Are we living in a simulation

我們是否生活在模擬中

來源視頻

We live in a vast universe, ?on a small wet planet,

where billions of years ago

single-celled life forms evolved from the same elements

as all non-living material ?around them,

proliferating and radiating into an ?incredible ray of complex life forms.

All of this— living and inanimate, ?microscopic and cosmic—

is governed by mathematical laws with ?apparently arbitrary constants.

我們生活在廣闊宇宙中的 一個潮濕的小星球上，

早在數(shù)十億年前，

單細胞生命形式就從與其周圍

的非生命物質(zhì) 相同的元素中演變出來，

并不斷繁衍和發(fā)展出 大量的復(fù)雜生命形式。

無論其有無生命、 微觀的還是龐大的，

所有這一切都明顯受到 任意常量的數(shù)學法則的支配。

And this opens up a question:

If the universe is completely governed ?by these laws,

couldn’t a powerful enough computer ?simulate it exactly?

Could our reality actually be an ?incredibly detailed simulation

set in place by a much more ?advanced civilization?

This idea may sound like science fiction,

but it has been the subject ?of serious inquiry.

這就提出了下面的問題：

如果宇宙完全受這些法則支配的話，

那么，功能強大的計算機 難道不能完全模擬它嗎？

我們的現(xiàn)實世界是否真的是

被更先進的文明 所設(shè)定出來的精細模擬呢？

可能該想法聽起來像科幻，

但它已成為嚴肅研究的主題。

Philosopher Nick Bostrom advanced ?a compelling argument

that we’re likely living in a simulation,

and some scientists also think ?it’s a possibility.

These scientists have started thinking ?about experimental tests

to find out whether our ?universe is a simulation.

They are hypothesizing about what the ?constraints of the simulation might be,

and how those constraints could lead ?to detectable signs in the world.

So where might we look for those glitches?

哲學家尼克·伯斯特羅姆 提出了令人信服的論點，

即我們很可能生活在一個模擬中，

而一些科學家也認為這是可能的。

這些科學家已經(jīng)開始考慮 進行實驗測試，

以發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的宇宙是否為模擬的。

他們假設(shè)了模擬的可能約束條件，

以及這些約束條件可能 如何在世界上產(chǎn)生可檢測的跡象。

那么，我們?nèi)ツ睦镎覍?這些蛛絲馬跡呢？

One idea is that as a simulation runs,

it might accumulate errors over time.

To correct for these errors

the simulators could adjust the constants in the laws of nature.

These shifts could be tiny—

for instance,

certain constants we’ve measured ?with accuracies of parts per million

have stayed steady for decades,

so any drift would have to be ?on an even smaller scale.

But as we gain more precision in our ?measurements of these constants,

we might detect slight changes over time.

一個想法是，隨著模擬的進行，

隨著時間的推移， 錯誤可能會被積累。

為了糾正這些錯誤，

可調(diào)整模擬器 自然法則中的常量。

這些變化可能很小 ——

例如，

我們用百萬分之幾的精度 所測量的某些常量

已經(jīng)穩(wěn)定了幾十年，

因此，任何偏離 都控制在較小范圍內(nèi)。

但隨著我們對這些常量 測量精度的提高，

隨著時間推移， 我們可能會發(fā)現(xiàn)那些細微變化。

Another possible place to look comes from ?the concept that finite computing power,

no matter how huge, ?can’t simulate infinities.

If space and time are continuous,

then even a tiny piece of the universe ?has infinite points

and becomes impossible to simulate ?with finite computing power.

So a simulation would have to represent ?space and time in very small pieces.

These would be almost ?incomprehensibly tiny.

But we might be able to search for them

by using certain subatomic ?particles as probes.

