Scientists have refuted the theory that our universe is unreal. Elon Musk: We live in a huge virtual game We are in a virtual world

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 rate 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 a 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.

Humanity today has become so immersed in high technology and virtual reality that the first assumptions have appeared (not from ordinary people, but from famous physicists and cosmologists) that our Universe is not reality, but just a giant simulation of reality. Should we think about this seriously, or should we perceive such messages as just another plot of a science fiction film?

You are real? What about me?

Once upon a time these were purely philosophical questions. Scientists were simply trying to figure out how the world works. But now the requests from inquisitive minds have gone to a different plane. A number of physicists, cosmologists and technologists console themselves with the idea that we all live inside a giant computer model, being nothing more than part of the matrix. It turns out that we exist in a virtual world, which we mistakenly consider to be real.

Our instincts, of course, rebel. This is all too real to be a simulation. The weight of the cup in my hand, the aroma of the coffee, the sounds around me - how can you fake such a richness of experience?

But at the same time, there has been extraordinary progress in the field of computer science and information technology over the past few decades. Computers have given us games with uncanny realism, with autonomous characters that react to our actions. And we involuntarily plunge into virtual reality - a kind of simulator with enormous power of persuasion.

This is enough to make a person paranoid.

In life - like in the movies

The idea of ​​the virtual world as a human habitat was presented to us with unprecedented clarity by the Hollywood blockbuster “The Matrix.” In this story, people are so trapped in the virtual world that they perceive it as reality. The sci-fi nightmare - the prospect of being trapped in a universe born in our minds - can be traced further, for example, in David Cronenberg's Videodrome (1983) and Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985).

All these dystopias have raised a number of questions: what is true and what is fiction? Are we living in a delusion, or is the delusion a virtual Universe, the idea of ​​which is being imposed by paranoid scientists?

In June 2016, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk said the odds are "a billion to one" against us living in "base reality."

Following him, artificial intelligence guru Ray Kurzweil suggested that “maybe our entire Universe is a scientific experiment of some young high school student from another Universe.”

By the way, some physicists are ready to consider this possibility. In April 2016, the issue was discussed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Proof?

Proponents of the idea of ​​a virtual universe give at least two arguments in favor of the fact that we cannot live in the real world. Thus, cosmologist Alan Guth suggests that our Universe may be real, but for now it is something like a laboratory experiment. The idea is that it was created by some kind of superintelligence, similar to how biologists grow colonies of microorganisms.

In principle, there is nothing that rules out the possibility of “manufacturing” the universe with an artificial Big Bang, says Guth. At the same time, the Universe in which the new one was born was not destroyed. It was simply that a new “bubble” of space-time was created, which was possible to pinch off from the mother universe and lose contact with it. This scenario could have some variations. For example, the Universe could have been born in some equivalent of a test tube.

However, there is a second scenario that can nullify all our understanding of reality.

It lies in the fact that we are completely simulated creatures. We may be nothing more than strings of information manipulated by a giant computer program, like characters in a video game. Even our brains are imitated and respond to imitated sensory inputs.

From this point of view, there is no "escape from" matrix. This is where we live, and this is our only chance to "live" at all.

But why believe in such a possibility?

The argument is quite simple: we have already done the modeling. We carry out computer simulation not only in games, but also in scientific research. Scientists are trying to model aspects of the world at different levels - from the subatomic to entire societies or galaxies.

For example, computer modeling of animals can tell how they develop and what forms of behavior they have. Other simulations help us understand how planets, stars and galaxies form.

We can also simulate human society with fairly simple "agents" that make choices according to certain rules. It gives us insight into how people and companies collaborate, how cities develop, how traffic laws and economies function, and much more.

These models are becoming increasingly complex. Who's to say we can't create virtual beings that show signs of consciousness? Advances in understanding the functions of the brain, as well as extensive quantum computing, make this prospect increasingly likely.

If we ever reach this level, we will have a huge number of models working for us. There will be many more of them than the inhabitants of the “real” world around us.

And why can't we assume that some other intelligence in the Universe has already reached this point?

The idea of ​​the multiverse

No one denies the existence of many universes formed in the same way as the Big Bang. However, parallel universes are a rather speculative idea, suggesting that our Universe is just a model whose parameters have been tweaked to produce interesting results such as stars, galaxies and people.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. If reality is just information, then we cannot be "real", information is all we can be. And does it make a difference whether this information was programmed by nature or by a super-smart creator? Apparently, in any case, our authors can, in principle, interfere with the simulation results or even “turn off” the process. How should we approach this?

And yet let's return to our reality

Of course, we love cosmologist Kurzweil's joke about that brilliant teenager from another universe who programmed our world. And most adherents of the idea of ​​virtual reality proceed from the fact that now is the 21st century, we are making computer games, and it is not a fact that someone is not making superbeings.

