How likely are we to live in a virtual world?

We use a semi silver plated BS1 mirror instead of the baffle in the double slit experiment. According to the randomness of the quantum distribution, half of the single photon emitted from the left side of the diagram may pass through the mirror and half may be reflected. If we set the angle of incidence of a photon to 45 degrees, a photon may fly straight and may be reflected at a right angle. All photons can pass through a half path of IP < 2 at the end of the mirror. We can know whether a single photon passes through a half mirror or is reflected by measuring the angle of the photon at the end point. < / P > < p > we replaced the total mirror at the end point with a semi mirror. According to the conclusion of double slit experiment, when the angle is appropriate, photons will interfere here. In other words, photons go through I1 → M1 → I2 and I1 → M2 → I2 at the same time. Something weird happened. When we observe the angle of the photon, we can know the trajectory of the photon. That is to say, the photons only go one way. When we put in a half mirror, the photons interfere. That is to say, the photons go two ways at the same time. The observer’s free will changes the path selection of photons. What’s more strange is that we can decide whether to insert the half mirror until the photon actually passes through the first half mirror and is about to reach the end point. In other words, we can decide how things should happen after they happen. < p > < p > generally speaking, when talk show actors talk about the laws of physics in their own programs, they rarely reach the level of astonishing astrophysicists to goose bumps. But in the latest podcast episode, comedian Chuck & middot; nice did. The host of this show, Nell & middot; deglars & middot; Tyson, explains what the simulation hypothesis is, that is, whose computers we may live in, they are just virtual creatures in the virtual world. < / P > < p > if this is the case, the simulation system that sustains our world is likely to simulate the perception of reality according to our observation needs, rather than simulating every corner of the real world all the time – as if our game would give priority to rendering scenes in the player’s visible area. < / P > < p > “maybe that’s why we can never travel at superluminal speeds, because once we can do it, we can reach other galaxies,” nice said later in the show, guest host of the show, which caused Tyson to excitedly interrupt and excitedly say, “so they gave us this virtual reality Before the program hits the code, “the astrophysicist was excited by the idea,” those programmers set a limit to the speed of light in our world first! ” This conversation between the two hosts may sound too much of a fantasy, but since 2003, Oxford philosopher Nick middot; After Bostrom published a paper that can be regarded as the cornerstone of the field of simulation hypothesis, other philosophers, physicists, technologists, and of course, other talk show actors have been trying to study whether the real world we live in is illusory. Some of them are trying to find ways to determine whether we are virtual or not, while others are trying to figure out how likely we are to be virtual entities. < / P > < p > now a new data analysis study shows that the probability of living in virtual reality is almost half that of living in basic reality, that is, non virtual existence. However, this study also demonstrates another view that the possibility of virtual hypothesis may rise dramatically in the future. Once human beings can develop the technology of simulating consciousness in the future, we are likely to be virtual permanent residents in other people’s computers. < / P > < p > it is necessary to attach a remark to this conclusion: since there is little agreement on the meaning of the word “consciousness”, let alone what the so-called simulated consciousness means. < p > < p > in 2003, Bostrom envisioned a situation: suppose that there is an advanced civilization that is very skilled in simulation technology, and they have powerful computing power, and only a small part of the computing power can simulate the virtual reality containing the existence of consciousness. If the hypothesis is true, then at least one of the following three paradox sets is true The proposition is true: < / P > < p > Second, even if humans mastered this technology, we would not be interested in simulating our ancestors. Third, the probability that we live in a simulated reality is close to 100%. Before postrom published his thesis, the concept of simulated reality had been popularized to a great extent in films, and this concept had been deeply rooted in the eastern and Western philosophical thoughts. There have been such allusions as Plato’s cave metaphor and Zhuang Zhou’s dream of butterflies since ancient times. Until recently, Elon & middot; musk has been adding fuel to our concept of living in a virtual world. “The probability that we live in basic reality is only one in a billion,” he said at a conference in 2016. < / P > < p > “musk is right only if we assume that proposition 1 and Proposition 2 in that set of ternary paradoxes are pseudo propositions,” says Columbia University astronomer David & middot; Kipin, “but who would make such a ridiculous assumption?” In order to further study posterom’s simulation hypothesis, Kipin