從有限計算能力的角度， 另一個可能需要關(guān)注的概念是：

即無論多大的有限計算能力 都無法模擬無極限的東西。

如果空間和時間是連續(xù)的，

即使宇宙極小的一部分 也具有無限的點組成，

無法用有限的計算能力進行模擬。

因此，模擬必須以非常小的片段 來表示空間和時間，

微小到幾乎難以理解。

但是，我們或許能夠?qū)ふ宜鼈儯?/p>

通過使用某些亞原子粒子作為探針。

The basic principle is this: ?the smaller something is,

the more sensitive it will ?be to disruption—

think of hitting a pothole on a skateboard versus in a truck.

Any unit in space-time would be so small

that most things would travel through it ?without disruption—

not just objects large enough to be ?visible to the naked eye,

but also molecules, atoms, ?and even electrons

and most of the other subatomic ?particles we’ve discovered.

If we do discover a tiny unit in ?space-time

or a shifting constant in a natural law,

would that prove the universe ?is a simulation?

基本原理是：

物體越小的話， 對干擾就越敏感 ——

試想地面坑洼 對駛過的滑板和卡車的不同影響。

時空中的微粒都特別小，

以至于多數(shù)物體都 不受干擾地通過 ——

不僅是肉眼可見的大物體，

還有分子、原子，甚至電子，

以及我們已發(fā)現(xiàn)的其它 多數(shù)亞原子粒子也不受干擾。

若我們確實在時空中 發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個微小單位，

或者在自然定律中 發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個移動常量，

那是否就證明了 宇宙就是一個模擬世界？

No— it would only be the ?first of many steps.

There could be other explanations ?for each of those findings.

And a lot more evidence would be needed ?to establish the simulation hypothesis

as a working theory of nature.

However many tests we design,

we’re limited by some assumptions ?they all share.

Our current understanding of the natural ?world on the quantum level

breaks down at what’s known ?as the planck scale.

If the unit of space-time is ?on this scale,

we wouldn’t be able to look for it ?with our current scientific understanding.

There’s still a wide range of things

that are smaller than what’s ?currently observable

but larger than the planck ?scale to investigate.

不 —— 這只是許多步驟中的第一步，

其中任意一個發(fā)現(xiàn) 可能還有其它解釋。

而且，作為一個有效運行 的自然理論，建立這個模擬假設(shè)

需要更多的證據(jù)。

無論我們設(shè)計了多少種測試，

都受到了一些假設(shè)的共同限制。

我們目前對量子水平自然界的理解

不適用于普朗克尺度。

如果時空單位基于普朗克尺度，

那么，我們將無法 按當前的科學理解來尋找它。

仍然有大量的

比我們目前能觀察到的小， 但大于普朗克尺度的東西

需要我們?nèi)ヌ骄俊?/p>

Similarly, shifts in the constants of ?natural laws could occur so slowly

that they would only be observable ?over the lifetime of the universe.

So they could exist even if we don’t ?detect them

over centuries or millennia ?of measurements.

We're also biased towards thinking that ?our universe’s simulator, if it exists,

makes calculations the same way we do,

with similar computational limitations.

同理，自然定律常量的變化 可能發(fā)生得太過緩慢，

以至于只有在宇宙的 整個生命周期中才能觀察到。

因此，即使我們在幾個世紀 或幾千年的測量中沒能發(fā)現(xiàn)它們，

它們也可能是存在的。

如果宇宙模擬器存在的話，

我們還偏向于認為 其運算方式與我們相同，

即具有類似的計算限制。

Really, we have no way of knowing

what an alien civilization’s constraints ?and methods would be—

but we have to start somewhere.

It may never be possible to prove ?conclusively that the universe either is,

or isn’t, a simulation,

but we’ll always be pushing science and ?technology forward

in pursuit of the question:

what is the nature of reality?

確實，我們無從知曉

外星文明的約束條件和方法，

但我們必須從某個地方著手研究。

可能最終都永遠無法證明

宇宙是否為模擬的，

但我們將一直推動科技發(fā)展

去追尋這個問題的答案：

現(xiàn)實的本質(zhì)是什么？