According to Elon Musk, we all live in a complex computer simulation, conceived by an extremely advanced civilization. In June 2016 Musk stated that the probabilities that NOT (it is important to take care of this not) live in a simulation are in the order of 1 on 1 billion.

In other words, 1 out of 1 billion is the possibility that we are living in the "base" reality, that is, the one opposed to a virtual reality simulated by a computer. Chances made by Musk may seem exaggerated, and perhaps they are; But the idea that our reality can be a giant simulation (just like in the movie The Matrix) is now also considered by eminent scientists, physicists, cosmologists, futurologists and engineers.

The first instinct, of course, is to rebel against such an affirmation. It's all too "true" to be a simulation, right? The weight of a cup in my hand, the aroma of the coffee it contains, the sounds that surround me: how could this all be fake?

But let's consider the extraordinary advances in information technology over the last 40 years. We've been through disarming simplicity games like Pong (the ping pong game) with games that can simulate whole universes, with an incredible number of realistic characters and able to interact with each other. Not to mention the simulations used by science to reproduce phenomena of various kinds (and study them).

Virtual reality, thanks to new technologies, will soon be indistinguishable from the "real" one. Just imagine the processes of computing in the next 10,000 years, which are very few evolutionary points of view: by continuing to progress with this rhythm, the accuracy and fidelity of the simulations will become astonishing.

In April 2016, several scientists discussed the subject during a conference at the American Museum of Natural History (New York). Neil deGrasse Tyson (famous American astrophysicist) concluded the conference by estimating 50% of the chances that we live in a computer simulation.

The proposed principles are different from the one in the Matrix movie, where humans are kept in a futuristic teacup that keeps them alive and connected to the "network" that simulates their existence.

According to Alan Guth (MIT), our entire universe could be a kind of laboratory experiment created by some super intelligence, similar to how biologists do when they grow colonies of microorganisms.

"Nothing excludes the possibility of recreating an artificial Big Bang, made up of real matter and energy," says Guth.

"It would not destroy the present universe, but it would create its own bubble of time space, separate from the one from which it originated."

Such a scenario for us would not make a difference; The fake universe would be just as physically real as a "naturally" born.

There is also a second hypothesis, which is supported by Elon Musk.

According to the entrepreneur and technology guru, we could all be nothing but information handled by a giant computer like characters in a videogame.

Even our brains would simulate, and respond to simulated sensory inputs; In this vision, there are no escape routes (unlike The Matrix). Computer is the reality where we live, and our only chance to exist.

The reason for believing such a scenario, again, is the complexity of current simulations and their hypothetical evolution.

Researchers, already today, use computer simulations to reproduce animal behaviors, societies, and planets. Even galaxies,   Whole universes, or human thought.

One day, according to some, it will be possible to create completely virtual beings with conscience, just as we are.

Neuroscience developments in mapping the brain, and the immense computing resources that promise quantum computers, are indicators that that day is not so far.

Once we have reached an appropriate technological level, we could run a number of simulations far greater than the observable processes in the "real" world.

Could not it be that some other super-intelligence in the universe has already reached such a technological level?

If yes, it would make sense to think that we too live in a virtual reality, distinct from the reality in which this virtual simulation has been created. And the likelihood is far greater than living in the "basic reality".

Nick Bostrom, professor of philosophy at Oxford, considering the evolution of hypothetical civilizations (even ours, for example), sees three possibilities :

1) Super advanced civilizations never reach the stage where they can create complex simulations, as they are first destroyed by extinction events

2) Civilizations reach that stage but decide not to conduct the experiment for ethical reasons

3) The simulation has been activated, and it is very likely that we are inside

The question to ask is which of these is the most plausible point.

George Smoot (astrophysicist and Nobel Prize) stated that there are no valid reasons for the occurrence of (1) and (2).

It is true that the future of our species is at risk, also because of problems created by ourselves (global warming, nuclear weapons, mass extinctions). But man has always struggled with difficulties, and he will probably find the way to save himself.

Moreover, nothing suggests that detailed simulations that seem "real" are impossible. Considering the number of living planets and potential existing alien civilizations (one of the planets, Proxima b, is just around the corner from the cosmic point of view) it would be very arrogant to say that man is the most advanced intelligent civilization of the universe.

Also point 2 is not very plausible. After all, the reason we conduct simulations is to understand more things about our world. With the ultimate aim of improving it and saving lives. So it is plausible that such a simulation would be triggered by a civilization that had its capabilities.

Except for points 1 and 2, step 3 remains: we are in a simulation.

But is it possible to find the evidence, this supposition?

Many researchers believe that it depends on how accurate this simulation is. The best way to understand it could be to look for the weaknesses of the program, just like the "glitches" that betray the artificial nature of the "Matrix" world. For example, we might discover inaccuracies in the laws of physics.

