Three Unprovable Truths -HOME

Our society requires proof. Professionals require proof before accepting any new scientific, mathematical or philosophical theory or new invention in their respective fields. Proof, as generally believed, is objective evidence, which usually takes the form of a physical specimen or a repeatable way for others to observe a particular phenomenon. Evidence can also take the form of intangible concepts strung together by logic such as a mathematical proof. Objectivity, as usually assumed, contains the idea that any capable person versed in the particular field could understand and observe the same phenomena.

The logic behind requiring objective proof is simple. Any one person could make a mistake, be delusional or even intentionally deceive. However, once various people repeat the experiment and obtain similar results then the proposed theory should be considered true (at least until some contradictory evidence is later proved.) Obviously, this idea of objective proof has worked sufficiently well as the foundation of modern science to produce detailed knowledge about our world and to create amazing and powerful technologies.

Yet what if something exists that deceives everybody? What if this thing so thoroughly deceives everyone that they considers this falsehood as objectively true to the point of treating the perceived truth as common sense? Is there any fact considered true according to the Western concept of objectivity that could possibly be incorrect?

René Descartes tackled this problem almost 400 years ago. Descartes, as a sincere and thorough philosopher, wanted to remove any piece of knowledge he did not know without absolute certainty. Putting this requirement of absolute certainty on all knowledge did a remarkable thing; it eliminated all possible knowledge about the world. Descartes postulated that the minute possibility exists that what you think of as your body and your world do not actually exist. Rather, you could just be some sort of brain in a nutrient vat hooked up via electrodes to a computer that was simulating your whole experience of the physical world. What you think of as your body and everything your senses perceive may not actually exist. They could just be projections produced by this computer. You may not even have a brain, since your mind could be some minor part of this simulator computer.

You could never know for absolute certainty if you were in a simulated world. All experience and knowledge about the world could be part of some vast conspiracy by a massive computer or some type of machine. Your experience of other people could either be totally simulated or they could be stuck in the simulation like you. Therefore, the only knowledge you could know with absolute certainty, Descartes reasoned, is the knowledge that you are some type of thinking being, because at this particular moment you have some type of awareness. Even your memories could be false. The only fact you can know without any doubt is that you are a being that experiences thinking. "Cognito, ergo sum," he wrote in Discourse on Method and the Meditations. I think therefore I am.

Today it may not seem like a such a revolutionary concept with computer games able to simulate a variety of experiences and popular entertainment such as The Matrix and other movies depicting the concept of living one's whole life trapped in a virtual reality. By extrapolating the pace of technological breakthroughs, one can fathom that eventually computer hardware and software technology could produce a total immersive world with no easily perceptible continuity gaps. Combining future computing power with future advances in neuroscience allowing direct interfacing into the brain, eventually becoming completely immersed in a computer generated virtual reality is not only possible but probable.

As scary as living in a virtual reality may seem, let's imagine that you woke up in such a simulation. Somehow in the future someone was able to remove your living brain (perhaps your body was dying), place it in a nutrient bath, and hook up electrodes tapped directly into your brain to simulate your body and your body's interaction with the world. Now how would you have any idea your whole world was a simulation? If your memory had not been erased, chances are that the simulation would not be exactly the same as what you remembered, and therefore you would notice at least subtle little differences making you suspect something different about your new body and your new world.

But what if such a scenario happened to your brain and your memories were completely wiped out or if this was the world into which you were "born." How could you figure out that your world is a simulation? Perhaps you could find some continuity gaps in the simulation. However, you would most likely see such gaps as just normal aspects of the physics of your world. Even if the laws of physics of this simulated world changed over time and space, it would still seem completely natural to you and everyone around you. Most likely, you and your society would never suspect that your world is a simulation. Even if someone suspected it, no member of the simulated world could ever come up with objective proof that such a world is simulated, because any evidence would be generated by the simulation and, thus, would not be real. Everyone would claim the world is actually there, because everyone would experience it as such.

There would be only one way to truly convince yourself that the world is a simulation; if you could break out of the simulation. If you could experience the actual, non-simulated reality and perhaps view the machine doing the simulating then you would have sufficient reason to believe the world is simulated. However, even if you could escape and then return to the simulated world, you would have a hard time convincing anybody of your new knowledge, much less being able to supply objective proof. Only through some type of remarkable personal experience would someone absolutely believe such an unconventional notion.

Our personal experiences contribute to our knowledge and beliefs along with objective knowledge. Even though our society as a whole generally requires objective proof for something to be believed, on an individual level our personal experience rather than objective proof that makes us more strongly believe in something, which explains why people believe in religions. Only through our experiences can we seek answers to questions that are unanswerable through objective knowledge. Due to the emotional power of experience, experiential knowledge is usually believed more strongly than abstract reasoning. Of course, it does not necessarily fit that experiential knowledge is better or worse than objective knowledge.

So, although it can never be proven that our reality is virtual, on a personal level it could be believed if one could actually have one experience outside of the simulation and remember it as such. What would such an experience of breaking out of the simulation be like? It would not involve the physical body, because anything physical would be part of the simulation. It would be a completely mental experience.

Such a breakout experience would have our mind escape from the body in which we are "trapped," since our body is our interface with the physical world. Such an experience is akin to what people report during near death experiences. Reports of one's consciousness of leaving the body yet observing the world are common during near death experiences. The escape experience would be similar to death, hopefully, without the body actually dying. For practical purposes, the physical body and brain need to stay alive and in good shape during such an experience to return to one's life.

So, we look for an experience where your consciousness can leave your body while at the same time, you are conscious during the experience. At such an escape experience, you would have to be rational yet not believe your senses. As we have basically always believed in our senses and perhaps built our whole knowledge base upon information gained through them, you could easily perceive such an experience as only a dream or hallucination and not to be believed.

If you could accomplish such an experience, unless you were raised in a society where such an experience is normal, it would give you quite a new perspective on life even aside from realizing the world is a simulation. What kind of knowledge would you gain and what would you experience? Chances are, you would gain insight into what you actually are, what reality actually is and who is the creator of the simulation. By definition, the creator of the simulation and your creator is God.

If the world is a simulation then there has to be a creator. Due to the pervasiveness of the materialistic view of the world, it seems easier to believe in God if the world is a simulation rather than if the universe is actually "real" and arising from some kind of non-conscious organizing principle. Many smart people over the centuries have tried in vain to come up with an objective proof of God. Since God is metaphysical, proving God's existence objectively is as impossible as proving the world is a simulation. Objectivity only deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. Only through personal experience is God to be believed. The greatest possible experience of God would be during an escape of the physical world, if only for a fleeting moment.