digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Why we're probably living in The Matrix

cow.neondragon.net — The simulation argument puts forward the view that we are almost definitely living in a computer simulation. By looking at the origins of life, the pace of evolution of technology and various thought experiments, this article argues that we're not real and that we're living inside The Matrix.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 26, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

230 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76Considering how much life sucks, I'll bet the simulation is running on NT.
  • Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+77This is inaccurate, everyone knows the answer is actually 42
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50It's scary to hear quantum physicists commonly refer to the smallest building blocks of life as bits instead of the atom model.

    But the more we investigate it, the more mathematically "the Matrix" universe reveals itself. why do things like gravity misbehave when surrounded by dark matter or dark energy? why are there 11 dimensions and we only see 3 or 4 of them? Why is there something instead of nothing?

    I don't know man, but it keeps me up at night.
  • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35But then again, the same argument goes for those who would be simulating us. So then ....
    Hey, I just found the meaning of life!
  • Chongo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31YOU FOOLS! figureing this out ends the simulation!
  • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30That's probably not possible. If "The Matrix" theory holds true, then the matrix world that we live in is not really a universe but a network of stimuli for us. It's only _perceived_ as its own reality.

    So if there are 2 "universes" simulating each other, then they must both in fact be "real." (And there must be some extremely freaky recursive mathematics involved...)

  • Easty, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Woah.
  • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29What if everyone was just controlled by some 3rd party (i.e. we are all characters in a game similar to second life) and the game designers work for Bioware so life is MAD BUGGY.

    ...The guy controlling me sucks.
  • vinesun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Hmmm...we must be close to figuring out the question to which the answer is 42.
  • eLbot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Should have linked to the person who conceived this theory:
    http://www.simulation-argument.com/
    Direct link to full version which covers most of the areas the linked to article skips:
    http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
  • kendetroit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22That's why we sleep. First it allows the Admins to focus on selected awake people. Secondly, while we sleep they download a 'cache' of info for the next days activities into our brains.
  • istatic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25you're just begging to be dugg down, aren't you?
  • Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20This isn't convincing at all - it basically goes "The simulation argument says that one of A, B, C will be true" and then argues against A and B, concluding that C must be the case. However, the article doesn't bother explaining WHY one of A, B, C must be true...
  • aristotle1990, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Hilary Putnam basically refutes this argument, if you're into philosophy:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/

    His writings:

    http://cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/putnam.html
  • joeyaltier, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24If we don't exist, does that mean digg doesn't exist?
  • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20If someone has control over my life...make me rich.

    If someone can control my experiences...I would like to drive a Ferrari.

    Thank you.
  • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27it doesn't sound any less plausible than religion.

  • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15And then, I thought I saw a 2.

    Aww, don't worry, there's no such thing as a 2.
  • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I think therefore I am. You can't tell me that none of us exist because I know I do.

    Digg, that's another story. If it's the name for the collection of stimuli that I am getting that calls itself Digg [or the continuous memories of such], then yes, Digg exists.

    I don't know about Kevin Rose though...
  • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I'd just like to make a point about The Matrix:
    Humans as a source of power is utterly stupid. We can turn fuel into heat, but only if the fuel is not generated using energy first. Using recycled humans as fuel is a net LOSS of energy due to inefficiencies.
    The less plot-holey (and more interesting) explanation put forward by the Animatrix is that the machines put humans into the matrix to keep them from wiping THEMSELVES out.
  • Raz75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"why are there 11 dimensions and we only see 3 or 4 of them?"

    Read the book Flatland. That should put it into perspective (literally).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I'm a philosophy major, and even I have to admit that this is stupid.

    "The simulation argument says that if we take the previous two points to be false - the third is true. Therefore, if we believe that there are technologically advanced civilizations out there with the technology to run a simulation of life, and that those civilizations are interested in running a simulation, we will almost definitely be living in a simulation."

    His theory relies on this principle: If something can be made under controlled conditions, then that something, almost definitely, has been made under controlled conditions. To further explore the goofiness of that theory, if a molecule of water can be created under controlled conditions, then all water on Earth is almost definitely created by this process.