used Bayesian inference analysis. This is an analysis method based on Bayesian theorem, named after Thomas Bayesian, an 18th century British statistician and Presbyterian priest. Bayesian analysis can help people to calculate the probability of something happening, that is, the so-called posterior probability, and the first step of analysis is to make assumptions on the object to be analyzed – at this time, a priori probability will be assigned to the object. At the beginning of his research, kiping first transformed the group of ternary paradoxes into a pair of dilemmas. He broke up and merged proposition 1 and Proposition 2 again and expressed it with a proposition, because the final conclusion of proposition 1 or Proposition 2 is that there is no so-called simulated reality. Therefore, in this dilemma, the two opposing sides are a hypothesis based on physics and a hypothesis based on simulation. “You just need to assign a priori probability to each model,” kiping said, “and when we don’t have any data or trends, we just need to default and assume that the principle of insufficient reason holds, that is, the probability of each possibility is equal.” The next stage of analysis involves the classification of two different realities: one is the “productive” reality, that is, the reality that can produce other realities; the other is the “non productive” reality, that is, those that cannot produce the reality of future generations. If the physics hypothesis mentioned above is true, then the probability that we live in a nonparousal reality is not difficult to calculate, that is, the probability is 100%. Then, through his research, Kipin proved that even in the simulation hypothesis, the vast majority of simulated reality is non menstrual reality. This is because with the continuous production of more simulated reality, the computing power that the civilization can provide for each offspring’s reality is continuously shared and reduced until it is reduced to a critical value, that is, most of the reality is those that do not have enough computing power, and they can not serve as the host to support the internal consciousness. < / P > < p > substituting all these into the Bayesian formula, we will find the answer we want in the calculation results: the posterior probability that we live in the basic reality is almost the same as the posterior probability that we are simulated, and the posterior probability that we live in the basic reality is only slightly larger. < / P > < p > of course, if humans can create a simulated reality that includes conscious existence, then these probabilities will change dramatically, because the event will change the probability we assigned to the previous physical hypothesis. “< / P > < p >” of course, you can immediately deny that physical hypothesis, so we’re left with the simulation hypothesis, “Kipin said.” according to the above calculation, the probability that we are real or we are virtual is almost half of each, but as long as humans master that technology one day, the probability will change immediately, and then it will almost be To make sure we don’t really exist. This day is undoubtedly a victory for human wisdom, but the rewards that follow are really strange. ” The conclusion of Kipin’s research is that, based on the existing evidence, Musk’s statement that the probability that we live in basic reality is only one in a billion is wrong. Bostrom basically agreed with Kipin’s conclusion, but he made several suggestions. “It’s not in conflict with the simulation hypothesis, because it’s only about logic or making some inferences,” which means that one of the three paradoxes is true, says posterom. However, posterom objected to Kipling’s practice of assigning the same prior probability to the physics based hypothesis and the simulation hypothesis at the beginning of his analysis. “There is a problem in invoking the principle of insufficient reason here and acquiescing it,” Kipin said. “We can also invoke the principle of insufficient reason in the set of ternary paradoxes I put forward, so that each proposition can be assigned a third of the probability. Or we can segment the probability space in other ways and get any conclusion that anyone expects. ” < / P > < p > even this kind of sophistication is still valid at present, because there is no evidence to support one opinion and falsify others. If we can find evidence of simulated reality, this impasse will be broken. So who can find those glitches in our matrix? < p > < p > houman & middot; ovadi, an expert in Computational Mathematics at the California Institute of technology, once thought about it. “If analog reality has almost unlimited computing power, then we will never have any way to realize that we are living in a virtual reality world, because this simulation can calculate anything you want and present it to the reality you want,” he said It must be considered on the premise that its computing resources are limited. ” If we take games as an example again, it’s like many games use clever programming to save as much computing power as possible to build virtual worlds in games. According to ovadi, if similar programming shortcuts exist, then the areas where humans are most likely to find these potential contradictions are various experiments in quantum physics. Quantum systems can maintain superposition states of various states and persist