»Physicists: Why we ARE in a Matrix now and We ARE programs«

Recent discussions between well regarded physicists, mathematitions, and philosophers have concluded that we are probably within a matrix or simulation right now and we don't even know it.

Let me explain the thinking...

Ref: BBC 2 Horizon TV programme on Time Travel shown in December 03 in UK.

The above group of people were trying to figure out ways of time travel. This work had been ongoing for quite some time and many theories were produced (Frank Tipler etc.) about how we could achieve it. Unfortunately all of them had one major flaw. Energy.

The amount of energy required to create a black hole or cylindrical space-time anomaly (you could fly around and go back in time) is vast. I mean you need over 1/3 the total energy in our galaxy. In other words.. a lot of energy.

Eventually, they thought that this is never going to be likely but... the rate of computing performance is moving on exponentially and therefore a future civilisation would have massive computing power and most likely simulate the past than try to travel to it!

(Moores Law - CPU performance doubling every 18 months) and shows no current sign of stopping. [ Many have argued that we will reach a level where we simply can't make transistors small enough due to physical limits but all of these have been proven wrong time and time again with new innovations ever since the early 80s ]

Such a future civilisation would probably not run just one simulation of the past world but are likely to be running many (maybe even thousands). Such a simulation would be so accurate that it would be indestinguishable from the real world. Even the people within it would believe that are real people when in fact they are AI sims / programs.

Hence, in all probability we are in a Matrix now and we are programs.

This is not necessarily my view but the view of some well regarded people at the top of their fields.

Question is: Who is real and Who isn't?

Also, how do know if we are in a Matrix?


When pondering the latter question I thought that if I was a future civilian and was designing such a simulation would I want to simulate all the properties (position and momentum etc.) associated with matter at the small scale (the atomic / nuclear level). This would take vast amounts of computing power and hence lots of energy. Having studied physics to Degree level (UK) it dawned on me that the world in which we live is bizarre at the small scale (the Quantum level) where we have quantum mechanics and statistics dictating what happens. A statistical simulation / model of all things small and many would be the easiest way from a computing power / simulation point of view and that is exactly what we have in our world.

Co-incidence?

Does it matter?

Oddly, it is the Quantum model that is believed by a top neuro scientist and renowned mathematition / physicist Roger Penrose to be at the route of free will (see nano structures / nano tubules in the brain and Quantum Mind on Google). Hence, if this is a simulation because of the model used we have free will where as in the real world we may not (if it is a mechanical Newtonian system).

Which would you prefer to be in:

A simulation - you have free will
Real World - may or may not have free will depending on whether they have quantum mechanics?

Nick C

This is totally fascinating stuff, I do grasp what you are saying...and it would explain many, many things regarding ancient civilisations and their take on the metaphysical...
For centuries those 'on the path' have been trying to see 'beyond the veil', even just to get a peek...It does make me wonder what they were wanting, or hoping to find, on the otherside.

i too watched that episode of horizon...it was spectacular...the links to both the horizon programme in question and professor nick bostrom are posted in the "bbc horizon suggesy a matrix possibility" thread

Yeah you have a believer here too, i've always believed that ever since i saw M1 there is a definate possibility that this could be a matrix and we simply cannot disprove this ourselves, the only question is, if we are in a matrix, what is our purpose?

It's a definate mind-bender this one, and i've also read some of Nick Bostrums stuff i think in one of the philosophy essays in the official matrix site philosophy section.

Neofire:
I don't know what our purpose is for sure if this is all a sim / matrix but it could be one of the following:
1. A TEST framework to establish who is good and who is bad and also who would be a danger to the real world. Essentially a test for who should be brought into the real world and who shouldn't - this was how a set of evil councillors in the real world were using the matrix in my own matrix-similar story written way back in 1989 and featured "The Architect".
It's also similar to the Heaven and Earth concept in Christianity. Earth = Matrix (A simulation in which we are given free will). God also created the earth. Heaven = Real World with Order and no free will (see Philosophy "Can there be Free Will in Heaven" debates.)
2. A Temporary Holding System to Keep the Mind and Soul Alive - in my original story this was the original purpose of the "Plane" (as in other plane of existence) when the Earth was wiped out by a Comet above ground.
3. An experiment by a superior intelligence / Aliens!
4. An another - such as a system that will give the occupants of a real world free will in a real world that has none! See later!