There is no doubt that many proponents of "total simulation" are avid fans of science fiction films. But we know deep down that the concept of reality is what we experience and not some hypothetical world.

Old as time

Today is the age of high technology. However, philosophers have struggled with questions of reality and unreality for centuries.

Plato wondered: what if what we perceive as reality are just shadows projected onto the walls of a cave? Immanuel Kant argued that the world around us can be some kind of “thing in itself”, which underlies the appearances we perceive. René Descartes, with his famous phrase “I think, therefore I am,” proved that the ability to think is the only significant criterion of existence that we can attest to.

The concept of a "simulated world" takes this ancient philosophical idea as its basis. There is no harm in the latest technologies and hypotheses. Like many philosophical puzzles, they challenge us to reconsider our assumptions and preconceptions.

But while no one can prove that we exist only virtually, no new ideas change our understanding of reality to a significant extent.

In the early 1700s, philosopher George Berkeley argued that the world is simply an illusion. In response to this, the English writer Samuel Johnson exclaimed: “I refute it like this!” - and kicked a stone.

Ecology of life. People: Billionaire, entrepreneur, space (and also electric car, solar-battery and artificially intelligent) enthusiast Elon Musk seriously believes that we live in a game. In a virtual reality created by some advanced civilization - something like the proposal of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, which he put forward back in 2003.

Billionaire, entrepreneur, space (and also electric vehicle, solar-powered and artificially intelligent) enthusiast Elon Musk seriously believes that we live in a game. In a virtual reality created by some advanced civilization - something like the proposal of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, which he put forward back in 2003.

The idea is that a sufficiently complex virtual reality simulation with conscious beings will give rise to consciousness; models will become self-aware and believe that they are living in the "real world". Funny, is not it?

This is the newest version of the thought experiment, which was proposed by Descartes, only he had an evil demon who mocks him. Over the years, the idea has taken on many different forms, but it is based on the same assumption.

Everything we know about this world we comprehend through the five senses which we experience internally (when neurons fire, although Descartes did not know about this). How do we know that these neurons correspond to anything real in the world?

After all, if our senses systematically and universally deceived us, by the will of a demon or someone else, we would have no way of knowing. Well, how? We have no tools other than our senses that can test our senses for relevance.

Since we cannot rule out the possibility of such deception, we cannot know for sure that our world is real. We could all be Sims.

This kind of skepticism sent Descartes on a journey within himself in search of something of which he could be absolutely sure, something that could serve as a basis for the construction of true philosophy. As a result, he came to cogito, ergo sum: “I think, therefore I exist.” But the philosophers who followed him did not always share his beliefs.

In short, all we know is that thoughts exist. Wonderful.

(A quick aside: Bostrom says that the simulation argument is different from the brain-in-a-vat argument because it increases the probability much more. After all, how many evil geniuses with brains-in-a-vat can there be? Given that any sufficiently advanced civilization can run virtual reality simulation.

If such civilizations exist and they are ready to run simulations, there could be an almost unlimited number of them. Therefore, we are most likely in one of their created worlds. But this doesn’t change the essence of the matter, so let’s go back to our sheep).

The Red Pill and the Persuasiveness of The Matrix

The most iconic representation of the idea of ​​living in a simulation in pop culture is the Wachowski brothers' 1999 film The Matrix, in which humans are either brains-in-a-vat or cocooned bodies, living in a computer simulation created by the computers themselves.

But The Matrix also shows why this thought experiment relies a little on deception.

One of the most poignant moments of the film is the moment when Neo takes the red pill, opens his eyes and sees true reality for the first time. This is where the thought experiment begins: with the realization that somewhere out there, behind the vat, there is another reality, to see which it is enough to understand the truth.

But this realization, tempting as it may be, ignores the basic premise of our thought experiment: our senses can be deceived.

Why should Neo decide that the “real world” he saw after taking the pill is actually real? After all, this could be another simulation. After all, what better way to retain determined people than to give them the opportunity to carry out a simulated sandbox uprising?

No matter how many pills he eats or how convincing Morpheus is in his stories about how real the new reality is, Neo still relies on his senses, and his senses can, in theory, be deceived. So he returns to where he started.

Here's a seed for a modeling thought experiment: it cannot be proven or disproved. For the same reason, it may not make sense at all. What difference does it make, after all, if that's the case?

As long as the deception is perfect, it doesn't matter

Let's say you were told the following: “The universe and all its contents are turned upside down.” This will blow your mind for a minute as you imagine swallowing the red pill and seeing everything upside down. But then you realize that things can only be upside down relative to other things, so if everything is upside down... what difference does it make?

