The theory of the matrix of the universe. Universe simulation hypothesis. How to test this hypothesis

Ecology of consciousness. Life: In this discussion about whether our world is real or fictional, another important argument is practically not heard...

You've probably heard it before: our world may be a sophisticated computer simulation that makes it feel like we're living in a real universe. Elon Musk recently raised this topic. And he may very well be right. But in this discussion about whether our world is real or fictional, another important argument is practically not heard: it doesn't matter at all.

But first, let's figure out why the world can be a simulation. Similar ideas were put forward by the ancient Greeks - what we can call computer simulation, they considered, for example, dreams. And the first thing you need to understand is our perception of reality does not equal reality itself. Reality is simply a collection of electrical impulses interpreted by our brain. We perceive the world indirectly and not in the most perfect way. If we could see the world as it is, there would be no optical illusions, no color blindness, or all sorts of tricks to mislead the brain.

Moreover, we perceive only a simplified version of this sensory information. Seeing the world as it is requires too much processing power, so our brains simplify it. It constantly looks for patterns in the world and correlates them with our perception. Therefore, what we call reality is only the brain's attempt to process incoming data from the senses.

And if our perception depends on this simplified flow of information, it does not matter what its source is - the physical world or a computer simulation that throws the same information at us. But is it possible to create such a powerful simulation? Let's look at the universe from a physicist's point of view.

Fundamental Laws

From a physical point of view, The world is based on four fundamental interactions:

• strong,
• weak,
• electromagnetic,
• gravitational.

They control the behavior of all particles in the known universe. It is quite easy to calculate the action of these forces and simulate the simplest interactions, and to some extent we are already doing this. But the more particles interacting with each other are added to this picture, the more difficult it is to model. However, this is a question of computing power.

Right now we don't have enough computing power to simulate the entire universe. Physicists might even say that such a simulation is impossible - not because it is too difficult, but because the computer simulating the universe would be larger than the entire universe. And this is obviously an impossible task. However, there is a flaw in this logic: simulating the entire universe and creating the feeling that you live in a certain universe are not the same thing.

Many computer problems would be impossible to solve if our brains weren't so easily tricked. For example, we watch a movie or video on the Internet, which is transmitted with a delay and in fragments, but we perceive it all as one sequential stream. The logic is simple: you need to reduce the detail to a level at which the optimal compromise between quality and complexity is achieved and at which the brain stops making distinctions.

There are a lot of tricks to reduce the need for computing power when simulating the universe. The most obvious thing: do not process or show what no one is looking at. Another technique is to make it seem as if the universe is huge and infinite, when in fact it is not. This technique is used in many video games: by reducing the detail when depicting “distant” objects, we save a lot of effort and generate objects only when the player actually detects them. For example, in the game No Man's Sky, a huge virtual universe is generated on the fly as the player explores it.

Finally, fundamental physics principles can be introduced that make it extremely difficult or impossible to reach any other planet, meaning those experiencing the simulation are locked into their own world (speed of light, ever-expanding universe - yep, yup).

If you combine these approaches with some mathematical techniques (like fractal geometry), you can create a pretty decent simulation of the universe that relies on the heuristic principles of our brain. This universe seems endless, but it's just a trick.

However, this in itself does not prove that - as Musk and other proponents of this idea say - We are highly likely to live in a virtual world.

What is the argument?

Simulation and mathematics

The simulation argument was developed by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom. It is based on several premises, which - with a certain interpretation - allow us to conclude that our universe is most likely a simulation. It's quite simple:

1. It is quite possible to simulate the Universe (see above).

2. Every civilization either dies out (pessimistic view) before it acquires the ability to simulate the universe, or loses interest in simulation, or continues to develop, reaches a technological level that allows creating such simulations - and does so. It's only a matter of time. (Will we do the same? But what about...)

3. Having reached this level, civilization creates many different simulations. (Everyone wants to have their own universe.)

4. When a simulation reaches a certain level, it begins to create its own simulations (and so on).

If you analyze all this automatically, you will have to conclude that the likelihood of living in the real world is extremely low - there are too many potential simulations. From this point of view, it is more likely that our world is a level 20 simulation rather than the original universe.

