AreWeLivinginaComputerSimulation

1、Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtualand what it means either wayBy Clara Moskowitz on April 7, 2016NEW YORKIf you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer

2、game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museu

3、m of Natural History.Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museums Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone elses hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. 我們正生活在計算機模擬世界中嗎？知名物理學家們和哲學家們匯聚一堂，就我們是生活中現(xiàn)實世界中還是虛擬世界中展開討論。 克拉拉&

4、#183;莫斯科維茨，2016.4.7紐約假使你、我以及宇宙中的任何人、任何事物都真實地存在于一些大型計算機游戲中，可能我們也不得而知。而宇宙是一個模擬世界的觀點，聽起來更像是電影黑客帝國中的情節(jié)。不可否認，這也是個合理的科學假說。周二，在美國自然歷史博物館中，研究者們在一年一度的艾薩克·阿西莫紀念館辯論會上，就這一有爭議的觀點展開了詳細的討論。辯論會主持人奈爾·德葛拉司·泰森（美國自然歷史博物館海登天文館的主管）認為，我們整個世界可能僅是他人硬盤驅(qū)動器中的一個程序，這種可能性為50%。他說：“在我看來，或許這種可能性非常高?！彼⒁獾胶谛尚珊腿祟愔橇χg的差距

5、，盡管He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If thats th

6、e case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.” Virtual mindsA popular argument for the simulation hypothesis came from University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrum in 2003, when he suggested that members of an adva

7、nced civilization with enormous computing power might decide to run simulations of their ancestors. They would probably have the ability to run many, many such simulations, to the point where the vast majority of minds would actually be artificial ones within such simulations, rather than the origin

8、al ancestral minds. So simple statistics suggest it is much more likely that we are among the simulated minds.事實是我們的智力98%以上來源于我們自身的DNA(脫氧核糖核酸)?；蛟S就在某個地方，有那么一個人，他智力超群。泰森說：“在那些智力超群的人們眼中，或許我們就像是流著口水，十足的白癡。如果是那樣的話，不由得讓我想象，我們生活中的一切事物都僅是那些人為其消遣而創(chuàng)造出來的產(chǎn)物。”虛擬思維關(guān)于模擬世界的假說，在2003年有一個流行的論調(diào)，其出自牛津大學的哲學家尼克·博斯物。他

9、指出，在一個先進文明社會中，人們對其先人們的模擬，可能取決于那些擁有強大計算能力的人們。他們可能擁有模擬的能力，可以進行許多諸如此類的模擬。值得一提的是，在這些模擬中，絕大多數(shù)的思維實際上都是虛擬的，而并非最初先人們的思維。因此簡單的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)表明，這更像是我們置身于模擬思維世界中。And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical l

10、aws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in. “If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Tec

11、hnology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”Furthermore, ideas from information theory keep showing up in physics. “In my research I found this very strange thing,” said James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland. “I was driven to error-corre

12、cting codestheyre what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry? This brought me to the stark realization that I could no longer say people like Max are crazy.”其他現(xiàn)象也表明我們可能生活在虛擬世界中。比如，我們越是了解宇宙，似乎宇宙就越是依據(jù)數(shù)學規(guī)律而發(fā)展?；蛟S并沒有有跡可循，但它卻是我們賴以

13、生存的宇宙中的一種自然現(xiàn)象。麻省理工學院的宇宙學家馬克斯·泰格馬克說：“如果我是計算機游戲中的一個人物，最終我也會發(fā)現(xiàn)，數(shù)學規(guī)律似乎極其精準的與游戲相吻合，但其僅是揭示了游戲中所編寫的計算機代碼。此外，信息論中的概念，也一直在物理學中有所體現(xiàn)。美國馬里蘭大學的理論物理學家詹姆斯·蓋茨說：“我在研究中也發(fā)現(xiàn)了這一非常奇怪的現(xiàn)象，這驅(qū)使著我開始研究糾錯碼，正是這些糾錯碼，使得瀏覽器得以正常工作。因此，為什么它們會出現(xiàn)在我正研究的關(guān)于夸克、電子和超對稱性的方程式中？這讓我有了切身體會，我可能再不會說那些和馬克斯有相似之處的人們是瘋子了?！盧oom for skepticismYe

14、t not everyone on the panel agreed with this reasoning. “If youre finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe its just the fad of the moment,” Tyson pointed out. “Kind of like if youre a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”And the statistical argument that most minds in the future will turn ou

15、t to be artificial rather than biological is also not a given, said Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University. “Its just not based on well-defined probabilities. The argument says youd have lots of things that want to simulate us. I actually have a problem with that. We mostly are

16、interested in ourselves. I dont know why this higher species would want to simulate us.” Randall admitted she did not quite understand why other scientists were even entertaining the notion that the universe is a simulation. “I actually am very interested in why so many people think its an interesti

17、ng question.” She rated the chances that this idea turns out to be true “effectively zero.”Such existential-sounding 質(zhì)疑然而，并非辯論會中的所有人都同意這一論斷。泰森指出：“如果你正尋求用信息化的解決方案來解決問題，這可能僅是當下的一種潮流所向。這就好比，如果你是一個錘子，那么每個問題看起來就像是一個個釘子?！惫鸫髮W的物理學家，麗莎·藍道爾說：“有這樣一種統(tǒng)計理論，即未來大部分的思維都將被模擬思維取而代之，但這一理論并未得到證實。這一理論并不是在有確切可能性的基礎(chǔ)上