Or, as Marvin Minsky (artificial intelligence expert) suggests , there may be errors due to computer approximations. For example, in each event that may have different consequences, the sum of their probabilities must be 1. If we find any inconsistencies in this principle, it would be the approximate impression.

There are other reasons why we could find it in a simulation, according to scientists. For example, the fact that our universe seems, in some way, conceived and programmed in a very precise way.

The constants of nature, such as the intensity of the fundamental forces, have values ​​that appear programmed to make life possible. The slightest alterations to these equilibria would compromise the stability of the atoms, and would imply the inability to train, for example, the stars.

One of the answers to this phenomenon considers the " multiverse ", the fact that there are so many different universes, each created with a different Big Bang and with different physical laws. With so many universes, some of these would have features suitable for the development of life; And if we were not in a hospitable universe, we would not be able to ask these questions because we would not exist.

However, parallel universes are merely a hypothesis, devoid of any kind of evidence. One could therefore consider that our universe is really a simulation, designed precisely to deliver interesting results such as stars, galaxies, or people.

Of course, this reasoning can not lead us anywhere; After all, even the universe of our creators should be set precisely to allow them to exist. In that case, the speech of the simulation would not explain the enigma of the precision of the details.

Other scholars point to the strange results of modern physics, to look for evidence of a simulation.

Quantum mechanics, which studies the infinitely small, has produced inexplicable and incomprehensible results. For example, both matter and energy seem to be granular. In addition, there are limits to the resolution with which we can observe the universe, and if we try to study something smaller, things begin to appear "blurred".

Smoot states that these quantum physics results are perplexing, and that's exactly what one might expect from a simulation. They are similar to pixels that you see by watching a screen too close. However, even the granular nature of reality may be the consequence of other deeper, not yet discovered principles.

Some physicists are convinced that, at its most fundamental level, nature is nothing other than pure information: bits, such as 1 and 0 of computers. In this vision, every aspect of reality, from the interaction between particles up, is a form of calculation.

"The universe can be compared to a giant quantum computer," says Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "If we look at its smaller and more fundamental components, these are nothing but quantitative bits that perform digital operations."

This last statement leads us to the juice of speech. If reality is only information, we are no longer real, whether we are in a simulation or not. In both cases, all we can be is pure information.

Would really make the difference be programmed by nature or by super-intelligent creators? Probably not, except for the fact that our creators could intervene in simulation, or even "turn it off". How should we feel this way?

However, this last consideration would end up betraying the whole concept. The idea of ​​super-intelligent creators who, stinging on the simulation, fleeing him in a whimsical manner is comical and anthropomorphic our creators. The image that it returns could be that of "capricious teenagers playing at the Xbox," as Kurzweil (artificial intelligence developer at Google) says.

In any case, it is probably impossible to find evidence that demonstrates a simulation. We could never find it, simply because our mind would not be up to the task. After all, the components of a simulation are designed to work according to the rules of the game, not to overthrow them. It could be a box out of which it would be impossible to think for us.

According to Lisa Randall (professor of physics at Harvard), however, the belief in living in a simulation does not in any way modify the way we should consider and investigate reality.

Elon Musk obviously does not go through his existence, repeating to himself that the people around him, his friends, and his family are merely computer simulations created by data flows within a huge quantum computer.

In part because it is impossible to fix that image in the mind for a long time, and especially because, in the deep, we all know that the only notion of reality worthy of being considered is the one with which we can interact, and not some hypothetical world in which it happened Its creation.

![computersimulation1.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmYbvVvUF5T7z237VVtmEurBJNnHJ1cybPueLvC6YaahFB/computersimulation1.jpg)

[source1](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter)

[source2](http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/elon-musk-says-were-probably-living-in-a-computer-simulation-heres-the-science/)

[source3](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/)


![DQmZwdyRuEc5524DaTH6UyAURPxQSHLAUhFB3MoWZqQ3qX2_1680x8400.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmNai7ydXfPM3mJEtkp1AiQJqY7cZwoSXxgLbEgW4arvpz/DQmZwdyRuEc5524DaTH6UyAURPxQSHLAUhFB3MoWZqQ3qX2_1680x8400.jpg)

<p><center>https://steemitimages.com/DQmTF3dYF5qnzFBsWiE2pgMjDMRxoa3LHQUGWny7Gepe9CG/firma%201.jpg</center></p>

<p><center> https://steemitimages.com/DQmWpisRXDF56mV3DgzzPUxb3R2ozseR48YVr2YKtwtrBcV/DQmWpisRXDF56mV3DgzzPUxb3R2ozseR48YVr2YKtwtrBcV.gif </center></p>

![DQmZwdyRuEc5524DaTH6UyAURPxQSHLAUhFB3MoWZqQ3qX2_1680x8400.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmNai7ydXfPM3mJEtkp1AiQJqY7cZwoSXxgLbEgW4arvpz/DQmZwdyRuEc5524DaTH6UyAURPxQSHLAUhFB3MoWZqQ3qX2_1680x8400.jpg)