The first time I heard this argument, I was somewhat afraid. But here's the good news: it doesn't matter.

"Reality" is just a word

We have already discussed that our perception of reality is very different from reality itself. Let's assume for a moment that our universe really is a computer simulation. This gives rise to the following logical chain:

1. If the universe is just a model, it is a combination of bits and bytes, simply put, information.

2. If the universe is information, then you are information, and I am information.

3. If we are all information, then our bodies are just the embodiment of this information, a kind of avatar. The information is not tied to a specific object. It can be copied, transformed, changed as you wish (you only need appropriate programming techniques).

4. Any society capable of creating a world simulation is also capable of giving your "personal" information a new avatar (since it requires less knowledge than a universe simulation).

In other words, the information that defines you is not tied to your body. Philosophers and theologians have long debated the duality of body and soul (mind, personality, etc.). So this concept is probably familiar to you.

Thus, reality is information, and we are information. A simulation is a part of the reality it simulates, and everything we simulate is also reality from the point of view of those we simulate. This means that reality is what we experience. There are quite popular theories that claim that every object we see is a projection of information from the other end of the universe or even from another universe.

That is, if you experience something, perceive it, it is “real”. And the simulated universe is just as real as the universe running the simulation, since reality is determined by the content of the information - not by where that information is stored. published

Ecology of life. People: Proof by simulation. Almost every viewer of The Matrix admits, at least for a second or a couple of seconds...

Almost every viewer of The Matrix entertains, at least for a second or a couple of seconds, the unpalatable possibility that they might actually be living in the Matrix. Philosopher from Yale University Nick Bostrom also considers this possibility and comes to the conclusion that it is much more likely than you might imagine.

Proof by simulation

The Matrix introduces us to a strange and terrifying scenario. Humanity lies in a comatose state in some kind of cocoons, and every detail of reality is determined and controlled by computers hostile to it.

For most viewers, this scenario is interesting as a device of science fiction, incredibly far from anything that exists today or is likely to appear in the future. However, after careful consideration, such a scenario ceases to seem unthinkable. It's very likely.

In one of his articles, Ray Kurzweil discusses the observed trend towards the development of computing power at an ever-increasing speed. Kurzweil predicts that a virtually unlimited amount of computing power will become available over the next fifty years. Let's assume that Kurzweil is right and sooner or later humanity will create virtually limitless computing power. For the purposes of this discussion, it is not important when this happens. These developments may take a hundred, a thousand or a million years.

As Kurzweil's article notes, limitless computing capabilities will expand humanity's capabilities to an incredible degree. This civilization will become “post-human” and will be capable of extraordinary technological achievements.

Posthuman civilization can take many forms. It may turn out to be in many ways similar to our modern civilization or radically different from it. Of course, it is almost impossible to predict how such a civilization will develop. But one thing we know for sure: a post-human civilization will have access to virtually infinite computing power.

A post-human civilization may be capable of turning planets and other astronomical objects into super-powerful computers. At the moment, it is difficult to determine with certainty the “ceiling” of the computing power that may be available to posthuman civilizations.

1. This article presents modeling evidence that at least one of the following statements is true: It is highly likely that humanity as a species will begin to disappear from the face of the earth before reaching the “posthuman” stage.

2. Very It is unlikely that any post-human civilization will run a large number of simulations (models), imitating its evolutionary history(or, therefore, variations of this story).

3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Let's look at these three statements in turn.

The first statement is stated directly: if we destroy ourselves as a result of nuclear war, biological disaster, or nanotechnological cataclysm, then the rest of this evidence is irrelevant. However, let's assume that this statement is not true, and therefore we will be able to avoid self-destruction and enter the post-human era.

The essence of human civilization in the post-human era cannot be imagined in its entirety. Likewise, it is impossible to imagine a variety of ways to use virtually unlimited computing power. But let's look at one of them - creating complex simulations of human civilization.