In terms of the indirect evidence Albert Eistein had a lot of trouble with the concept / theory of Quantum Physics due to it's absurd nature. He once famously said "God does not play dice". He tried for a long time trying to disprove it but only ended up assisting with its proof! The reference he made was to the weird statistical nature of the behaviour of things on the small scale and the inherent uncertainty associated with an event. You can never know everything when studying / observing a tiny object (atom, photon etc.).

My own personal theory is that the reason we have this bizarreness is simple. Quite literally. It's a simple computationally effective way of modelling the small and the many. Which leads to the idea that in the real world there isn't this bizarreness and that things are much more orderly - Newtonian and Einsteinian! Which if true means there is NO free will in the real world. This is because you could predict every single thing that will happen in the future - even with regards to the decisions a lifeform will make - because you know everything there is to know with certainty. It's like pool balls on a pool table. As I may have mentioned it seems that Quantum Physics could be the reason why we have free will (or seem to have) - see the work by Sir Roger Penrose and co. on the Quantum Mind.

Hence this in itself could be a reason why such a sim / matrix be created in the first place. To give the occupants of the real world a break from them knowing everything there is to know (past, present, and future). The sim / matrix is a world with Uncertainty. Back to the Heaven and Earth thing I guess! I am working on another story based around this concept now but like everything else time is always against us.

Additional evidence? In Quantum Physics (Mechanics) an event does not happen / occur until it is observed. The very act of observation / measurement is what collapses the wave function and makes the event fall into a final state. Consider the Shrodingers (sp?) cat paradox (try google) in which the cat is neither alive nor dead until someone opens the sealed box and observes it. It's purrfect (sorry about the pun) from a computational / simulation perspective since you only need to model what should happen for the outcome of an event ONLY if it has been observed. Dont model everything JUST model what is needed! Hence, this saves you massive processing time.

Then again I could just be talking a load of tosh!

N

Hi there, you seem to know a lot about what your saying and i agree with the Quantum part regarding something not happening until it is observed but i think there could be a danger involved in being too too far on the logical/scientific side with the matrix as reality theory. I've also read that essay about how can there be free will in heaven and at the time it really tied my head in knots! I think i have an answer now though : Instead of 'God' placing us in a heaven without free will, what if we switch to eastern philosophy with this one?

If we do this then the wholoe world is an illusion of our own making and WE are God dreaming this whole plane into existence. It sounds 'different' but i always like to be balanced with these things because i often find that when i get too onto the science side that i reach a point where i can go no further.

With Buddhism however (see The Lankavatara Sutra, also many other forms) there isn't any end point, no conclusion, nothing to work out, it is simply the case that we are one energy and here now. The trick is to 'Be Here Now' in this reality and then we get closer to the answers, also when the mind is settled and at peace the most unbelievable things can be worked out much simpler.

If the illusion theory is true we need to stop being attached to the things we are attached to and then we can transcend, be one with the God energy that in Buddhism is also illusory, just like power but a lot more real than the desert of the matrix : our desires that we have chained ourselves to.

Maybe we truly are our 'own' gatekeepers and we need to set 'ourselves' free.

I'm in no way saying that your ideas are wrong, they are really good ideas, but for myself i have to balance with eastern thought or else i get lost in the maze!

I agree with your post. If we become too commited to a particular solution we find it harder to accept any others and become closed minded.
I think the philosophical train of thought you refer to also called sephilism (spelling?) or something like that.

It can be found on Wikipedia (when its up and running) under simulated reality.

There are arguments against it as with all different philosophies.

Are you saying that we are thoughts in the very mind of 'God', and in turn we have thought-up our very existence?
Sorry if I'm a little confused on this issue, I've always loved science but somehow I have problems grasping some of the issues, Dammit, I find it soooo frustrating. I know the 'God thingy' probably has nothing to do with science, but science has helped us to understand many things that are unseen...

It's Buddhism that i'm referring to and yes, it is very confusing, i myself had serious problems with it!

Unfortunately there is no scientific explanation for it because it involves more of an 'inner knowing' than results that can be comprehended with the rational mind, it connects to the inuitive mind that is said to be higher and not habit based, but again it is very confusing stuff, sorry about that!

It is said that there is no way that it can be talked about and explained, literally somewhat like Morpheus said himself, it has to be experienced by you yourself, and even if you did experience it, you wouldn't be able to tell someone that hadn't experienced it exactly what it was. "No-one can be told what the matrix is, you have to see it for yourself." The way i see it is that you have to feel and experience this for yourself.

