Do We Live In The Real World? | Original Documentary | Unveiled

<h4>

Do We Live in the Real World?</h4>

It was the rock band Queen who famously opened probably their most iconic record with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”. Music fans have debated the meaning behind those words for decades and, actually, they could well have nothing to do with the universal nature of reality. But, in conceiving them, the singer and songwriter Freddie Mercury was at least tapping into a universal truth; channeling a philosophical conundrum that has flittered through the minds of humankind since we first became self-aware enough to consider it. Is anything really real?

This is Unveiled, and today we’re answering the extraordinary question; do we live in the real world?

On the timeline of humanity, the question of reality has always been all around us. That’s kinda the point. It’s the fundamental question of our existence. Are we living in a tangible, objective world, or is our experience a complex illusion? Can we trust our senses, or are they hardwired to deceive?

In ancient times, we looked mostly to God (or to gods, multiple) to try to explain what we couldn’t understand. We developed stories and traditions, legend and myth, all in some way seeking to get a grip on our lives. In ancient Greece and Rome especially, records show that many of the most influential philosophers - such as Socrates and Plato - were also endlessly interested in truly understanding what life was. What’s the point of living, and how is reality intrinsically formed? By the time of the renaissance and the enlightenment, there were multiple theories erupting all over the world map. Human beings have always been naturally inquisitive, but in just the last few hundred years we’ve really outdone ourselves… all leading up to now; a moment in time when almost everyone alive has likely at one stage asked themselves questions like; “why am I here?” and “how do I know that what’s happening really is what’s happening?”.

In the modern era, the pursuit of science has added new dimensions to this age-old debate. And today, we can explore it via things like simulation theory, and through other matrix-like scenarios. We can also consider the implications of a multiverse, the potential influence of artificial intelligence, and even the possible existence of an extraterrestrial edge. All have a role to play as we continually try to prove what’s real. So, let’s get into it.

First up, simulation theory, which proposes that reality is, in fact, a computer-generated sim. It’s an intriguing concept that actually has roots in ancient ideas, but it gained prominence in modern times largely through the work of the Swedish philosopher and Oxford professor, Nick Bostrom. Bostrom's seminal 2003 paper, "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" suggests that if a technologically advanced civilization can create realistic sims of their ancestors - a prediction that many models do make - then the odds of us existing in a base reality are extremely slim. Instead, we’re much more likely to be populating one such ancestor sim, no matter how intelligent and capable of free will we believe ourselves to be. All of that would, in fact, be false, or an illusion. 

Elon Musk is a vocal advocate of simulation theory. He argues, for instance, that given the exponential growth of video game technology, it's now certainly plausible that advanced enough civilizations would create simmed worlds indistinguishable from reality. The renowned astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, has also gone on record emphasizing the potential for all of this to be a simulated construct. The chances for which Tyson has before claimed could be as much as fifty-fifty. Fifty percent likely we’re living authentic lives; fifty percent likely that everything we’ve ever known is artificially dreamt up and rendered by some higher power.

So, if our reality were a sim, then what would that mean for us? It’s the first chance of many that we have to properly question the true nature of what we know. On the one hand, would it matter if we were simulated? Some argue not really. But, on the other, could our lives ever hold the same significance if we knew that we were mere lines of code? Importantly, sim theory is a speculative hypothesis lacking concrete evidence. It isn’t a proven fact. But it sure does make you think.

In a broader sense, “the matrix” has come to be something of a catch-all term for any proposed social structure that takes us out of this dimension and into another. Of course, the idea is most closely associated with the 1999 cyberpunk sci-fi classic, “The Matrix”, which depicts a once-unsuspecting Neo as he has the veil of reality removed to learn the truth. Across all manner of blockbusting scenes and bullet-dodging special effects, Neo goes from being essentially an extra in what he used to think was real life… to very much the main character in a higher dimension.

But could Neo’s story ever actually happen? Recent advancements in artificial intelligence certainly have fueled speculation about the potential emergence of a matrix-like reality. As AI becomes more sophisticated, the prospect of an intricate, all-encompassing digital realm somehow managed by intelligent machines seemingly becomes less and less like science fiction. And perhaps it wouldn’t need to be a straight up ancestor sim, either. With growing talk around digital immortality, could it actually be that we’re all actually housed just on a server somewhere? 

In this version of reality, it’s like we’ve already died, it’s just that we don’t know it. But, before our deaths, we all lived in a civilization advanced enough to know how to convert our essence into something that could be digitally saved. And, if that were the case, then it would of course make sense to remove the parts of our former selves that knew about digital immortality… because that knowledge could easily trigger madness in the here and now. Again, it’s not something that’s commonly said to be true, there is no proof of the matrix… but versions of it do form the basis for a growing number of hypothetical ideas. And, occasionally, notions of a higher version of ourselves have bled into testimonies given by those who suffer a near death (or out of body) experience. In general, the matrix is a concept that explores the boundaries between human and machine consciousness, blurring the lines of what we perceive as real. And it could be becoming more and more relevant with every passing year and AI tech innovation.

But finally, and as with many an alt model for how the universe works, some believe that we have to consider the potential for alien intelligence guiding the way. It adds another layer to the mystery but could also solve many of the seeming problems. The Zoo Hypothesis famously suggests that life on Earth is constantly watched by an unknown alien group, pitching us like caged animals on show at the zoo. The Lab Hypothesis builds on that by suggesting that those aliens are also actively experimenting on us, turning the zoo into something more like a planet-sized petri dish. 