Let us imagine historians of the future modeling various scenarios of historical development. These will not be today's simplified models. Given the enormous computing power that these historians will have at their disposal, they may end up with very detailed simulations in which every building, every geographical detail, every person will be distinguishable. And each of these individuals will be endowed with the same level of computing power, complexity and intelligence as a living person. Like Agent Smith, they will be created based on software, but will have the mental characteristics of a person. Of course, they may never realize that they are a program. To create an accurate model, it will be necessary to make the perceptions of the simulated individuals indistinguishable from the perceptions of people living in the real world.

Like the inhabitants of the Matrix, these people will exist in an artificial world, considering it real. Unlike the Matrix scenario, these people will be composed entirely of computer programs.

However will these artificial personalities be real “people”? Will they be intelligent regardless of their level of computing power? Will they be endowed with consciousness?

Reality is something that no one is really familiar with. However, philosophers who study consciousness usually make the assumption that it is “substrate-independent.” Essentially this means that consciousness can depend on many things - knowledge, intelligence (computational power), mental organization, certain details of logical structure, etc. - but one of the conditions that is not necessary for consciousness is biological tissue. The embodiment of consciousness in carbon-based biological neural networks is not a necessary property of it. In principle, the same effect can be achieved with silicon-based processors built into a computer.

To many people familiar with modern computer technology, the idea of ​​software endowed with consciousness seems incredible. However, this intuitive mistrust is a product of the relatively pitiful capabilities of today's computers. With continued improvements in computers themselves and the software they use, computers will become increasingly intelligent and conscious. In fact, given the human tendency to animate anything that even remotely resembles a person, people may start giving computers consciousness long before it becomes a reality.

The arguments for “substrate independence” are presented in the relevant philosophical literature, and I will not attempt to reproduce them in this article. However, I will point out that this assumption is reasonable. A brain cell is a physical object that has certain characteristics. If we come to a full understanding of these characteristics and learn to reproduce them electronically, then, without a doubt, our electronic brain cell will be able to perform the same functions as a cell of organic origin. And if this can be done with one brain cell, then why not repeat the same operation with a whole brain? And if so, then why shouldn’t the resulting system have the same consciousness as a living brain?

These assumptions are very interesting. With sufficient computing power, posthumans can create models of historical figures who will have full consciousness and who will consider themselves biological people living in an earlier time. This conclusion brings us to statement number two.

The first claim assumes that we will live long enough to create a post-human civilization. This post-human civilization will have the ability to develop simulations of reality similar to the Matrix. The second statement reflects the possibility that posthumans will decide not to develop these models.

We can imagine that in the post-human era, interest in developing historical simulations will disappear. This means a significant change in the motivation of people in the post-human era, for in our time, of course, there are many people who would want to run the models of previous eras if they could afford to do so. However, many of our human desires will probably seem stupid to any posthuman. Perhaps simulations of the past will be of little scientific value to a posthuman civilization (which is not so improbable given its disproportionate intellectual superiority), and perhaps posthumans will consider entertainment a very inefficient way of obtaining pleasure that can be obtained much more easily - through direct stimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain. This conclusion suggests that posthuman societies will be very different from human ones: they will lack relatively wealthy and independent subjects who possess the fullness of human desires and are free to act on their influence.

Alternatively, it is possible that some posthumans might want to run simulations of the past, but posthuman laws would prevent them from doing so. What will lead to the adoption of such laws? It can be assumed that more and more advanced civilizations are following a path that leads them to recognize the ethical prohibition of launching models that simulate the historical past, because of the suffering that will befall the heroes of such a model. However, from our current point of view, it is not obvious that the creation of the human race is an immoral act. On the contrary, we are inclined to regard the existence of our race as a process of great ethical value. Moreover, the mere existence of ethical views about the immorality of running simulations of the past is not enough. To this must be added the presence of a social structure on a civilizational scale that makes it possible to effectively prohibit activities that are considered immoral.

So, since it is possible that the second statement is true, in this case the motivations of posthumans will either be very different from the motivations of people, or posthumans will have to impose a total ban on simulations of the past and effectively control the effect of this ban. Moreover, this conclusion should be true for almost all post-human civilizations in the Universe.

Therefore, we need to consider the following probability: it is possible that human-level civilizations have a chance to become post-human; further: in at least some post-human civilizations there will be individuals who will run simulations of the past. This brings us to our third statement: we're almost certainly living in a computer simulation. We come to this conclusion quite naturally.

