Zacznij uczyć się tej lekcji już teraz

TED-Ed, Are we living in a simulation? - Zohreh Davoudi

Are we living in a simulation? - Zohreh Davoudi

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Are we living in a simulation? - Zohreh Davoudi |we|living = to live|||simulation|Zohreh|Davoudi ||||||Zohreh Davoud|Davoudi هل نعيش في محاكاة؟ - زهرة داودي Biz simulyasiyada yaşayırıq? - Zöhrə Davudi Leben wir in einer Simulation? - Zohreh Davoudi Ζούμε σε μια προσομοίωση; - Zohreh Davoudi Are we living in a simulation? - Zohreh Davoudi ¿Vivimos en una simulación? - Zohreh Davoudi Vivons-nous dans une simulation ? - Zohreh Davoudi Viviamo in una simulazione? - Zohreh Davoudi 私たちはシミュレーションの中に生きているのだろうか？- ゾーレ・ダブーディ Test note Czy żyjemy w symulacji? - Zohreh Davoudi Estamos a viver numa simulação? - Zohreh Davoudi Живем ли мы в симуляции? - Зохрех Давуди Lever vi i en simulering? - Zohreh Davoudi Bir simülasyonda mı yaşıyoruz? - Zohreh Davoudi Чи живемо ми в симуляції? - Зохре Давуді 我们生活在模拟中吗？ ——佐雷·达沃迪我們生活在模擬中嗎？ ——佐雷·達沃迪

We live in a vast universe, on a small wet planet, |we live|||huge|||||| |||een||||||| نحن نعيش في كون واسع، على كوكب صغير رطب، Vivemos num vasto universo, num pequeno planeta húmido, Ми живемо у величезному всесвіті, на маленькій вологій планеті,

where billions of years ago حيث منذ مليارات السنين

single-celled life forms evolved from the same elements |单细胞||||||| 單細胞生命體由相同的元素演化而來

as all non-living material around them,

proliferating and radiating into an incredible ray of complex life forms. ||辐射出|||||||| spreading rapidly|||||||||| prolifererend|||||||||| размножаясь и разрастаясь в невероятный луч сложных форм жизни. поширюючись і випромінюючи в неймовірний промінь складних форм життя. 增殖並輻射成令人難以置信的複雜生命形式。

All of this— living and inanimate, microscopic and cosmic— 所有這一切──有生命的和無生命的，微觀的和宇宙的──

is governed by mathematical laws with apparently arbitrary constants. ||||||||常数 é regido por leis matemáticas com constantes aparentemente arbitrárias. керується математичними законами з, очевидно, довільними константами. 受具有明顯任意常數的數學定律所支配。

And this opens up a question:

If the universe is completely governed by these laws, Якщо всесвіт повністю керується цими законами,

couldn't a powerful enough computer simulate it exactly? чи не міг би достатньо потужний комп'ютер змоделювати його в точності?

Could our reality actually be an incredibly detailed simulation |||||||intricate|

set in place by a much more advanced civilization? ||plaats|door|||||

This idea may sound like science fiction,

but it has been the subject of serious inquiry. ||||||||調査 але це було предметом серйозного дослідження. 但這一直是認真調查的主題。

Philosopher Nick Bostrom advanced a compelling argument O filósofo Nick Bostrom apresentou um argumento convincente Філософ Нік Бостром висунув переконливий аргумент 哲學家尼克·博斯特羅姆提出了一個令人信服的論點

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, ||making hypotheses||||||||| Ils émettent des hypothèses sur les contraintes de la simulation, Estão a formular hipóteses sobre quais poderão ser os constrangimentos da simulação, Вони висувають гіпотези про те, якими можуть бути обмеження симуляції,

and how those constraints could lead to detectable signs in the world. e como esses constrangimentos podem conduzir a sinais detectáveis no mundo. 以及這些限制如何導致世界上可偵測到的跡象。

So where might we look for those glitches? Тож де ми можемо шукати ці збої? 那我們可以在哪裡尋找這些故障呢？

One idea is that as a simulation runs,

it might accumulate errors over time. pode acumular erros ao longo do tempo.

To correct for these errors

the simulators could adjust the constants in the laws of nature. |||modify||||||| симулятори могли регулювати константи в законах природи.

These shifts could be tiny—

for instance, 例如，

certain constants we've measured with accuracies of parts per million |||||nauwkeurigheden|||| |||||精度|||| certas constantes que medimos com uma precisão de partes por milhão певні константи, які ми виміряли з точністю до частин на мільйон 我們以百萬分之一的精度測量了某些常數

have stayed steady for decades, ||unchanged|| mantiveram-se estáveis durante décadas, залишалися стабільними протягом десятиліть, 幾十年來一直保持穩定，

so any drift would have to be on an even smaller scale. pelo que qualquer desvio teria de ser numa escala ainda mais pequena. тому будь-який дрейф мав би мати ще менший масштаб. 因此任何漂移的規模都必須更小。

But as we gain more precision in our measurements of these constants, |||||精度|||||これらの| Mas à medida que ganhamos mais precisão nas nossas medições destas constantes,

we might detect slight changes over time. podemos detetar ligeiras alterações ao longo do tempo.