However i myself haven't reached this place, but i have gone far enough to get a glimpse and that is usually the thing that keeps people on the path, but hey i'm hiijacking a thread here and leaving the main point, BTW there are another set of philosophy essays at the official matrix site, they've been there since december 30th or somewhere around then for anyone interested, i'm still to read them myself but on the couple of occasions that i have read a set of them i've come away with a lot more answers than i had at the beginning.

nickgrc wrote:

I think the philosophical train of thought you refer to also called sephilism (spelling?) or something like that.

Don´t you mean solipsism? That is to say you are the only person in universe and everything is your dream. You do not believe that there are any other persons. It is a weird philosophy, but it has some point - uncertainty at least, at the very basic level.

It is like in mathematics: you have to believe something a priori (to have some postulate - entering point) a then you can base a logical system on it. But you can never logicaly prove that the system in right or wrong if you are inside. You can only compare to other system outside it (etc. - so there is always uncertainty).

It is also interesting to point at David Hume, who was, in his own way, also operating with probability (he lived in 17th century I guess) - he said that the laws of nature aren't sure. Because how do we believe in them? They are based on our observations. We belive in nature law as long as it is in accordance with our experience - but we don't know wether it will be so in the future.
There is an example with the sun: you believe that the sun will rise up every day but how do you know that? It rose up everyday in known history. But it is not a proof, it is only believe, based on known facts (on your experience).
Yes, I think today's science is somehow based on this kind of thought but not much people are aware of it (science is presented as 'truth' - at least in elementary schools).

A challenge to this kind of scienctific thinking comes for example from Eric Voegelin, who is saying that any theory do not need to be only verified (proved that it is right) but it should be also falsified (proven when it is wrong - think about the conditions at which the theory would be wrong). It is useful to falsify theories, because there so many of them now - people are much better in thinking out theories and collecting prooves that support them, then in the opposite.

Make it simple, make it clear. That's the condition for understanding.

I'm bracing myself for a comeback, (not necessarily from you, nor from anyone who's posted on this thread before) but I'm going to post this anyway....

The ideas you're talking about are gnostic. Buddhism is (in a way) a gnostic form of Hinduism. Gnosticism is a side of virtually every religion, and gnostics from varying regions and religions resemble each other far better than they do the 'Literalists' from their own groups. For example, Christian Gnostics have more in common with Buddhists than they do with Orthodox Christians. Buddhism is one of the very few gnostic groups left in the world today; the Sikhs are another. The Ancient Mystery cults were Pagan gnostic groups, from which most of the other gnostic groups derived their teachings, and which have been diluted in recent centuries to form some "secret societies."

Most of these gnostic groups teach on two levels: one, the myth, which is for any and all. It teaches ethics, on the surface. The second level is the Mystery, where the true meaning of the myth is explained. These levels are acheived through initiations: an experiential understanding. "No one can be told blah blah." This is a highly simplified definition; please forgive me if I have glossed over anything. I would be happy to try to answer any more questions you may have on the subject, but I must move on for now.

The "thoughts in the mind of God, we have thought up our existence" idea is too simple, and slightly off-target of the actual concept. To be more accurate requires an open (FREE!) mind. In the beginning there was One. This One is the Ineffable (indescribable) Mystery, which cannot be understood, because it is everything and nothing, it is here and not here, it exists and does not exist. (THAT'S the real kicker; that's what messes most people up when trying to understand the concept - the fact that it cannot be understood.)

The Mystery became aware that it existed, and became Consciousness. As soon as it did, the One became Two, Consciousness and Psyche, Subject and Object; Consciousness is not conscious if it has nothing to be conscious of.

Through further series of syzygies, we come to humanity, which comes from Psyche; in fact, we ARE Psyche, trying to understand ourselves. We are trying to get back to Consciousness, to become One, again. So the idea is not so much that we are in the mind of God, it is that we ARE God. We have become existence in order to understand that. We, all of us, are Consciousness itself {luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!} and through Wisdom, we will, one day, all understand this. When we do, "every tear will be wiped away...."

That is the idea, anyway, as I understand it. That God is in everything, in all of us and everything around us; That all of us and everything around us is, in fact, God, a part of God, because God is All, and All is One. The reality we experience is the echo of God, it is God's reflection, the image of itself that God (Consciousness, now) is attempting to understand.