If posthumans are running simulations of the past, those simulations are likely operating on a very large scale. It's easy to imagine millions of individuals running thousands of simulations on hundreds of different topics, each involving billions of simulated personalities. There will be many trillions of these artificial people. They will all believe that they are real and live in an earlier time.

In 2003, there were approximately six billion biological people on the planet. It is very possible that in the post-human era, trillions of computer-generated people will live in a simulated year 2003, convinced that they are of biological origin - just like you and me. The math here is as simple as two: the vast majority of these people are wrong; they think they are flesh and blood, but in reality they are not. There is no reason to exclude our civilization from these calculations. Almost every chance is that our physical bodies are a computer illusion.

It is worth emphasizing that the simulation proof is not intended to show that we are living in a computer simulation. It simply reflects that at least one of the three statements listed above is true. If one disagrees with the conclusion that we are inside a simulation, then one would instead have to accept either that virtually all post-human civilizations will refuse to run simulations of the past, or that we will probably begin to go extinct. without reaching the posthuman era.

Our disappearance may occur as a result of the stabilization of current progress in the field of computer technology or be a consequence of the general collapse of civilization. Or you must accept that scientific and technological progress is likely to accelerate rather than plateau, in which case you could predict that the acceleration of progress will be the reason for our extinction. Molecular nanotechnology, for example, can bring us to this sad end. Having reached a developed stage, it will make it possible to create self-replicating nanobots capable of feeding on dust and organic matter, a kind of mechanical bacteria. Such nanobots, if created with bad intentions, could cause the extinction of all life on our planet. Elsewhere I have attempted to list the major existential dangers threatening humanity.

If our civilization is truly a simulation, and this does not imply any need to limit our progress. It is possible that the simulated civilizations may become post-human. Then they can run their own simulations of the past using the powerful computers they create in their artificial universe. Such computers would be “virtual machines,” a term familiar to modern computing. (For example, Java-based web applications use a virtual machine - a simulated computer - inside your "desktop".)

Virtual machines can be combined into one package: you can simulate a machine that simulates another machine, etc., and there can be an arbitrarily large number of iteration steps. If we actually succeed in creating our own models of the past, this will be strong evidence against the second and third statements, so that we will have to conclude that we live in a simulated world. Moreover, we will have to suspect that the posthumans who control the model of our world are themselves artificially created beings, and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated.

Thus, reality may be multi-level(This topic has been touched upon in many science fiction works, especially the film The Thirteenth Floor). Even if the hierarchical structure at some stage needs to close in on itself - although the metaphysical status of this statement is not entirely clear - it can accommodate a huge number of levels of reality, and over time this number can increase. (One argument against the multilevel hypothesis is that the computational costs for the basic models would be very large. Modeling even a single posthuman civilization may be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our model to collapse as we approach the posthuman era. )

Despite the fact that all the elements of such a system may be natural, even material, some loose parallels can be drawn here with religious ideas about the world. In a sense, the posthumans running the simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting this simulation:

• posthumans created the world around us;
• their level of intelligence is far superior to ours;
• they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the life of our world, even in ways that violate its physical laws;
• Moreover, they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can observe everything that happens to us.

However, all demigods, except those on the basic level of reality, are subject to the orders of the more powerful gods living on the deeper levels.

Further thinking on this topic may culminate in a naturalistic theogony, which would study the structure of this hierarchy and the restrictions imposed on its inhabitants, based on the possibility that some actions at their level may entail certain reactions on the part of the inhabitants deeper levels. For example, if no one can be sure what is at the base of the hierarchy, then everyone must consider the possibility that for any actions he may be rewarded or punished by the creators of the model.

Perhaps the latter will be guided by some moral criteria. Life after death will become a real possibility, as will reincarnation. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, perhaps even a mainstream civilization would have reasons to behave morally impeccably. The fact that even this civilization will have a reason to behave morally will, of course, make everyone else even more eager to behave in the same way, and so on. The result is a real virtuous circle. Perhaps everyone will be guided by some kind of universal moral imperative, which it will be in everyone's best interest to obey, since this imperative came "out of nowhere."