The same applies to the “it must all be an illusion” argument on which the simulation thought experiment is based. Things are real relative to people and other parts of our experience (just as the red pill world is real relative to the blue pill world in The Matrix). We are real about other things and people. “Everything is an illusion” makes no more sense than “everything is upside down.”

These assumptions cannot be called true or false. Since their truth or falsity has no relation to anything else and has no practical or epistemic consequences, they are inert. They can't matter.

The philosopher David Chalmers put it this way: the idea of ​​modeling is not an epistemological thesis (about what we know about things) or a moral thesis (about how we value or ought to value things), but a metaphysical thesis (about the ultimate nature of things). If this is so, then the point is not that people, trees and clouds do not exist, but that people, trees and clouds do not have the same ultimate nature as we thought.

But again, this is equivalent to asking: so what? One ultimate reality, which I cannot reach, turns into another ultimate reality, which I also cannot reach. Meanwhile, the reality in which I live and with which I interact through my feelings and beliefs remains the same.

If this is all a computer simulation, then so be it. It does not change anything.

Even Bostrom agrees: “Upon closer inspection, you will have to live in the Matrix in exactly the same way as if you were not living in the Matrix.” You will still have to interact with other people, raise children and go to work.

Pragmatists believe that our beliefs and language are not abstract representations that correspond (or do not correspond) to some supernatural realm of independent reality. These are tools that help us live - in organization, in navigation, in forecasting the world.

Refusal of certainty in favor of probability

Descartes lived in the era that preceded the Enlightenment, and became an important predecessor because he wanted to build a philosophy on what people could learn for themselves, and not on what religion or tradition could impose - not to take anything for granted.

His mistake, like that of many Enlightenment thinkers, was that he believed that such a philosophy should imitate religious knowledge: hierarchical, built on the foundation of a solid, indisputable truth from which all other truths follow.

Without this solid foundation, many feared (and still fear) that humanity would be doomed to skepticism in epistemology and nihilism in morality.

But once you give up religion - once you trade authority for empiricism and the scientific method - you can give up certainty.

What people can extract, choose, prefer for themselves is always partial, always temporary and always a matter of probabilities. We can weigh parts of our own experience against other parts, test and repeat, remain open to new evidence, but there will be no way to go beyond our experience and create a solid foundation under it all.

Everything will be good, true, real only in relation to other things. If they are also good, true, real in some transcendental, independent, “objective” framework, we will never know.

After all, in essence, human existence comes down to making decisions in conditions of insufficient data and information. Feelings will always give an incomplete picture of the world. Direct experience of communicating with other people, visiting other places will always be limited. To fill in the gaps, we have to rely on assumptions, biases, beliefs, certain internal frameworks, qualifications and heuristics.

Even science, the way we try to suspend our assumptions and get to hard data, is full of value judgments and cultural references. And it will never be specific - only to a certain degree of probability.

Whatever world we live in (present or not), we will act on probabilities, use unreliable and imprecise tools of knowledge, and live in a constant haze of uncertainty. Such is human life. But this makes people worry. They crave certainties, points of fixation, so they force philosophers to get to the bottom of truths and simply believe in predestination, a higher plan or free will.

If there are no clear reasons, we will have to learn to live with uncertainty and relax. If they are not there, philosophy will not help us. (This statement belongs to Richard Rorty, one of the proponents of American pragmatism).

This might interest you:

Elon Musk believes that the whole world in which we live, where his loved ones live, is an illusion, a simulation. He is unreal, his family is unreal, climate change is unreal, and so is Mars. And yet, what does Musk spend his time on? He works hard and does what he can so that carbon emissions on Earth are reduced, and we settle on another planet. Would he have worked so hard if he knew that the world was unreal?

Somewhere deep down in his soul he knows that the world is real exactly to the extent that all this will be important. published

At Code Conference 2016: There's only a one in a billion chance that humanity Not lives in a computer simulation.

Our reality is hardly the main one. It is much more likely that the world around us and ourselves are virtual entities created by an overdeveloped civilization, a level that we may reach 10 thousand years later.

Musk argues his thesis as follows:

In the 1970s we had "Pong" - two rectangles and a dot. Now, forty years later, we have realistic 3D simulations with millions of people all over the world at the same time.

Elon Musk

founder of Tesla Motors, SpaceX and PayPal

Gradually we learn to create more and more realistic copies of reality. Consequently, sooner or later we will come to the point where reality will be indistinguishable from simulation. It is quite possible that some civilization has already traveled this path before us, and our world is one of its many experiments.

Musk made his argument even harsher: “Either we create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.”

Musk’s answer clearly reflects the ideas of the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who back in 2003, in his famous work “Are we living in a computer simulation?” (Russian translation) proposed three versions of the existence of humanity:

Civilizations die out before reaching the post-human stage, at which they can surpass human biological capabilities with the help of technical inventions and build artificial models of consciousness.

