It is all an illusion

Last week  we considered the repercussions of simulated reality, and we saw that if we live in one of them, we would have no way to figure it out (unless the 'person' who is running the simulation decides to leave hints). I left you saying it gets much worse than that. Well, it gets worse, or more interesting than that, depending on how you view it. Here's the bomb - if you are okay to make certain assumptions, chances are that you are indeed living in a simulated reality.


The argument goes this way. Because of the advances in technology and computer science, humans will eventually gain the ability to simulate full nervous system including the brain in a computer. It could happen within 500 years as some predict, or it could take 5 million years - but if it happens, the astounding conclusion will remain same. Once humans gain the ability to carry out these simulations, they will do so for fun or for research. They will end up running a lot many simulations of their ancestors, to study the past. The number of simulated brains thereby will vastly dwarf the number of real brains in our Universe. Hence chances are if we pick a random brain (or consciousness), it is more likely to be a simulated one than 'real'. You, I, all that you know could be nothing but simulated nervous systems, programmed as a hobby of an advanced being.

Before you start to loose track, let me make one thing clear - even if it is the case, it still means (in a sense) that you are real. What you smell, feel, touch and see, are real - atleast to you. Your thoughts, desires, feelings are still real - just as the brain we discussed was real enough to itself or other brains being simulated with it.

The question that I would pose next is how important is it for the simulation to be actually carried out, versus to just set it up and keep it 'paused', to make it 'real'? Little reflection will show us that nothing should change the reality based on whether it is being run or not.

If we think about the brain being simulated on pen and paper - if the entire configuration of the brain's neurons is known, and written down on a paper, how important is really the act of writing the equations and carrying out the operations on paper to make it real? What difference does it make? Once you specify the initial configuration, the remaining is just result of some mathematics which whether you choose to do now, or later, will lead to the same end result. Just like if you know a stone was thrown up, whether or not you do the calculations (know how to do the calculations) doesn't matter, in a sense that stone is destined to come back because mathematics predicts it. If the initial configuration is known, the stone's fate is fixed and is not going to change. Similarly writing the equations down or not does not change the nature of the reality of the brain - actually animating the reality in the computer or not does not change the reality of the world to the virtual characters in the computer. If you simulate, whatever results will be their reality - and that remains a truth irrespective of if you bother to calculate the results or not.

So in a sense, if you specify the initial configurations of a brain (or universe), the resulting world becomes real. Going one step further, you don't even need to provide the initial configuration in meticulous detail - if you describe an initial condition, which is not too weird and can be possible to detail out following laws of physics - someone (or a powerful computer) can fill out the painful details of the configuration of each and every molecule in one of many ways that fits your description. Then it can start simulating it. For example if you say "an universe where a cup is revolving the sun", the computer can fill in all the molecules in the cup, every particles in the sun, and give them the initial velocities so that the cup is in an orbit around the sun - and then simulate that universe and show you the result. Granted the world is not specified uniquely anymore, but what matters is that it can be done in atleast one way. In a sense, just your describing the world makes it real - in the same way as we discussed how describing an initial configuration (in detail) make it real, even though you may not bother to actually simulate it.

Why is it even necessary for you to think or describe the initial configuration at all? Indeed it is not necessary - if a possible initial configuration exists (i.e. it is does not violate any physical laws), it can be in theory simulated - and again irrespective of whether you choose to do it actually doesn't matter - it doesn't change the 'truth' of events that are bound to happen in the universe - and in a sense it's all real

Let's conclude by revisiting what we have seen.
1. The brain when being simulated on pen and paper through mathematical equations, 'feels' it is real
2. Chances are staggeringly high that we are in fact simulations run by some advanced being (even probably advanced 'real' humans) as their toy universe hobby
3. It can even be possible that we are just someone's imaginations, or worse yet nobody even imagined us, but we 'exist' because the initial configuration for our universe exists in a mathematical sense!

Someone once said, "it is all an illusion". Seems there is some truth there after all.

How real are you?

