Latest news with #AllegoryoftheCave
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
A Scientist Thinks We Live in a Simulation—and That He's Found Proof of the Universe's Source Code
For more than two decades, some scientists have pondered the possibility that life as we know is actually an unfathomably complex simulation. While some suggest looking for 'glitches' to find evidence of the simulation, University of Portsmouth's Michael Vopson argues that the universe's predilection for symmetry could be seen as a kind of a compression algorithm following his hypothesized 'Second Law of Thermodynamics.' Such grand statements about the nature of reality are inherently controversial with some experts suggests that simulation theory borders on pseudoscience of even a kind a techno-religion. In the early 4th century BCE, the legendary ancient Greek philosopher Plato put forth a simple thought experiment. Known as the Allegory of the Cave, the idea suggests that what we believe to be 'reality' could be little more than shadows dancing upon a cave wall. Fast forward to the 21st century, and scientists are pondering the same question albeit in a more technological context. In 2003, University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom put forward the idea that it was probably likely that what humans perceived as reality was actually a hyper-advanced simulation created by beings with almost infinite technological capability. In the decades since this famous formulation, scientists have pondered exactly how we could discover some evidence of this simulation—or even escaping the simulation altogether. 'The hypothesis that we live in a simulation seems provable: it could be the discovery of a flaw in the simulation, such as a distant region of the universe that cannot be zoomed in on, where a telescope would not be able to obtain a clear image,' Philosopher Paul Francheshi told Gizmodo in December. 'Of course, an even more advanced simulation could roll back time, erase the flaw, and then restart the simulation.' While trying to a find a flaw, or glitch in the simulation would certain provide credible evidence, Michael Vopson, a physicist at the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. says that looking for a kind of 'source code' of the universe could provide a more compelling pathway for proving our artificial existence. The code, known more specifically as the Second Law of Infodynamics, states that information entropy 'must remain constant or decrease over time – up to a minimum value at equilibrium,' Vospon writes in a 2023 article for The Conversation. He also states in that same article that this can apply to how genetic information behaves—not random as Charles Darwin suggests but instead always trying to minimize information entropy. Similarly, the universe also strives for symmetry rather than asymmetry thus acting as a kind of optimization program or a 'most effective data compression' program, according to Vopson. Although an intriguing argument, Vopson argues that the Second Law of Infodynamics, as well as further study into the simulation hypothesis, requires more research to come to any definitive conclusions. Many scientists remain plenty skeptical with some arguing that the idea even approaches the level of pseudoscience or even a kind of religion. After all, what's the real difference between some hyper-advanced super species (perhaps even future humans) and some all-powerful god. Just as it was in Plato's time, the idea of a reality that exists beyond our own remains forever an enticing idea. It's unlikely we'll ever learn for sure whether our reality is true to form or a clever collection of 1s and 0s, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the only life we get to live. Best make it a good one. You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Express Tribune
16-03-2025
- Science
- Express Tribune
From simulation to spirituality
Before we begin, let's acknowledge that the question, Is this life a simulation? Or, more simply, Is this life real? Is one that has echoed through human history. Philosophers, scientists, religious thinkers, and mystics have all wrestled with it. Today, advances in technology and digital spaces have given this question a fresh urgency. The development of virtual and augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and the rise of immersive digital worlds suggest that what once seemed purely theoretical may be closer to reality than we imagined. A universe within a universe? The idea that our reality is a simulation isn't new, but it has gained mainstream attention through figures like philosopher Nick Bostrom and technologist Elon Musk. Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis proposes that if advanced civilizations are capable of running detailed simulations of conscious beings, then the probability that we are inside one of these simulations is far higher than the probability that we exist in a 'base reality'. This idea finds analogies in contemporary digital landscapes. Virtual reality, once the realm of science fiction, is now integrated into daily life. Video game graphics have evolved to the point where digital environments are nearly indistinguishable from reality. If we can create worlds with physics and avatars that appear real, what prevents an intelligence far beyond ours from having done the same with us? Imagine a digital world where the characters—endowed with artificial intelligence—eventually develop the ability to create their own simulated worlds. This cascading effect raises the intriguing possibility that we ourselves could be part of such a system. Some physicists argue that the mathematical nature of our universe and the presence of seemingly arbitrary physical laws may hint at the underlying code of a simulated existence. Ancient wisdom and modern theories Long before digital technology, thinkers attempted to describe similar ideas using different frameworks. Plato's Allegory of the Cave presents the idea of prisoners trapped in a cave, seeing only the shadows of reality cast on the wall before them. Their understanding of the world is fundamentally incomplete, just as ours might be if we are living in a simulation. Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and AI pioneer, has echoed similar sentiments, suggesting that our universe may have been designed by a "superintelligence" from another reality. Rizwan Virk, an MIT author and entrepreneur, discusses the world as a vast digital simulation, with each of us as player-controlled characters. But perhaps the most fascinating connection comes from religion. Many faith traditions describe reality as impermanent, a test, or an illusion. Hinduism's concept of Maya refers to the illusory nature of the world, suggesting that true reality lies beyond what we perceive. The Quran states, 'We shall show them Our signs on the far horizons and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth' (41:53). The Bible also speaks of a world beyond what we see, where divine forces influence existence. A Divine Architect If the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, then by its very logic, there must be an Architect—an intelligence responsible for the creation and maintenance of this simulated world. This closely mirrors the concept of God found in religious traditions. The idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being governs our reality aligns with the notion of a programmed, rule-bound universe where cause and effect are meticulously managed. Religious texts often describe figures performing acts that seem to transcend physical laws. The Bible tells of Jesus walking on water, and the Quran speaks of Prophet Muhammad splitting the moon. If our world operates under a coded structure, could miracles be evidence of entities with access to higher layers of this system, capable of rewriting the rules? Free will, destiny, and the "game" The paradox of free will and predestination has long puzzled theologians and philosophers alike. If we are living in a simulation, do we have true autonomy, or are our choices preordained? Perhaps both are true. A video game character has the freedom to act within the confines of their programmed reality. Similarly, humans may operate within predetermined parameters while still making meaningful choices. Religious perspectives suggest that while we are in this world, we are simultaneously connected to another reality—the soul's realm. Some interpretations of Islamic theology, for example, propose that we exist simultaneously in multiple dimensions, with God being beyond time and space. The simulation theory similarly suggests that our existence may be multi-layered, with a higher reality guiding our perceived experience. What it means for us Does the idea that our world is a simulation diminish its significance? Not at all. As the beloved Harry Potter quote from J.K. Rowling's series reminds us: "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" The nature of our reality does not define its importance. Whether a test, a game, or an illusion, life remains meaningful because of the experiences we have and the connections we form. Religious traditions encourage us to live with purpose, seeking truth and striving for virtue regardless of the nature of our reality. If anything, the possibility that our world is a designed system reinforces the idea that life is not random—it has a Creator, an Architect, and a purpose. The Simulation Hypothesis doesn't necessarily replace religious beliefs; rather, it offers a modern framework that, intriguingly, aligns with ancient wisdom. As science and technology advance, the boundaries between theology, philosophy, and physics continue to blur. Perhaps, in our search for answers, we are merely discovering the codes written into our reality all along. Abubakar Lala is a freelance contributor All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the author
Vox
22-02-2025
- General
- Vox
Is ignorance truly bliss?