Civilizations that reach the level where they can simulate artificial reality at will are, for some reason, disinterested in doing so;

If points 1 and 2 are wrong, then there is little doubt that we are living in a computer simulation.

Within the framework of this hypothesis, reality may not be singular, but multiple.

The post-humans who developed our simulation may themselves be simulated, and their creators, in turn, too. There may be many levels of reality, and their number may increase over time.

Nick Bostrom

Professor at Oxford University

If the hypothesis is correct, after some time we ourselves will be able to reach the stage of “creators” of the virtual world, which will become “real” for its new inhabitants.

Apparently, it was Bostrom’s model that made Elon Musk assume that we have little choice: either create simulations indistinguishable from reality, or cease our existence and development. The option that posthumanity, for some reason (for example, ethical) will not be interested in creating virtual worlds, is not seriously considered by Musk.

Bostrom himself, however, is not sure which of the three scenarios is closer to the truth. But he still believes that the virtual reality hypothesis must be taken seriously. Shortly after Musk’s statement, the philosopher gave his comments, in which he confirmed this once again:

It is important to understand that the fact that we are in a simulation carries not a metaphorical, but a literal meaning - that we ourselves and this entire world around us, which we see, hear and feel, exist inside a computer built by some advanced civilization.

Some time later, a detailed article by philosopher Riccardo Manzotti and cognitive scientist Andrew Smart, “Elon Musk is wrong,” appeared on the Motherboard portal. We don’t live in a simulation” (a short version of the article in Russian was published by Meduza).

Simulation is always objects of the material world that exist in reality. Information does not exist separately from atoms and electrons, virtual worlds - from computers, which, in turn, are part of the physical world. Therefore, we cannot separate the “virtual” from the “real”.

A simulation that is indistinguishable from reality ceases to be a simulation. Mere technological progress does not make virtual models more realistic: a drawn apple will not become more real if we add even more pixels to it. If we create an apple that can be eaten - a chemical and biological material apple - then by definition it will cease to be a simulation.

Any simulation needs an observer. Simulation is inseparable from the consciousness that perceives it. But the brain, which serves as the source of consciousness, is not a computing device. This is an extremely complex biological machine that can hardly be reproduced using algorithmic components. If full-fledged artificial intelligence is created, it will be very different from human intelligence.

Opponents accuse Musk of Cartesian dualism and Platonic idealism, which dates back to the earliest philosophical debates about the nature of reality. Indeed, his hypothesis suggests that simulation can somehow be separated from material reality, as well as a distinction between the basic, most "real" world - and its virtual emanations. No matter how many levels of simulation there are, behind them there is always one, the last one, which is the source of all the others.

But for those inside the simulation, this division makes no sense. If other, more authentic levels of reality are inaccessible to us, then it is useless to talk about them. All we know is that the apples are real and not simulated, even if on some “deeper” level they are a simulation.

This dispute is reminiscent of Borges's old story about a country in which cartographers created a map that, in size and in all details, was an exact copy of this country itself (this metaphor, by the way, was used by Baudrillard in his famous work “Simulacra and Simulation”).

If a map is an accurate reproduction of a territory, then is there any sense in the division between “map and territory”, “reality and simulation”?

Moreover, Musk's model revives theological quandaries on which people have (for lack of a better word) spent their intellectual resources for centuries. If the world has creators, then why is there so much evil in it? Why do we live: is this just a random experiment, or is there some kind of secret plan in our lives? Is it possible to reach that “deeper” level of reality, or can we only make our own assumptions about it?

The first question, of course, can be answered with the words of Agent Smith from The Matrix that “humanity as a species does not accept a reality without suffering and poverty,” so even an artificial reality should be just like that. But this does not remove the basic difficulties. In addition, it is very easy here to switch to conspiracy logic, assuming that everything around is an illusion, the fruit of a conspiracy of intelligent machines (aliens, masons, the US government) against humanity.

In many ways, the "virtuality" hypothesis is theology in disguise. It cannot be proven and cannot be disproven.

Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of this hypothesis is the assumption that consciousness can be simulated using computer technology. Our brains are not made of silicon chips, and algorithmic calculations are far from their main function. If the brain is a computer, then it is an unregulated computer with many contradictory operators and components with unclear purposes. Human consciousness cannot be separated not only from matter, but also from the environment - the social and cultural context in which it participates.

So far, no one has reliable evidence that all these components can be technically “simulated.” Even the most powerful artificial intelligence will most likely be as far from human consciousness as a real apple is from the Apple logo. It will be no worse and no better, but completely different.

A frame from the film Inception was used in the design of the article.