Yep. Not something you can be told, is it? Either accept it, or reject it; make up your own damn mind. But to accept it, you have to then experience it to understand it. ...Have fun!

The concepts which you speak of are incredibly familiar to me because I am a Hindu and Hinduism has the same concepts. Dammit, all religions are the same.

Quote:

it is everything and nothing, it is here and not here, it exists and does not exist

That is very familiar. I accept it alright. I must say Gnosticism is very interesting to me now thanks to you, annaerullo, and to Fatty.

same here...interesting indeed...

annaerullo, how do these play a role in gnostic belief? is it the way to wisdom? (trying to fit it in with the matrix symbolism)

Thank you, Akshat and One. I am flattered that you think my posts are worth the bandwidth! But I don't wish to be misunderstood; I think I should set a couple of things straight, just in case.

When I use the word 'gnostic,' I use it rather lightly. Most people think of 'gnosticism' as specifically Christian Gnosticism, and they apply the same basic rules to that as they generally do to all religions: that its followers take the stories for the most part literally; i.e., that its followers really believe(d) that there are certain Gods, and that they have certain names, personalities, etc. Akshat, as a Hindu, you may understand immediately that this is folly; I don't know... I actually know very little about Hinduism, except what I have read in the Bhagavad Gita, and the various "Krishna Consciousness" Hindu texts (by Swami Prabhupada, which I got handed to me for free when I was in college, and which I do not put a lot of stock in). To me, the Gita holds an awful lot of gnostic ideas!

Actually, I use the word 'gnostic' in its most basic, essential sense. It means 'knower.' Perhaps I should use the word 'Initiate;' it would be just as accurate, and possibly less misleading! In lots of different religions, one who achieves this state of 'gnosis,' or 'enlightenment,' is called a 'knower,' after a fashion: 'Buddha' (Buddhism-'enlightened' [Sanskrit]); 'Arif' (Islam-'wise' [Indonesian]); 'Gnostikos' (Paganism, later Christianity-'knower' [Greek]); 'Gnani' (Hinduism-'knower' [Sanskrit, I think]). The secret teachings through which one might acheive this were most usually called 'Mysteries.'

Initiates of the Mysteries were eclectics, who had no problems whatever in adapting other peoples' faiths and beliefs to suit their own needs, if they were similar and compatible enough - something that, in fact, happened quite often, which is why the texts seem so often incongruent. They were generally egalitarians, who accepted men and women, rich and poor, alike. They were often rebels, who rejected the authoritarian governments and churches of their day, openly speaking against them, to teach the Truth of the Mystery. (...Does this sound a bit like the 'unplugged' humans in The Matrix films, to you? Me, too. )

There is a rich and deep history to the Mysteries, starting (at least) as far back as ancient Egypt, and the Mysteries of Isis. These Mysteries were carried into Greece, as Egypt became Hellenized, and philosophers such as Pythagoras and Plato were initiated into the Greek Mysteries, such as the Mysteries at Eleusis, and the Orphic Mysteries. Other Mystery groups arose in the Greek and Roman Empires, such as the Mysteries of Attis in Asia Minor and the Mysteries of Mithras in Persia. From there, little is known for certain, because so many 'heresies' were systematically eradicated after the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Given the acute and abundant similarities of the story of Christ to the stories of Osiris, Dionysos, Orpheas, Attis, and Mithras (respectively, to the above), however, it is most curious that Christ is generally seen as a real flesh-and-blood historical figure, rather than another mythic figurehead of a great Mystery religion.

Therefore, if you are interested in Gnosticism, that is to say, Christian Gnosticism as I think Fatpie42 understands it, I suggest looking at it from that perspective: that the Christian Gnostics actually believed in Christ as a mythic model. Indeed, many Christian Gnostic texts state rather explicitly that Christ was not a man at all. Think of this as enlightenment, rather than heresy, and the true meanings of the 'Gnostic' teachings will become clearer.

Another post, for One-der Man's Love/Hate question....

The ONE-der Man wrote:

annaerullo, how do these play a role in gnostic belief? is it the way to wisdom? (trying to fit it in with the matrix symbolism)

'I'm sorry, I don't have the answer to that question....'

As I mentioned before, I don't think that Hate is the opposite of Love, that is, 'not-love;' indifference, apathy, is more like 'not-love' to me. But then, Hate is a powerful counterpoint to Love. Especially when 'Love' is thought of not as one concept, but as eros, agape, and philia.

