Some time ago, I have occasionally found

Nick Bostrom, *Are You Living In a Computer Simulation*?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

I should say that this idea looks crazy but on the other hand why not?

The page of Prof Schmidhuber adds mathematical insight into this problem

*Computable Universes & Algorithmic Theory of Everything*

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html

Interestingly enough, it was not cited by Nick Bostrom but it seems to be related. Prof Schmidhuber mentions Konrad Zuse as a pioneer in this area.

*Zuse’s thesis: The Universe is a Computer*

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/digitalphysics.html

On this page there is a link to a pdf of the translation of the book Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space).

I should say that such a viewpoint troubled me for some time. Yet, finally I have found the paper

David Chalmers, *The Matrix as Metaphysics*

http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf

where ther author considers The Matrix Hypothesis. A few citations

“I will argue that the hypothesis that I am envatted is not a skeptical hypothesis, but a metaphysical hypothesis. That is, it is a hypothesis about the underlying nature of reality.”

“In particular, I think the Matrix Hypothesis is equivalent to a version of the following three-part Metaphysical Hypothesis. First, physical processes are fundamentally computational. Second, our cognitive systems are separate from physical processes, but interact with these processes. Third, physical reality was created by beings outside physical space-time.”

“Importantly, nothing about this Metaphysical Hypothesis is skeptical. The Metaphysical Hypothesis here tells us about the processes underlying our ordinary reality, but it does not entail that this reality does not exist. We still have bodies, and there are still chairs and tables: it’s just that their fundamental nature is a bit different from what we may have thought. In this manner, the Metaphysical Hypothesis is analogous to a physical hypothesis, such as one involving quantum mechanics. Both the physical hypothesis and the Metaphysical Hypothesis tell us about the processes underlying chairs. They do not entail that there are no chairs. Rather, they tell us what chairs are really like.”

With such an interpretation I am actually satisfied.

P.S. There is a discussion list related to this:

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

RSS