Are we real? Of course we are. How much real are we, say when compared to characters of a story, movie, or a video game? You might think that's an odd question - reality is reality, fiction is fiction! It may be so, but let's pause and think for a moment.

What differentiates reality and fiction? We can imagine a huge moon overlooking shores of an urban city surrounded by water - but that won't be real. Or will it? For an event to be real, you need real humans (supposing it involves humans) who have a mind governed by psychology - who think, feel reason like we do. We need real environment, made of billions of atoms so that the repercussion of every action is calculated with the greatest scrutiny. Merely outlining the large scale effects of an event (as is done in a fiction) is not enough to make it real. In short we should have an Universe where all the laws of physics are followed just as in ours, and we should be in it.

Before we go further into it, I would like to propose a thought experiment. Let's take a living human brain, and let's scan the configuration of the brain as precisely as possible. Fear not - since due to recent advances in modern physiology, this can be done without harming the person at all. Let's say we scan every neuron and the state of it - in the sense which other neurons is it connected to, and where is it currently sending any electric impulse. Then in principle, one can sit down and using pen and paper simulate the brain - by writing down its current state and slowly evolving it following the right biological course of the neurons. Using more sophisticated science, infact one may be able to code questions posed to the brain in terms of sound waves - interpreted into electric signals by the relevant portion of the brain. And once the computation has taken its course, following the same biological simulation one may carry out the necessary recoding and end up with the exact vibration of the larynx, from which sound waves can be deduced - pretty much the same sound waves which a real mouth will speak if a real brain is asked a real question. (You can find a variant of this experiment here in Wikipedia.)


However note that the person who is carrying out these computations, does not need to at all 'understand' the question that was posed in form of sound waves. The scanned brain may even belong to Stephen Hawking - and the question a deep one in astrophysics - and the person who is simulating this may not even understand English - but at the end of calculations he will still come out with exactly the same answer that a real Stephen Hawking would have given. Just as in real world, the consciousness and understanding that a brain possesses may be an emergent phenomenon, so can it be for a person meticulously simulating it on pen and paper.

So if the brain of a living person is scanned, and then tediously simulated by following mathematical equation on pen and paper, will give rise to exact same answers that the real brain will give (provided no mistakes are made). This is just like you can predict where Jupiter will be on this day next year - even though you of course cannot see it in the next year in our reality at this moment.

Do you think then the simulated brain is 'real'? Let's see. Let's suppose we note down the configuration of a real brain for simulation, and then destroy the real brain. (Well that's a rather inhuman thing to do, but it is only a thought experiment.)

Will the thought, feeling, knowledge, experience be preserved as the brain is simulated? Yes.

Will the brain answer to any question asked exactly the same way the 'real' person would have answered? Yes.

In general will the brain react in exactly the same way in which the real brain will react, when posed with the same (simulated) conditions? Yes.

So by all accounts the simulated brain's actions will match with the real brain - it will even have a (simulated) consciousness corresponding to the real brain.

The only fact which makes it not real, is that you are not there - you cannot directly see or talk to it or interact with it. What if your brain scan is also taken and is simulated alongside the other brain? Your simulated brain will have no doubt that the other brain is real. For them, since there is no way to detect the real you, your world will be as fictitious - just a 'what if we are being simulated' hypothesis.

Is there any way for the simulated brains to figure out that their world is merely simulated - and is not 'real'? The answer seems no (unless we choose to give them hints - eg. suddenly make a paper appear which has answers to their key scientific questions - which let's say we do not want to). They will see, feel, smell, touch their simulated world just as we do. They will have their own (simulated) thoughts, feelings, experiences, memories. They will experience (simulated) happiness, fear, joy, anger, peace just as we do. For them their (simulated) world is as real as we feel ours is.

It is a slightly disturbing conclusion that there is no way for them to detect they are being simulated, since it means that we could be living in a world which is entirely being simulated, and we would have no way to know about it. But it gets worse.
That's all my schedule permits me to write in the real (or simulated?) world where I live - we will continue the exploration next week. Update: Continued here.