18、提出的。該理論指出，在許多事情上，你可能都會想要模擬我們。而事實上，我對此有所質(zhì)疑，因為我們大多都只對自己的事感興趣。我并不知道為什么這種更高級的物種想要模擬我們?！彼{道爾承認，她并不十分理解為什么其他科學家甚至會持有這一觀點，即宇宙是一個模擬世界。她說：“事實上，我極為感興趣的是，為什么如此多的人們都認為這是一個有趣的問題。”而她認為這一觀點真實存在的可能性為零。這種存在模擬世界的假說往往是 hypotheses often tend to be essentially untestable, but some researchers think they could find experi

19、mental evidence that we are living in a computer game. One idea is that the programmers might cut corners to make the simulation easier to run. “If there is an underlying simulation of the universe that has the problem of finite computational resources, just as we do, then the laws of physics have t

20、o be put on a finite set of points in a finite volume,” said Zohreh Davoudi, a physicist at MIT. “Then we go back and see what kind of signatures we find that tell us we started from non-continuous spacetime.” That evidence might come, for example, in the form of an unusual distribution of energies

21、among the cosmic rays hitting Earth that suggests spacetime is not continuous, but made of discrete points. “Thats the kind of evidence that would convince me as a physicist,” Gates said. Yet proving the oppositethat the universe is realmight be harder. “Youre not going to get proof that were not in

22、 a simulation, because any evidence that we get could be simulated,” Chalmers said.不可驗證的，但是一些研究者們認為，他們能夠找到實驗證據(jù)，以證明我們正生活在計算機游戲中。有這樣一個觀點，程序設(shè)計員可能會簡化程序，從而使模擬更加易于操作。麻省理工學院的物理學家Zohreh Davoudi說：“正如我們所討論的，如果存在對宇宙潛在的模擬，并且這種模擬自身存在有限計算資源的問題，那么在有限空間內(nèi)的有限點集上，就必須用物理定律加以解決。然后我們再去看那些被我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的信號，這些信號告訴我們，我們源于非連續(xù)的時空?！笨赡軙?/p>

23、有這樣的證據(jù)，比如，在射向地球的宇宙射線中，能量異常分布的形式，揭示了時空并非是連續(xù)的，而是由許多離散的點組成。蓋茨說：“正是此依據(jù)，讓作為物理學家的我相信模擬世界的存在?！比欢胍C明宇宙是真實的可能更難。查爾莫斯說：“你并沒有打算找到證據(jù)來證明我們處在真實世界中，因為我們所掌握的任何證據(jù)都可能是被模擬了的?！盠ife, the universe and everythingIf it turns out we really are living in a version of “The Matrix,” thoughso what? “Maybe were in a simulation,

24、 maybe were not, but if we are, hey, its not so bad,” Chalmers said.“My advice is to go out and do really interesting things,” Tegmark said, “so the simulators dont shut you down.”But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hyp

25、othesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If were programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer thats not damaged, I can always re-run the

26、 program.”And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and theres nothing remotely spooky about that,” said David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy at New York University. “Our creator isnt especially spooky, its

27、 生命，宇宙和一切事物如果我們真的生活在像電影黑客帝國中呈現(xiàn)的虛擬世界中，那又怎樣呢？查爾莫斯說：“或許我們就處在一個模擬世界中，亦或許我們不在，但如果我們在其中，也并沒那么糟糕?！辫F馬克說：“我建議多出去看看，去做那些你真正感興趣的事情，這樣你就不會被模擬者們所禁錮?！钡沁@令一些人開始更多的沉思，他們說模擬世界存在的可能性大大增加了人們內(nèi)心的疑問。蓋茨指出，“如果模擬世界的假說有其依據(jù)，那么我們將開啟永生和復(fù)活之門，而各種事情也已正式的在宗教領(lǐng)域內(nèi)被討論。究其原因，很簡單，那就是如果我們是計算機中的某一程序，只要我有計算機，并且它完好無損，那么我就可以隨時重新運行該程序?！比绻羞@么一個人

28、，他在某個地方創(chuàng)造了我們的模擬世界，那么這會使他成為神一般的人物嗎？紐約大學的哲學教授大衛(wèi)·查爾莫斯說：“在這個宇宙中，我們可以創(chuàng)造出模擬的世界，而這并不是什么無稽之談。創(chuàng)造者也不是什么擁有特異功能的人，而僅是新時期興起的年輕的網(wǎng)絡(luò)黑客?！眏ust some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We dont think of ourselves as deities when we

29、 program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “Theres no reason to think theyre all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if theres a bug that crashes the entire program?”正相反，我們自己才是神一般的人物，是我們通過計算機創(chuàng)造了計算機游戲中的模擬世界。泰森說：“當我們在設(shè)定馬里奧這個游戲人物時，盡管我們能夠設(shè)定馬里奧跳起的高度，可我們并不認為我們自己就是神。沒有理由僅是因為他們掌控著我們