Gaping "Hole" in the Sky Found, Experts Say
National Geographic - August 25, 2007
Great 'cosmic nothingness' found
BBC - August 25, 2007
Huge Hole Found in the Universe
Live Science - August 23, 2007
The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos. Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale. Astronomers don't know why the hole is there.
Reality is a virtual experience ... consciousness.
What you see is what you believe ... until your understand ...
Out-of-Body Experiences Simulated Using Virtual Reality Live Science - August 23, 2007
Out-of-body experience recreated BBC - August 23, 2007
Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers.
Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch John Tierney NY Times - August 14, 2007
Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else's hobby. I hadnÕt imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims. But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone elseÕs computer simulation.
This simulation would be similar to the one in The Matrix, in which most humans donÕt realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom's notion of reality, you wouldnÕt even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.
You couldnÕt, as in 'The Matrix,' unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldnÕt see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford. Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or posthumans, could run ancestor simulations of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.
Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesnÕt matter for Dr. Bostrom's argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.
There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings theyÕd experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.
The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations. "This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly," Dr. Bostrom says. "Maybe they wouldn't need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they'd have better methodologies for understanding their past. It's quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesnÕt mean it wonÕt happen."
Dr. Bostrom doesnÕt pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. "My gut feeling, and itÕs nothing more than that, is that thereÕs a 20 percent chance weÕre living in a computer simulation. My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it's highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, theyÕd be running simulations just to get a chance to control history - or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon."
ItÕs unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.
A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothingÕs real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesnÕt mean your feelings are any less real.
David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. BostromÕs simulation hypothesis isn't a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever youÕre touching now - a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug - is real to you even if itÕs created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay. You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world - and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person.
Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. Of course, itÕs tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation - the Prime Designer, letÕs call him or her (or it).
Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldnÕt allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, theyÕd presumably realize, by Dr. BostromÕs logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer? If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand whatÕs going on, then I really shouldnÕt be spreading Dr. BostromÕs ideas. But if youÕre still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation. ItÕs also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.
If thatÕs true, itÕs bad news for the futurists who think weÕll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. WeÕd start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime DesignerÕs computer.
It might be something clunky like "Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation."
But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: "Game Over."