
Electric Universe Theory: The Science, Models, and Controversy
Before Einstein created his unique theorems on relativity, deflating Newton’s theories on gravity, Nikola Tesla posited the idea that electricity and energy were responsible for almost all cosmic phenomena. Tesla saw energy and electricity as an “incompressible fluid” of constant quantity that could neither be destroyed nor created.
If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration.
— Nikola Tesla
What Did Einstein Conclude?
Einstein suggested and eventually proved (to a degree) that gravity is a curvature within a measurable reality, which he termed “space-time.” When you add time to the coordinates of length, width, and height, you get space-time. Consider space-time as a material fabric. When a mass or object is large enough, it can cause the fabric to warp.
Consider what happens when you lift your knees under a blanket. It warps the blanket. You can see that your knees (a mass) created a bend or cavity. This warp structure (bend, cavity) is gravity.
There’s much more to it, but this gives us a foundation to help us understand the beauty and challenges behind the Electric Universe Theory.
