Are we living in the Matrix? Matilda’s Lab at the movies

Frequently, with these movie based subjects, I spend most of my time explaining why the ideas presented in the movies are completely unrealistic but on this occasion it’s not that simple. Before we get out of the joy-killing spirit; it is highly unlikely that the Matrix scenario of machines using humans as living batteries would be realistic. Doing this would be like trying to power a car using a collection of hamsters in wheels. Sure, you could do it if you had enough hamsters, but it would be a ridiculously inefficient way of going about it.

The subject of whether we are living within a computer programme is a much more interesting one. How can we possibly tell if our world is real or whether we are just a slightly more sophisticated version of Super Mario and Luigi living in a bigger and more vibrant Mushroom Kingdom? We know that Super Mario is a video game because we see it come and go as we turn the console on and off and we can directly relate Mario’s actions to our own; but how would you work that out if you were inside the game itself, with no way of looking into the world outside?

Living inside a computer

Anyone who has used Virtual Reality (VR) will already be aware of how much of an assault it can be on our senses. This almost totally immersive environment can make us physically react to virtual stimuli in a way that tradition video games cannot even get close to. This can be taken a step further with the use of rumble packs which recreate the sensation of physically interacting with the virtual environment.

Being the computer

VR is just an example here. Whilst the Matrix deals with a very sophisticated form of VR, scientists are more interested an idea that takes things a step further: That we are not just physical beings fully immersed in a virtual world but that we ourselves are nothing more than pieces of AI within this virtual universe. The reason why our world feels so real to us is that it is just as real as we are, whilst at the same time being completely artificial.

A scientific religion?

We have previously discussed the problems of trying to scientifically assess the claims of religions, with the main issue being that religions do not provide us with testable ideas. That is to say that they do not make specific predictions that we can do science on. The problem with the idea that our universe is nothing more than a very powerful computer programme is that it is also untestable. So if this is the case, how can scientists who reject religious claims give any consideration to this idea?

It all comes down to the background evidence. Religious texts are full of interpretations and metaphors, or you have to assume that they are in order for them to retain any form of scientific credibility. No major religion has suggested an age of the Earth that is consistent with the physical evidence and most of the animals reported as speaking to people are physically incapable of doing so. It is this ambiguity within the source material (including the outright denial of facts by some factions) that leave many people, and not just scientists, sceptical of the claims.

The difference with the computer idea is that the foundations of the idea are completely solid. The idea that our world has been created and exists within a computer, similar to the type that we are already making (but immensely more powerful) is completely plausible. There is no evidence available to disprove the idea which means that we cannot reject the possibility.

If we are in a computer, whose computer is it?

The simple answer is that it is anyone’s guess. If an advanced civilisation have created us in computer, why? We are now in the realms of complete guess work but that doesn’t mean that we can’t look at our own world to entertain ideas.

One of the tools used in many arms of science is computer modelling. This involves creating a simpler version of our own universe within a computer in order to test an idea. It allows us to alter the physical rules within this artificial universe in a way that we can’t within the real world. They can be used for everything from city planning to astronomy (the initial evidence that led to people believing in the existence of planet IX came from computer models).

As we become more knowledgeable and computers become more powerful, the complexity of the computer models gets greater and greater. Following this trend into the distant future means that you could argue that future computer models would be so sophisticated that they end up recreating all parts of that universe; including the life (especially if the computer model was designed to test the idea of evolution through natural selection). So it could be that a future version of the human race has recreated a previous version of itself to see where they came from. Maybe one day our own civilisation will be capable of doing the same thing and the Russian doll will develop an additional layer?

What does this mean for us?

Ultimately, this idea is of no consequence to you or me. Even if we are virtual elements of a virtual world then that only makes us as real as the world that we live in so for all intents and purposes our world is the real thing. This idea is just one of many that attempts to explain what is going on beyond the limits of our own universe and, as we have already covered, there is no way of testing that at this time.

There is so much that we know about our universe and there are so many facts about it that the opportunity to of going to town on a far flung idea rarely arises without someone presenting some data to shoot you down. However, this is not one of these areas. We are now dealing with an area that we have so little information on that practically anything goes. This is where the magic of imagination can run free and unencumbered or as they said in the olden days; here be dragons.

Matilda’s Lab ©2017. https://twitter.com/matildaslab.

Matilda’s Lab tries to help explain complex science to children. I keep the content accurate but it is necessary to oversimplify things. If you think that any of the facts here are wrong then please get in touch so that I can correct it.