In addition to past models, one could also consider creating more selective simulations that involve only a small group of people or an individual. In this case, the rest of humanity will turn into zombified people or shadow people - people simulated at a level sufficient for fully simulated people not to notice anything suspicious. It is not clear how much cheaper modeling shadow people will be than modeling full-fledged people. It is far from obvious that any creature can behave indistinguishably from a real person and at the same time be devoid of conscious experience.

Even if such individual patterns exist, you should not assume that you are in one of them until you come to the conclusion that they are much more numerous than complete patterns. For the most conventional individuals to fall into an I-simulation (a model that simulates the life of one single mind), there would be a hundred billion times more I-simulations required than past simulations.

There is also the possibility that the creators of the simulations will remove certain moments from the mental lives of the simulated beings and provide them with false memories of certain experiences that they would normally have during the removed moments. In this case, we can consider the following (far-fetched) solution to the problem of evil: in fact, suffering does not exist in the world, and all memories of it are an illusion. Of course, this hypothesis can only be taken seriously if you are not suffering.

If we assume that we live in a simulation, then what follows from this for us humans?

Despite the comments made above, the consequences are not at all so radical. A standard empirical study of the Universe we see will best tell us how our posthuman creators will act in ordering our world. Revising most of our beliefs will produce rather small and subtle results - directly proportional to our lack of confidence in our ability to understand posthuman logic. Therefore, correctly understood, the truth contained in the third statement should not “drive us crazy” or prevent us from continuing to go about our business, as well as planning and predicting tomorrow.

If we learn more about the motivations of posthumans and the limits on resources—as may happen as a result of our own movement toward a posthuman civilization—then the hypothesis that we are simulated will have a much richer set of empirical implications.

Of course, if the sad reality is that we are simulations created by some kind of post-human civilization, then we can consider that we have a better lot than the inhabitants of the Matrix. Instead of falling into the clutches of a hostile AI and being used as a source of energy for its existence, we were created from computer programs as part of a scientific research project.

Or maybe we were created by some teenage girl from a post-human civilization while doing her homework.

Nevertheless, we are still better off than the inhabitants of the Matrix. Is not it so? published

He has sometimes spoken of his belief that the Earth isn't even real and that we are most likely living in a computer simulation: "The odds are a billion to one that we're living in a core reality."

Elon Musk is the only one from Silicon Valley who has taken a deep interest in the “simulation hypothesis,” according to which we perceive as reality what is in fact a massive computer simulation created by a more sophisticated intelligence. If after these words you experienced deja vu and began to compare the world around you with “The Matrix,” then so be it. There is a long philosophical and scientific history with the basic thesis that reality is an illusion.

One popular argument for the "malingering hypothesis", outside of acid trips, comes from an Oxford University professor Nika Bostroma in 2003, although the idea itself was originally expressed by the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes. In an article titled "Are You Living in a Simulation?" Bostrom suggested that members of an advanced "post-human" civilization with enormous computing power could choose to run simulations of their ancestors in the universe. This argument is extrapolated from observing current trends in technology, including the rise in popularity of virtual reality.

If we believe that there is nothing supernatural about the origins of consciousness, and that it is just a product of a very complex architecture in the human brain, then we can reproduce it. “Soon there will be no technical obstacles standing in the way of creating machines with their own consciousness,” says Richard Terrill, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

At the same time, video games are becoming more and more sophisticated, and in the future we will be able to simulate conscious entities within them.

“Forty years ago we had Pong—two rectangles and a dot. That's where we were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and they get better every year. Soon we will have virtual reality, we will have augmented reality,” Elon Musk said earlier. This point of view is shared by Richard Terrill: “If progress continues at the current pace for several decades, then very soon we will live in a society with artificial beings who live in simulations.”

Reasons to believe the universe is a simulation include the fact that it behaves mathematically and breaks down into subatomic particles like a pixelated video game. “Even time, energy, space, volume - everything has a finite limit. If this is true, then our Universe is both computable and finite. These properties allow the universe to be modeled,” adds Terrill.

