Is Life a Computer Simulation?
What do You Think?
Is Life a Computer Simulation?
Is Life a Simulation?
The answer is: no. And I will explain why not.
Elon Musk, you know the founder of Tesla Motors, thinks to have found the answer to life; it's a computer simulation. The idea is not new; it was proposed by Nick Bostrom long before and leans heavily on the fuzziness of the Chaos theory. Defining something as "chaos" is not understanding the complexity.
Musk is so certain about his seemingly own invented claim that he added even a probability to his claim. It would be 1 to billion(s) that life would not be a simulation. That doesn't leave much space for doubt. But is that true? And where is the claim based on?
Musk is not the first one who thinks life is a computer simulation. Many techie guys who spent much time playing computer games might have thought about it too. The contemporary games look so real, that if you forget most of the important aspects of real life, you might start to believe it could become real...some day.
But what is life actually?
Is Life a Video Game?
the period between birth and death, or the experience or state of being alive— Cambridge Dictionary
Violent Video Games
But What is Life Actually?
The idea is simple and probably based on Ray Kurzweil's ideas of the "singularity", or maybe by looking to movies like The Matrix.
If you extrapolate the development of about forty years of computer technology that lies behind us into the future, let's say a few thousand years, you might become convinced that in some distant future computer technology is so advanced that we couldn't distinguish computer life from real life.
But proponents of the idea that life is a computer animation can't even define what consciousness is. They label this whole idea behind "artificial intelligence" extrapolated into a fuzzy future. The idea is superficial, unscientific, undefined, and contains arbitrary extrapolations.
Successful businessmen who suddenly stand in the spotlights with their fashionable high-tech merchandise often don't realize the responsibility that has descended upon them. Millions of people stare at them and believe every word they utter.
But how can you say what life is when you haven't even defined it? How to define consciousness? And how can Musk claim the odds are 1 to billions when he hasn't made one single analysis of the thing itself, called life? Because Musk can build a good car doesn't mean he is suddenly right about everything.
The claim might even be dangerous, especially when many people start believing this. It devalues life to something which is produced by a thing. Why not kill a few millions like in a video game? We live in dangerous times with increasing global tensions, and these ideas do not shed more light on our world.
All is Number. Number rules the universe.— Pythagoras
What is Consciousness?
In 1994 published David Chalmers a paper in which he attempted to explain consciousness. Chalmers is believed to be the first to categorize consciousness into two types of problems: “easy” problems and the “hard” problems. You can read his paper here: Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
The easy problems of consciousness include those of explaining the following phenomena
- the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
- the integration of information by a cognitive system
- the reportability of mental states
- the ability of a system to access its own internal states
- the focus of attention
- the deliberate control of behavior
- the difference between wakefulness and sleep
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. It hasn't been sufficiently defined up to this day, at least not to the public eye.
It is crucial to start here first before finding out whether life is a computer animation. But Musk just skipped the unsolvable, hard problems and dropped a dangerous idea into the public arena. He hasn't even spent a single thought on the philosophical aspects of consciousness, and simply neglected what the Greek philosophers or Eastern religions had to say about the issue.
Neglecting so many well elaborated ancient teachings, as well as neglecting contemporary studies as to what consciousness could be, is a serious bad call.
A Few of the Overconfident Predictions
John E. Watkins jr.
"Strawberries as large as apples will be eaten by our great-great-grandchildren"
"The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous"
"Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years"
"Before man reaches the moon, your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to Australia by guided missiles. We stand on the threshold of rocket mail"
"The 2014 World's Fair will have exhibits showing cities in the deep sea with bathyscaphe liners carrying men and supplies across and into the abyss"
"Apple is already dead"
"By around the year 2020 a $1,000 personal computer will have enough speed and memory to match the human brain"
"Two years from now, spam will be solved"
"Right now we're selling millions and millions and millions of phones a year. Apple is selling zero"
Extrapolations and technology predictions appear to be in almost all cases completely wrong, whether they are negative or positive.
Artificial Intelligence Predictions
In 1956, a group of top scientists believed they could crack the challenge of artificial intelligence within one year. Sixty years later, the world is still waiting. We're still waiting because they had then no idea what consciousness was, and it's still undefined.
According to a well-performed study, published in 2012 of Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala, is Artificial Intelligence always at least 20 years away, and keeps shifting like a dangling carrot in front of a donkey. They conclude that: "The general reliability of expert judgement in AI timeline predictions is shown to be poor, a result that fits in with previous studies of expert competence."
The Chinese Room Experiment of John Searle shows at a philosophical analytical level why computers can become intelligent but will never develop consciousness.
