{"id":505,"date":"2021-12-18T05:00:10","date_gmt":"2021-12-18T04:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sciencefocus.com\/?p=106640"},"modified":"2021-12-18T05:14:09","modified_gmt":"2021-12-18T04:14:09","slug":"the-matrix-are-we-living-in-a-simulation","status":"publish","type":"rss_feed","link":"https:\/\/c01.purpledshub.com\/bbcsciencefocus\/rss_feed\/the-matrix-are-we-living-in-a-simulation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Matrix: Are we living in a simulation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>

By Stephen Kelly\n \t\t<\/p>

Published: Saturday, 18 December 2021 at 12:00 am<\/p>

\n\n

It has been 22 years since The Matrix<\/em> popularised the idea that reality is an illusion and that we are all actually lying in pods of fluid, serving as nutrients for machines. It sounds fantastical to most people \u2013 typical science fiction \u2013 but there are certain scientists and philosophers who believe that The Matrix<\/em>, along with the long-awaited sequel The Matrix Resurrections<\/em>, raises some serious questions of whether we really are living in a computer simulation.<\/p>\n

So, are we? You take the blue pill and the article ends. You close the website and go back to descaling the kettle. You take the red pill and you keep on reading and Rizwan Virk<\/a>, computer scientist and author of The Simulation Hypothesis<\/em>, will show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s more likely than not that we are in some kind of simulation,\u201d says Virk, whose book is built upon a 2003 paper by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom<\/a> that asks whether we are living in a computer simulation<\/a>. It argues that the most probable outcome, among three options, is that an advanced civilisation will survive long enough to be able to develop the technology to create various simulated worlds.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis means that there are many simulated realities and there\u2019s only one base reality,\u201d explains Virk. \u201cTherefore, which reality are you most likely to be in \u2013 the 99 simulated realities or the one base reality? You\u2019re more likely to be in the 99.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a theory that is yet to be proved, but it hasn\u2019t been disproved either. One of Virk\u2019s big arguments is based on physicist John Wheeler\u2019s phrase \u2018it from bit\u2019, the idea that the basis of the Universe is not energy or matter but information, with each subatomic particle representing a bit. \u201cWe can basically 3D print any object, and genes are just data,\u201d says Virk.<\/p>\n

This feeds into his larger argument that if the multiverse \u2013 the hypothesis that every time a decision is made, it creates a new timeline \u2013 is real, it backs up the premise that reality is digital rather than physical. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing in nature that duplicates an entire large physical object, particularly in an instant,\u201d he says, \u201cbut it is pretty easy to duplicate information and then render that information as needed.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also cites the observer effect, a phenomenon in physics in which the mere act of watching something can change it. \u201cThat doesn\u2019t make sense if you live in a single physical reality,\u201d says Virk, \u201cbut in video games we only render the world when you need to see it. That suggests we live in a rendered world, where reality only exists when it is observed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s say it\u2019s true, let\u2019s say that we are all living in a computer simulation: who or what is on the other side? \u201cSome people say it\u2019s aliens,\u201d says Virk. \u201cIn Bostrom\u2019s simulation argument, the simulations are what he calls \u2018ancestor simulations\u2019 conducted by future versions of ourselves. It would basically be like us simulating ancient Rome.\u201d<\/p>\n

And why would they want to run a simulation of our world? \u201cWell, why do we run simulations? Usually it\u2019s to figure out different possible outcomes. We might run a simulation of, say, global nuclear war or climate change. We might run it multiple times to see what scenarios are more likely to lead to destruction.\u201d<\/p>\n

But if we live in a computer simulation, then how does that affect our approach to life? Doesn\u2019t it make everything meaningless?<\/p>\n

\u201cSome people say, \u2018well, it doesn\u2019t matter what you do\u2019. For me, it\u2019s not quite that,\u201d explains Virk. \u201cIt\u2019s more that I\u2019ve chosen to play this game, I\u2019ve chosen some of its quests and challenges. And it wouldn\u2019t be a very interesting game if everything was easy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Verdict:<\/strong> The simulation theory is sound, and we love Keanu Reeves, so it looks like we\u2019d better take the red pill.<\/p>\n