Smith definitely shows signs of Hate: 'I HATE this place....' His many tirades on humanity in general show this, too. Neo's Love is also pretty obvious.... I tend to focus on Neo and Trinity and Smith a lot when I think of the Matrix Mysteries (soon to be a website by yours truly; if I can ever finish anything!).... That's because the Mystery religions (as I understand them so far) focused primarily on a Godman figure and a Goddess figure; usually it was the Goddess who had two opposing natures, with a personification for each. It's not as common, but certainly not unique to The Matrix, for the Godman to have an opposite.

However, there are other figures in The Matrix in whom we can see the ideas of the Mysteries encoded. Morpheus and Niobe, for example. Link and Zee are another good one. As Fatpie42 has pointed out before, the last movie is about Love (the first is Faith, and the second, Hope, recalling Paul's first letter to the Corinthians). So it is important, I think, to have many different views on Love in such a film; one couple's story simply can't express such a complex thing.

The film, Love Actually, actually does this very well.... My wife didn't like the end of the movie, (and I must say, as movies go, the end wasn't very satisfying) but I don't think that was the point. The point was to show as many sides of Love as possible. In that, I think it succeeded.

Hate is such a powerful emotion... I can't recall any Christian Gnostic texts that I have read that deal with it. They mostly focus on Love, which, for most gnostics, is the beginning. The Kabbalah teaches that the One became Two out of Love, and no other reason; hence, Love really DOES make the world go 'round! However, I think it is the nature of all Mysteries to exist in syzygy (one appearing as two), and Love is surely no exception. Love must have its opposite, its negative; the opposite of powerful eros and agape, like the Love of Neo for Trinity, or even philia, like Morpheus for Neo, must be something equally powerful.

But, back to the topic at hand, eh? ...I like what Neofire said:

Quote:

Maybe we truly are our 'own' gatekeepers and we need to set 'ourselves' free.

Ah! Here we have the essence of gnostic initiation!

The Initiate knows that 'there is something wrong with the world;' he knows that the 'conceptual matrix' of the world we experience through our five senses is not the truth. The truth, which the Initiate strives his whole life through to understand, is that he is Consciousness witnessing Psyche; that he must 'wake up' to Consciousness; that the world around him is but a reflection of the Mystery.

Physically, as well as philosophically, the idea has been around for centuries. It took a special-effects-laden motion picture trilogy to finally take it to the masses again! ...I, for one, hope the trend continues. Nothing bad can come from the idea that All is One, in my humble opinion.

this was a while ago so bare with me if no one knows what i'm talking about...

i heard a while back that in some creation myth(christanity i think)or the actual translation of it in hebrew, the text when talking about adam and eve, refers them to being one being at first and then they split ie the rib... is this kinda like the syzygies your always talking about annaerullo? do you know of what i'm blabbering about?

(yep, advertising campaigns are not lost on me....)

I find it so refreshing to be able to talk with so many people who do not seem to have been brought up in the stifling hotbox of orthodox Christianity... I was, and let me tell you, I began to feel a little like Winston Smith (Orwell's 1984) myself: knowing something was wrong with all the stuff I was told to believe, but afraid to question it! Now that I have found my own way, a way which seems at least to me to be closer to the Truth than the stuff I was expected to swallow my whole life, I really love that I can talk about it, here, without worrying about offending everyone around me! 'Course, there are still some folks around here who'll get offended, so I still tread lightly, but at least it's not like trying to talk to a bunch of fundamentalists (like Iowa seems to be full of)....

As for Adam's rib... I recommend reading gnosis.org...... It deals with the idea of the syzygy of man and woman far better than I could in a post here (even the epics I usually turn out!) It also deals with the reuniting of that syzygy: the Mystical Marriage, which is a key part of all the Mystery mythologies, encoding in myth the idea of Psyche and Consciousness returning to the One.

I would also recommend Plato's Symposium - there is especially one part of the dialogue I like (I believe it is Aristophanes' part) on 'The Origin of Love,' on which the song of the same name from 'Hedwig and the Angry Inch' is based - an excellent song, by the way. (click textkit.com... of the dialogue ... an html version, in two parts, can be found evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com....) The entire dialogue is about Love, its nature, its origins, etc. So, it should be right down your alley, so to speak.