So who then created this simulation? “We are the future,” responds Richard Terrill.

However, not everyone is a supporter of the hypothesis. “Is it logically possible that we are in a simulation? Yes. Are we really in a simulation? I would say no,” says Max Tegmark, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To make a convincing argument, you need to understand the fundamental laws of physics that make running a simulation possible. “And if we live in a simulation, then we have no idea what the laws of physics are. Then what I teach at MIT will be simulated laws of physics,” adds Max.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall of Harvard University is more skeptical: "I don't see any real evidence."

Richard Terrill believes recognizing that we live in a simulation will be as game-changing as when Copernicus realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe. “It was such a deep thought that it wasn’t even considered as a suggestion.” Scientists before Nicolaus Copernicus tried to explain the peculiar behavior of planetary motion with complex mathematical models. “Once they stopped guessing, everything else became much easier to understand,” Terrill says.

That we can live in a simulation may, according to Richard, be a simpler explanation of our existence than the idea of ​​evolving into self-aware beings. The simulation hypothesis also accounts for oddities in quantum mechanics—in particular, measurement problems whereby everything becomes certain only when observed. For Tegmark, this doesn't make sense: "We have problems in physics, and we can't blame failures in solving them on simulation."

How can you test a hypothesis? On the one hand, neuroscientists can test whether it is possible to imitate the human mind. So far, machines have been good at chess, but can a machine achieve consciousness? We do not know. On the other hand, scientists may detect signs of simulation.

For Richard Terrill, the modeling hypothesis has "beautiful and profound" implications. First, the hypothesis provides a scientific basis for some kind of life after death or a realm of reality beyond our world: “You don't need a miracle, faith, or anything special to believe it. It comes naturally from the laws of physics.” Secondly, humanity in the future will have the ability to create and inhabit its own simulations.

The modern hypothesis about the structure of the universe says that our entire world is nothing more than a matrix, a virtual reality created by an unknown form of intelligence. Recently, digital engineer Jim Elvidge discovered signs that the universe is indeed a computer program running on digital code.

Scientists have discovered the age of the Universe

Thus, everyone knows the definition of matter as “objective reality given to us in sensations.” It turns out that when we touch various objects, we judge them by the sensations we experience at that moment. But in reality, most objects are nothing more than empty space, Elvidge says. This is similar to how we “click” on icons on a computer screen. Behind each icon there is some image hidden, but all this is just a conditional reality, matrix, which exists only on the monitor.

Everything we think of as matter is just data, Elvidge believes. Further research in the field of elementary particles will lead to the understanding that behind everything that surrounds us, there is a certain code similar to the binary code of a computer program. It may turn out that our brain is simply an interface through which we access data from the “universal Internet.”

In his statements, the scientist refers to John Archibald Wheeler’s book “Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics.” The latter believed that the basis of physics is information. He called his theory "It from bit." "Everything is from a bit" symbolizes the idea that every object and event of the physical world has at its basis - in most cases, at a very deep basis - an immaterial source and explanation; something that we call reality grows ultimately from the production “yes-or-no” questions and recording answers to them using equipment, writes Wheeler in his report “Information, physics, quantum: searching for connections”; - in short, all physical entities are fundamentally information-theoretical, And Universe requires our participation."

It is thanks to the binary code that we can choose between different options for digital reality, matrices, control it with the help of consciousness. Wheeler calls this virtual world " Universe complicity."

Indirect proof of virtual nature Universe It may be that particles of matter can exist in an indeterminate or unstable form and are “fixed” in a specific state only when observed.

Elvidge, in turn, proposes the following thought experiment. Imagine that all the things that surround you are nothing more than digital reality, matrix. But, say, a pen becomes a pen only when you look at it, and you are able to identify an object as a pen only by external features. Otherwise, it has unspecified potential, and if you disassemble it, you will get additional data related to its internal structure.

The function of our brain is to process information. The latter can be stored in it, just as a computer browser caches data from sites we visit while surfing the Internet. If this is true, Elvidge believes, then we may be able to access data that is stored outside of our brain. Therefore, such things as intuition or clairvoyance are not an empty phrase at all. We can receive answers to our queries on the “cosmic Internet”. We can also ask for help, and it can come - from other people or the creators of our reality...