    If that seems unlikely, then you see why this theory is flawed. It relies on a conceivably unlikely random event expanded along an infinite timeline to be only possible under controlled conditions.
  • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16In Matrix Russia, the server runs ME!
  • MrMxyzptlk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I've known people who seriously believe this, and use it as an excuse to explain their idiotic behavior towards others. "It doesn't matter, none of this is real!"

    Truly sad.
  • moley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18* clicks the red thumb
  • moman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24I actually believe that the universe in in fact a simulation (though I really don't like how the author presents the argument). One thing that has always amazed me is the similarity in the equations governing solar systems and stars as they move around in galaxies, planets as they move around stars, electrons as they move around nucleus's, and so on and so forth. There are many equations which are eerily similar that are shared by the largest entities in the universe as well as the smallest. As a programmer, you learn about abstraction and reusing components as much as possible, which leads me to believe that the "creator" (notice I did not say "God" as "God" implies worship) is either a programmer or Sysadmin running "our universe" the simulation in a higher dimension (the simulation would of course have to be simpler than the universe which it was running in itself). It is even possible that there is a time discrepancy where the time we experience runs at a faster rate than that in the "real" universe, and thus the creator is seeing a sped up version of the universe's history (who knows maybe this is a Spore/Sims like game running on some higher-dimension teenager's laptop). Of course, the most scary part about this whole thing is that the computer could instantly crash or be turned off at any time, resulting in Billions of years of universe history being instantly wiped out. (let that one work on your mind)
  • shit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12So in your final moments you'd rather literally see "The Blue Screen of Death"?
  • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12That was the dumbest comet I viewed today.
  • fantasmacanino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This idea has been around for as long as mankind and it's a bit skeptic for my liking. Some of the arguments the author used are weak. I'm not saying his theory is wrong (I mean, how can I know for sure?), but his process of thought might be.
  • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Today you will get a call from someone outside the matrix, do as they say and you will be free!
  • ThetaDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Why we're probably not living in The Matrix: no sysAdmin could stay focused long enough on this to keep ***** from breaking.

    My own thought: A computer running our universe would have to process every single instruction every one of our "simulated" computers process. This throughput value would be so large, it would be (in my mind) impossible to simultaneously & instantaneously update every value for everything, and then render it for every entity in this universe.
    Only if the simulator paused until everything was ready to update would it be possible, and even then, the creators of the simulator would watch our universe progress and an immeasurably slow pace -- almost at a standstill. What purpose would that serve?
  • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10i thought i saw a 2!

    don't worry bender, theres no such thing as a 2

    edit. good futurama reference JEmerson
  • TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11We will know if this is true when the author mysteriously disappears.
  • Scarblac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Imagine that this computer would take one thousand years to simulate one "moment" (say a timespan of 0.001s) of our universe. Would we notice?

    Let's say it simulates just one of those moments; it loads in the entire state of the universe at the start of it, then simulates one moment, then quits. Would we notice?

    Let's say it simulates a year, but with all the moments done seperately, done in completely random order, would we notice?

    Let's say it does 1000 moments, but on 1000 different computers, that aren't even physically connected, would we notice?

    The book "Permutation City" answers "no, we wouldn't" to all those questions, and then takes it from there.
  • Scarblac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The important part that he doesn't argue is "If not A, and not B, then C". That's basically, "If there are a huge number of technologically mature civilizations out there, and many of them are interested in running computer simulations of us, then we're almost certainly in a simulation."

    It's quite easy to see where this breaks down - just that a civilization would be interested in running this sort of civilization doesn't mean that it _can_. For all we know, running a simulation in this sort of detail is just impossible, period.

    (Quite apart from, if they're going to run a huge simulation, why would it be of exactly us? And if there are a huge number of civilizations, only some of which do one simulation - doesn't that mean it's still more likely we're among that huge number?)
  • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think this is the reason why our obsession with technology is so great. Just as a program in a computer cannot escape the hardware it resides in, we cannot leave this dimensional plane that we are in now.