Who hasn't heard the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' a thousand times? Like all cliches, it sticks because it's rooted in truth, but it's worth asking why ignorance can be so satisfying. If you read the history of philosophy, you don't find all that much interest in the delights of ignorance. Instead, you hear a lot about the pursuit of truth, which is assumed to be a universal human impulse. That's not entirely wrong, of course. But denial and avoidance are also human impulses, often more powerful than our need to know. So these drives — a need to know and a strong desire never to never find out — are often warring within us, shaping our worldview, our relationships, and our self-image. Mark Lilla is a professor of the humanities at Columbia University and the author of a new book called Ignorance and Bliss: On Wanting Not to Know . It's short, elegantly written, and maybe the highest compliment I can give is that it reads like a book that could've been written at almost any point in modern history. It engages one of the oldest questions in philosophy — to know or not to know? — and manages to offer fresh insights that feel relevant and timeless at the same time. So I invited Lilla on The Gray Area to explore why we accept and resist the truth and what it means to live continuously in that tension. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The book opens with a kind of parody of Plato's famous Allegory of the Cave. In the original story, there are prisoners who spend their whole life bound by chains in a cave looking at shadows being cast on a wall, and they mistake those shadows for reality because it's the only reality they've ever known. What's your spin on it? In Plato's edition, a stranger comes in and turns one of the prisoners around so that he realizes that he's been living in a world of shadows and is invited to climb up to the sun and then lives up there until he's told to come back down and get other people. In my version of the story, he's got a little friend with him, a young boy who also goes up. When it comes time to go back down, the man tells him he can stay up staring at the forms and being in the pure sunlight and seeing what is, and it turns out he's desperate to return. It's a cold life. All of his fantasy and imagination have dried up. He misses his virtual friends and eventually he's taken back down. And so I start the book saying it's an open question whether coming out into sunlight is a good thing. We want to know the truth, we want to see the world as it is, but we also need to be ignorant of certain things and we really, really hate to admit our own ignorance. So we're constantly playing this game of hide and seek with ourselves. This is a weirdly untenable dance for humans, don't you think? It is. People don't want to feel that they're incurious and holding things at arm's distance and not thinking about them. I think part of it is that our opinions are not things that we just have in a bag that we pull out when they need expression, but rather they feel like prostheses, like an extra limb, and if someone refutes our argument or mocks it, it feels like something quite intimate has been touched. And so that is an incentive to not admit your ignorance and to build up all sorts of defenses and appeal to bogus authorities in order to remain convinced of your own rational capacities and your independence. It becomes a kind of perverse thing where you're constantly trying to patch things together to show to yourself and others you understand, and in the meantime, you can start pulling in some preposterous things that become part of your worldview. Is there a good model of a wisely ignorant person, someone who climbs the mountain of knowledge and says once they reach the peak, You know what? I like it better down there in the cave! I think you're leaving out an option, and that option is something that Socrates explores in the other Platonic dialogues, which is learning from your own ignorance. That is to recognize that you're genuinely and generally ignorant about things and to continue inquiring with the understanding of what you come up with is tentative. Especially right now, we live in a world where we're more and more aware of the uncertainty of our knowledge because things changed so quickly. It was very striking to me during Covid just how frustrated people seemed to be by the fact that the public health authorities kept changing their advice. First they said it was all about washing your hands, and then they said it was all about masks and so on, and they get angry about that, but that's the way science works. But people don't like to live that way. They like to hear from an authority that this is what you do. They want a doctor who doesn't hem and haw and doesn't constantly change the meds and say, 'Let's try this, let's try that.' It's very destabilizing. And so I think we have a yearning to live standing on solid ground, but we don't stand on solid ground. Do you think that ignorance also has a power that we overlook? Yeah. I began the book with a quotation from George Eliot's novel, Daniel Deronda , saying that we thought a lot about the power of knowledge, but we haven't thought about the power of ignorance. And what she means is the power of people who are ignorant to mess things up in life, that it's a kind of social force out there, which is certainly the case. But ignorance is also power if not knowing certain things or leaving certain things unexamined permit