Another possible place to look comes from the concept that finite computing power, Outro ponto de partida possível é o conceito de potência computacional finita, Інше можливе місце для пошуку походить від концепції, що кінцева обчислювальна потужність,

no matter how huge, can't simulate infinities. |matter = thing||||| ||||||oneindigheden por muito grandes que sejam, não podem simular infinitos.

If space and time are continuous,

then even a tiny piece of the universe has infinite points ||||||||||punten

and becomes impossible to simulate with finite computing power. ||||||limited|| і стає неможливим для моделювання за допомогою кінцевої обчислювальної потужності.

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

These would be almost incomprehensibly tiny. Celles-ci seraient presque incompréhensiblement minuscules. Estes seriam quase incompreensivelmente minúsculos.

But we might be able to search for them

by using certain subatomic particles as probes. by||||particelle||probes utilizando certas partículas subatómicas como sondas. використовуючи певні субатомні частинки як зонди. 透過使用某些亞原子粒子作為探針。

The basic principle is this: the smaller something is, 基本原則是：物體越小，

the more sensitive it will be to disruption— |||||||interference mais sensível será à perturbação- 它對破壞越敏感——

think of hitting a pothole on a skateboard versus in a truck. ||||road defect||||||| ||||een put in de weg||||||| فكر في الاصطدام بحفرة على لوح التزلج مقابل الاصطدام بشاحنة. think of hitting a pothole on a skateboard versus in a truck. Pensar em bater num buraco com um skate ou com um camião. подумайте о том, что наезд на выбоину на скейтборде лучше, чем на грузовике. подумайте про вибоїну на скейтборді, а не на вантажівці. 想像一下在滑板和卡車上撞坑的情況。

Any unit in space-time would be so small Qualquer unidade no espaço-tempo seria tão pequena Будь-яка одиниця простору-часу була б настільки малою

that most things would travel through it without disruption— que a maior parte das coisas passaria por ele sem perturbações. що більшість речей пройдуть через нього без перешкод -

not just objects large enough to be visible to the naked eye, а не просто об'єкти, достатньо великі, щоб їх можна було побачити неозброєним оком, 不只是大到肉眼可見的物體，

but also molecules, atoms, and even electrons mas também moléculas, átomos e até electrões але також молекули, атоми і навіть електрони 還有分子、原子，甚至電子

and most of the other subatomic particles we've discovered.

If we do discover a tiny unit in space-time Se descobrirmos uma unidade minúscula no espaço-tempo

or a shifting constant in a natural law, ou uma constante de mudança numa lei natural,

would that prove the universe is a simulation?

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 E seriam necessárias muito mais provas para estabelecer a hipótese da simulação

as a working theory of nature.

However many tests we design, Por mais testes que concebamos,

we're limited by some assumptions they all share. ||||shared beliefs||| ми обмежені деякими припущеннями, які всі вони поділяють.

Our current understanding of the natural world on the quantum level |||||||op|||niveau

breaks down at what's known as the planck scale. ||||familiar|||| ينهار عند ما يعرف بمقياس بلانك. decompõe-se no que é conhecido como a escala de planck. руйнується в тому, що називається масштабом Планка.

If the unit of space-time is on this scale, Se a unidade do espaço-tempo estiver nesta escala,

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

There's still a wide range of things |||broad||| Há ainda uma grande variedade de coisas

that are smaller than what's currently observable que são mais pequenos do que o que é atualmente observável

but larger than the planck scale to investigate. ||||the Planck scale||| ||||プランクスケール||| mas maior do que a escala de planck para investigar.

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

that they would only be observable over the lifetime of the universe. que só seriam observáveis durante o tempo de vida do universo. 它們只能在宇宙的一生中才能被觀測到。

So they could exist even if we don't detect them ||||regardless of|||||

over centuries or millennia of measurements. |||thousands of years|| ao longo de séculos ou milénios de medições.

We're also biased towards thinking that our universe's simulator, if it exists, ||inclined||||||||| Também somos tendenciosos a pensar que o simulador do nosso universo, se é que existe, Ми також упереджено вважаємо, що симулятор нашого всесвіту, якщо він існує,

makes calculations the same way we do, faz cálculos da mesma forma que nós,

with similar computational limitations. ||computational| з аналогічними обчислювальними обмеженнями.

Really, we have no way of knowing

what an alien civilization's constraints and methods would be— quais seriam as restrições e os métodos de uma civilização alienígena. якими були б обмеження та методи інопланетної цивілізації—

but we have to start somewhere. mas temos de começar por algum lado.

It may never be possible to prove conclusively that the universe either is, |||||||決定的に||||| Talvez nunca seja possível provar de forma conclusiva que o universo também o é, Можливо, ніколи не вдасться остаточно довести, що Всесвіт є,

or isn't, a simulation,

but we'll always be pushing science and technology forward |we will||||||| mas estaremos sempre a fazer avançar a ciência e a tecnologia

in pursuit of the question: para responder à pergunta:

what is the nature of reality? qual é a natureza da realidade? 真相的本質是什麼？