    I think our desire to make computers and robots and things that can think for themselfs is largly due by the subconcious thought that if we can one day create ourselfs we'll be able to reach a higher level of existance....Maybe if we could one day make something else be aware of itself we will understand why we are aware of ourselfs being here.
  • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11moman wrote: "One thing that has always amazed me is the similarity in the equations governing solar systems and stars as they move around in galaxies, planets as they move around stars, electrons as they move around nucleus's, and so on and so forth."

    The Bohr model of the atom (i.e. "orbiting electrons") hasn't been in use for quite some time, so the basis for your belief in amazing similarities is a bit outdated. Beyond that, though, the "same equations" *never* worked for both a solar system and the Bohr model of atoms (hint: even in the Bohr model, atoms aren't held together through gravity and can't be described using Newtonian physics).

    I'm really not sure where you got that idea, but it just goes to show how misinformed people can "see" things that don't really exist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud (new)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (old)
  • leopaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10cymrubeats - interesting effect. once you show the comment, this becomes and suggests a different way of using the comment section. props for the effect, if that was the plan.
  • gr4v3d1gg3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I wonder what we would call the computer doing the simulation,or the system administrator,whichever one is actually in charge.Sounds like a very old concept to me. I love to entertain metaphysical what ifs though so don't let me interrupt .Just don't piss off the administrator .
  • gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20I just found a huge flaw with the first point in the post:
    "The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small"

    Yea, out of an infinitely big universe. The fact that the universe is infinitely big means that there is anywhere between a 0 - 100 % chance of it happening. There, first point killed.
  • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"But the more we investigate it, the more mathematically "the Matrix" universe reveals itself. why do things like gravity misbehave when surrounded by dark matter or dark energy?"

    You're not quite sure what you're talking about here, are you?

    First of all, gravity does not "misbehave when surrounded by dark matter". That makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.

    1) How does dark matter "surround" gravity?
    2) Dark matter is gravitationally identical to "normal" matter. That's how we know it exists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

    Second of all, gravity also does not "misbehave when surrounded by. . .dark energy". Dark energy is merely a hypothetical force that exerts negative pressure on large scales. It doesn't cause gravity to "misbehave" at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
  • gr4v3d1gg3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No need to drag politics into it
  • Scarblac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Remember - the Planck distance! It's a dead giveaway, at the bottom the universe is digital. The reason quantum theory and Einstein can't be unified is because the accuracy of the simulating computer breaks down at that point! We're doomed to try forever to come up with a beautiful unified theory that just isn't there!

    (It's fun to play the crackpot for once; and hell yes, read Permutation City, and after that Diaspora, Schild's Ladder, etc... Greg Egan rules)
  • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Well, the way I see it, and this goes for anything involving life, is that there are two things that are true; We are born, and then we die. What we do in life really doesn't matter, so you might as well enjoy it while it lasts, computer simulation or not.
  • Blazekun, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Even stranger, what if there is no "real" world. What if universe B is a computer simulation of univserse A, and universe A is a computer simulation of universe B?

    Strictly speaking, if we are just bits and bytes in a computer simulation, there is no telling how time passes outside our simulation. Our universe, alpha to omega, could be a split second. Yet to us, billions upon billions of years have passed.
  • iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply signals interpreted by your brain."

    Sums all of existence up perfectly.
  • archerx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The guy controlling me has a twisted sense of humour and is quite sadistic :S
  • Frost9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Valarauka.

    Actually, it does explain. In short it says; A - civilisations will reach our technological level and survive, so others in the universe must be at least our level. B - civilisations at our level are interested in simulating intelligence/mind/universe. Therefore C - they probably _are_ simulating and in great numbers. Great enough numbers to make it more likely than not that we are a simulation.

    The way the article is written just confuses people by starting with negative statements and declaring them false (A and B).. no idea why they did it that way.
  • acetv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Or they just use quantum computers and gather the results before they provide the input?
  • Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We're now able to simulate viruses at an atomic level.

    http://www.enterprisenetworksandservers.com/monthly/art.php?2255

    Imagine scaling that up to a bacterium. Is that organism alive or not?

    What if we simulated an entire animal? A human?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.