you to continue in your life and not be paralyzed. I use an example at the beginning of the book: What would happen if we each had an LED screen embedded in our foreheads and we could read the thoughts of everyone around us? Social life would grind to a halt because you can't control your thoughts, right? We would constantly be looking to see how people are thinking about us, and we could never develop a stable sense of ourselves. There are lots of people who are willfully ignorant, and there are lots of people who are ignorant of their ignorance, but then there's this other species of cynicism you talk about in the book that knowingly exploits ignorance. What's the political significance of this? People need certainty, and they will demand it. And so political leaders, demagogues in particular, can provide simple answers to things that seem very complicated and that stir people in a way that can be directed. That's classically how a demagogue works and how a demagogue becomes a tyrant. Especially now, I'm not surprised that we're facing aggressive ignorance among populists and those who are moved by populists. Making sense of things right now is very difficult because we just don't know various things because our experience is so new. For example, what do you do about the fact that the state of any nation's economy depends on an international economy and that no country has a full say in how that international economy operates, and it will continue to affect everyone in every country? It's hard to accept the fact that our political leaders do not control the economy. And so you go to whoever says he's the answer, or whoever says she's the answer. It is very hard, for all of us, to confront the present with an open mind and a deep sense of the tentativeness of our understanding of it. At some point, we have to ask: What's the point of knowledge? Do we want knowledge for the sake of knowledge because it's inherently good, or is knowledge only valuable if it's useful? And if knowing something isn't useful or if knowing something is actually painful, why would we want to know it? The question that you're asking, for me at least in the book, is really a question of different kinds of human characters. There are some people for whom something quickens within whenever the opportunity of new knowledge presents itself. Why that happens, why the soul responds like that, is a mystery, and Socrates tells various myths about why that might be, but it just seems to be a fact and not everyone has it. Do you think there's anything worth knowing regardless of the cost? Self-knowledge can be harmful if it's partial. That's the story of Augustine in the Confessions at the moment where he says, 'God ripped off the back of me,' which was this other face and everything that everyone else could see, but I couldn't and then God holds it in front of me, and I see myself, and in that moment I'm so horrified that something clicks and I give myself over. So there could be limits to this kind of thing, but Socrates assumes that all self-knowledge is in the end going to be helpful because you are now clear to yourself and that knowing itself makes people good. Once you know, the power of your ignorance is no longer holding you hostage. Do you think that's true? I don't think so. No, I don't. And it's hard to believe that Socrates really thought that. You can see it in the way he deals with other people in the Platonic dialogues, you see that he has a lot of knowledge about how people fall short of that. Yeah, I could definitely see a case being made for always wanting to know abstract truths and truths about the external world. But when it comes to self-knowledge, sometimes when you peer inward, what you find is that you're just a bundle of contradictions that can't be squared, and I'm not sure it's necessarily good to be intimately acquainted with that and to get hung up on that. There is one way in which it is, and that's the Montaigne option. The picture Montaigne gives of us in the essays is that we're exactly what you just said, and his advice is to live with it. Just go with it. You're a contradiction. I think that's easier said than done, though it's probably wise. But do you think there's a link, maybe even a necessary link, between self-knowledge and knowledge of the external world? In other words, on some level, do we have to know ourselves in order to know the truth about the world outside ourselves? I can think of a couple answers to that. I'm not sure which one would be mine. One is that these things are detachable. I remember spending a year at the Institute for Advanced Study, and I would sometimes go and sit in this place where the scientists and mathematicians were, and you could tell these people just had no self-awareness in terms of how people reacted to them. Perhaps they were just wrapped up in their problems and they were discovering things. On the other hand, one barrier to us in knowing things about the world is to know what constitutes knowing, and that requires an analysis of ourselves. And then the third sense, while not strictly necessary, the exercise of trying to know oneself is a kind of training exercise for inquiring about the world outside. I do want to talk a bit about nostalgia, which you've written about before and again in this new book. At what point in our journey of knowledge, as individuals and societies, are we overtaken by nostalgia? At what point are we just longing to go back to a previous time when we didn't