The Source of the Error
The universe is 100% mathematical. This makes many people think we could live in a simulation because computers can only handle mathematical code; 0 and 1. So they think because 1+1=2 hence must we be simulations. Problem solved!
All the stars in the sky, the planets that revolve around the Sun, the ancient mysteries are all encoded to make us believe it is real? And at the same time believing there is no global banking conspiracy to enslave the population? Of course.
Why worry about Man-made Global Warming? Finally, it's just a simulation.
Is life a computer simulation? No. It is exactly vice versa. Because of the fact that computers can handle only mathematical codes they are able to simulate the phenomenal world so well. Computers simulate the so-called Noumena, which is the underlying reality but only very measly.
The secret society of the Pythagorean Illuminati solved the problem as to what life and consciousness exactly are already many centuries ago. But these teachings are unfortunately completely beyond the reach of the masses, and apparently also for Elon Musk.
The Basis of REAL Life
A materialist will never understand what life and consciousness are. Yes, the physical existence is an illusion. But not the kind of illusion generated by a computer. Just a tiny amount of people are able to grasp reality.
Have you ever seen a successful scientific theory without mathematics in its core? They all have. It's because the underlying driver is math, and math only.
Matter → Energy → Vibration → Math → Numbers → Zero
All numbers arise from zero and zero alone. Why zero? Because 00 is "something". Zero, which is nothing else than a singularity, is the number of the soul and out of reach of any computer. We don't even need "real" numbers.
- 00+00 = 2 (positive numbers)
- 00/(00+00) = 0.5 (real numbers)
- 00-(00+00) = -1 (negative numbers)
- 00/0 = ∞ (infinity)
- 6-5+1-4+2 = 0, hence zero equals to five "somethings"
- 0/0 = undefined. Why? Because it delivers ALL numbers in one operation.
What is the Noumena?
A vast amount of information is transmitted across the internet every second. We never encounter the transmission of this information – the information in itself, so to speak, the information as noumenon. What we encounter is the information we receive on our screens, the information represented to us – information as appearance, as phenomenon.
Thus it is with all information. We don’t see the mechanics of information moving around the universe; we never encounter information in itself. All we know about is our experience and interpretation of information; the receipt of information in a form we can grasp.
Just as we encounter music and not the mathematical sinusoidal waves that convey the music, so we encounter sights, sounds, tastes, touches, smells, feelings, desires and not the mathematical sinusoidal waves transmitting them. We have to transcend our senses in order to see behind the scenes of the information world.
Just a few people are able to grasp what reality is. It's not a simulation.
What is a Stage Play Without Preparations?
Imagine life as a stage play. There’s an enormous amount going on off-stage that we never encounter. We get nothing but the performance on stage, which is the result of all the work we never see. So it is with information. We get the “performance” of information, and never the mathematical mechanics of how it was all put together.
Science, disastrously, has concentrated on the observed performance in order to understand reality, and has ignored the “hidden variables” that must rationally exist in order to put on the show. Scientists are irrationalists, obsessed with phenomena. Science behaves as if performances happen by themselves, as if they jump out of nothing, fully formed. Scientists are simpletons, opposed to reason. Musk and all his followers belong tot the same kind.
Any process of reasoning – divorced from the sensory performance – arrives backstage and finds nothing but mathematics.
The Mathematical Universe
Who Created the Programmer?
Without a philosophical approach, virtually no question can be answered satisfactorily.
With the assumption that life is a simulation, we end up at exactly the same point as with Abrahamism. Who created God? Who created the programmer? And if the programmer was the result of natural evolution, how would that relate to the idea of an alleged simulation? Because evolution has become again one of the probabilities. Why would you then propose a simulation in the first place?
And if we cannot solve these questions first, any probability calculation would tumble from 1 to billions down to 1 to 1, which results in not a single chance it's a simulation.
And what could be the motive of the computer simulation in the first place? The only real meaning of life as it is taught to me is to grow in consciousness. Consciousness is everything and everything has a certain amount of consciousness.
Life is a thought, or a dream, and not a simulation. But because it is ultimately only an abstraction it is for a materialist very appealing to think it is a simulation, generated by a thing, something material.
Now, if you still believe life is a computer simulation, it is probably caused by loss of religion. Have you become an atheist who worships the senses as organs of truth and the resulting materialistic "evidence" the judge of ultimate truth? Have you started to believe that everything we see is generated by a "thing", and so has a materialistic cause? In that case, that thing replaced your deep desire for a new kind of "god".
We are all gods in the making, and we will never be able to simulate life in all its aspects. The odds are 1 to many billions we ever will.