Death in this vein also doesn’t look so scary. If our consciousness is a simulation, then death is just an interruption of the simulation. And our consciousness may well be implanted in another “simulator”, which explains the phenomenon of reincarnation.

Theory about digital reality, matrix may serve as a universal key to the “theory of everything,” which scientists have been searching for for a long time and which would help resolve the contradictions between classical and quantum physics. According to Elvidge, there may be two types of data used in this reality. This is data associated with descriptions of objects, similar to a graphic or sound computer format, and data responsible for the operation of the entire system.

Our knowledge of the world around us is constantly growing, the researcher adds. After all, once upon a time, tribes living separately did not know about the existence of other lands, continents, planets... Gradually we came to the concept of material Universe, filled with various objects, and are now close to admitting the existence universes consisting of information. “We are constantly pushing the boundaries of our thinking,” says Elvidge.

The modern universe simulation hypothesis states that the entire world is nothing more than a matrix, a virtual reality created by an unknown form of intelligence. Physicists, philosophers, and ordinary people who like to think have long been discussing the question: can a person be virtual? What if the whole world is a simulation? And what could this mean?

The idea that reality is nothing more than an illusion was put forward by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who came to the conclusion that only ideas are material, and other objects are just shadows. Aristotle followed the same approach, but with the adjustment that ideas are expressed in material objects. In addition, the thesis about the illusory nature of the real is one of the key ones in some religious and philosophical teachings, for example, in the Indian Mayan philosophical school.

In 2003, the famous Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom published a work in Philosophical Quarterly under the almost fantastic title “Are we all living in a computer simulation?” In his work, Bostrom adheres to the concept according to which consciousness depends on intelligence (computing power), the structure of individual parts, the logical relationship between them and much more, but does not depend at all on the carrier, that is, biological tissue - the human brain. This means that consciousness can also be realized in the form of a set of electrical impulses in some computer.

Considering that the work is about simulations created by post-humans, the people simulated inside the simulation (Bostrom calls them a civilization of a lower level compared to the civilization that launched the simulation) have consciousness. For them, the model will seem like reality. Despite all their popularity, Bostrom's conclusions have repeatedly become the object of criticism. In particular, opponents point to gaps in the philosopher's argumentation, as well as the large number of hidden assumptions present in his reasoning regarding a number of fundamental issues - for example, the nature of consciousness and the potential ability of simulated individuals to become self-aware. There is no clear answer to the question “Do we live in the Matrix?” it is not to be expected from philosophers.

The simulation hypothesis is of interest not only to philosophers, but also to specialists in the exact sciences, in particular in physics. So, a group of scientists from the USA and Germany, Silas Bean, Zohre Davoudi and Martin Savage, decided to attempt to establish whether we live in the Matrix experimentally. Taking as their main argument that the spatial structure of the simulated world would be simpler than the real world, they built a proof based on quantum chromodynamics (a gauge theory of quantum fields that describes the strong interaction of elementary particles). This was done in order to establish that the world is nothing more than a grid with a certain step. During the calculations, scientists revealed several interesting facts: for example, in order to simulate a cubic meter of matter in increments of 10-16 meters, according to modern laws of chromodynamics, it will take about 140 years. However, so far an exact answer to the question of simulating reality under these conditions is not expected.

The simulation argument has received significant criticism from the scientific community, including transhumanists. Opponents of the simulation argument point out that articles on matrix theory contain various logical errors, such as the “circle of logic,” auto-reference, violation of causality, ignoring the non-random position of observers, and neglecting the control of the simulation on the part of the creators. Therefore, at the moment, the simulation hypothesis needs a more serious evidence base than several articles.

Theory about digital reality, matrix, can serve as a universal key to the theory of the origin of the Universe, which scientists have been searching for for a long time and which would help resolve the contradictions between classical and quantum physics. The simulation hypothesis is studied within the framework of such philosophical movements as futurology and transhumanist theory. In addition, the developments of specialists in the simulation hypothesis have been widely used since the early 1990s in popular culture, for example, in the film trilogy "Matrix".