know what we now know? When it comes to whole societies being nostalgic, I think that it has to do two things: One is illegibility. When the world becomes illegible, the present becomes illegible. That means you don't know how to act, and if you don't know how to act, it's deeply disturbing because you want to be able to control your environment and control things so you can reach your own ends. And so a dissatisfaction with the present and an absence of knowledge about how to improve things are spurs to imagine that, just as being 8 years old seemed less complicated and easier than being 68 years old, that there was a time when life was ordered in a better way in which we knew less about various things or certain changes hadn't happened, and maybe we can reverse the machine or reverse the train. I do wonder what the upshot of all this thinking and writing was for you personally. Have you changed your relationship to your own ignorance as a result of this project? I would hope so. I think I have a better understanding of what philosophy is and what philosophy can do — What is it that philosophy can and can't do? Philosophy that is aware of our ignorance is a step forward. The greatest cognitive achievement of human beings is getting to maybe. See More:
CairoScene
28-01-2025
- Entertainment
- CairoScene
The Tumultuous History of Egypt's Om Ali
The Tumultuous History of Egypt's Om Ali Here's how acclaimed actor Yehia El Fakharani taught me everything I needed to know about a dish born of power, revenge, and history. My relationship with Om Ali began in my hometown of Alexandria, sometime in 2012. That year, my friend Sherif had just shown everyone in class a video about the world ending that month—something to do with a foretold Mayan prophecy. Not long after, we were sent home early from school, told to stay inside because of reports of an incoming storm. The internet had flatlined—short-circuited by the storm, they said. Rumors spread like wildfire on the school bus. Tornadoes tearing through Agami. The sea swallowing the beachfront cafés in Roshdy. Rain pushing wild animals out of the desert and onto the streets of Sidi Bishr. None of it mattered whether it was true or not. Truth, after all, wasn't ours to claim, and we weren't interested in it anyway. Too young to be rational, but just wise enough to know that spreading chaos on a bus in the middle of a storm was far more thrilling than the truth could ever be. By the time I got home, the rain had stopped, and the house was eerily quiet. The only sound was Gedo's old Toshiba CRT TV, flickering on with a rerun of Abas El Abyad Fel Youm El Eswed. It seemed the Mayans had miscalculated. Yehia El Fakharani's face filled the screen, a large bowl of Om Ali cradled in his hands as he gathered his on-screen family to tell the story behind the dish. I was transfixed, hanging on every word as the El Keif actor shifted his gaze from Magda Zaki to Nihal Anbar, enlightening them with the history of Om Ali. There was something almost sacred in the way he spoke of it. It felt as though my skin was ready to peel away, revealing a wandering shepherd from ancient Greece listening to Plato's Allegory of the Cave for the first time while grazing his flock in fading light. Yehia El Fakharani, through his tale of Om Ali, was leading me toward the light. Now, legend has it that there are countless versions of this story, but they all share a few key ingredients: - Bloodshed - Treachery - War - Death - Power struggles The most popular version dates back to the 1240s and involves Shagaret El Dorr, Egypt's only woman ruler. After the death of her husband, Sultan As-Salih Ayyub, Shagaret El Dorr feared Egypt would become an easy target for Louis IX of France and the Crusaders. A leaderless country was an open invitation. So, with the help of Egypt's army commander and the palace's chief eunuch, she kept her husband's death a secret, quietly sending his body by boat to Rudah Island in the Nile. No royal funeral, no grand announcements—just a discreet burial and an elaborate charade of business as usual. But secrets never last long. The Crusaders soon caught wind of Sultan Ayyub's death and launched an attack. Shagaret El Dorr's army, however, was prepared and trapped them before they could gain the upper hand. To solidify her rule, Shagaret El Dorr declared herself al-Malikah Ismat al-Din Umm Khalil, taking on titles like "Queen of the Muslims" and "Mother of al-Malik al-Mansur Khalil." Her name echoed in Friday prayers, but despite her efforts, the men of the country rebelled. The throne slipped from her grasp. Enter Ezz El Din Aybak, who seized power as Egypt's first Mamluk sultan. Shagaret El Dorr, unwilling to fade into obscurity, married him to secure her influence. Along the way, she ensured his other wife would never see him again. And who was that other wife, you ask? You guessed it—Om Ali. Things spiraled when Shagaret El Dorr discovered Aybak's plans to marry yet another woman. She acted swiftly, making sure he wouldn't be around to follow through. But her scheme unraveled when a few nosy maids exposed the truth. In the end, Om Ali had the last word. Shagaret El Dorr was beaten to death with slippers by her bondmaids in the hammam, and to celebrate her rival's demise, Om Ali created the dish that would bear her name. Seven centuries later, Yehia El Fakharani would cradle that very dish on Dream TV, recounting its bloody origins with the same reverence that had me transfixed all those years ago.