Crucially, though, both would serve to solve some of the mysteries of the universe. With the fine tuning problem, it’s now the case that reality works so well for us because it’s custom built by a higher hand. With the Fermi Paradox, we now know why we haven’t discovered any aliens yet, because our extraterrestrial overseers would never enter our enclosure, for fear of scuppering the experiment or just because it would be dangerous for them. Even the apparent unknowableness of the Oort Cloud could even make some sense if it were actually placed there by a superior force, to double up as something like the viewing windows in a reptile house.

Clearly all of the above (and especially the alien option) are highly speculative. Simulation theory, the matrix, AI potential and ET possibilities… none are supported by empirical evidence. However, all do form the basis for contemporary answers to the question of what’s real. On top of that, all could in some way be grouped together under the broader concept of the multiverse. If ancestor sims exist on a massive server somewhere, then all of those individual programs essentially form a multiverse. If digital immortality is viable, then the universe has far more layers than we typically give it credit for. If there’s alien life that’s sophisticated enough to create an entire star system for us, then is it so difficult to imagine the wider bubble universes that are key to the inflationary multiverse model? 

For now, the scene is set for us to at least reconsider everything we know. And the search is on to find the proof that would turn these hypothetical ideas into genuinely valid scientific breakthroughs. 

We know that, sometimes, things happen in our everyday lives that just can’t be explained. The most widely-cited example is probably deja vu, that eerie feeling you get whenever it feels as though you’ve been somewhere (or seen something) before. It’s a common phenomena. But, every so often there are examples of something much more than deja vu; of bizarre theories and experiences that ultimately cause those who encounter them to question their very existence.

We’ll start with probably the most famous thought experiment about the nature of reality; Schrödinger's cat. It’s a tale as old as time in terms of quantum science, but it crops up so often because it’s come to be a vital demonstration of exactly how weird and unknown the world is. It was devised by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Legend says the first time it was ever voiced was during a (probably pretty complicated) conversation between Schrödinger and one Albert Einstein.

So, how does it work? Imagine you have a cat inside a sealed box. Along with the cat, there's a vial of poison, and a radioactive atom. Schrödinger's box is set up in such a way that the atom can decay, releasing the poison and killing the cat OR it can remain stable, leaving the cat safe, well and still alive. The fate of the cat is tied to the behavior of the atom. But here's the twist: until we open the box and observe the cat, quantum mechanics says that that fate is uncertain. In the quantum world, things can exist in multiple states simultaneously, thanks to superposition. So, before we open the box, Schrödinger's cat is both alive AND dead at the same time. So the theory goes.

In general, it challenges our common-sense understanding of reality because, in the everyday, something is either one thing or another, not both. Here, though, what’s important is that the atom's decay is a truly random process, and we can't predict exactly when it will happen. Therefore, again, until we open the box and check, the atom exists in a superposition of both decayed and undecayed states. This then extends to the entire system - i.e., everything inside the closed box - including the cat, whose life literally depends on it.

Ultimately, though, this isn't about cats; it's about the fundamental nature of particles at the quantum level. And it’s an idea that has since been developed, not least by the winners of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2022, Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger. In separate studies, and over a period of around fifty years, they all found proof that Schrödinger was right, and that on the quantum level particles are inevitably linked. One possible interpretation is that it could imply that actually nothing is real until it’s observed. Which, from an individual point of view, grants every single one of us with a weirdly massive amount of power.

But next, let’s take a closer look at something that seemingly isn’t an imagined construct first and foremost; our own physical bodies. Because, according to one tech story, at least, we may only need to look inside ourselves to find evidence of the unrealness of everything.

In August 2017, some bizarre headlines made the rounds, with reports that scientists had managed to hack into a computer using DNA. And, actually, that claim wasn’t hyperbole, it was true. The study in question was conducted by a team at the University of Washington, in America. It set out to investigate “Computer Security, Privacy, and DNA Sequencing”, and ultimately found - reportedly for the first time ever - that DNA could be used to compromise computing systems.

Now, the truth here is perhaps a little less concerning that you might immediately imagine. Through a series of tests, the team were essentially able to show that the patterns found in DNA could be converted into malicious code, which then could be transferred into digital systems - especially as DNA research involves many computational elements. However, at this stage there’s no real suggestion that a person could ever simply use their own biology to hack into anyone else’s private stuff. So, you needn’t worry about that. The study is more to show that various DNA sequencing techniques and softwares are vulnerable. A potentially big problem given that DNA data is a) widely shared and b) has become exponentially cheaper to obtain in recent years.

But, regardless of whether or not DNA hacks will trigger some kind of cyber apocalypse, why is it relevant to the question of the world not being real? Well, one takeaway from the study is more simply that it’s a direct representation of exactly how programmed we are. Everything about us really can be diluted down into a digital code, suggesting that - with the right know-how - we really could all be reduced into a digital file. It’s not science fiction anymore, it’s an uncomfortable fact. And so, while on some level the world is still real, it’s not in any way that we currently grasp it. While Schrödinger's cat hints that realness only happens when we observe it, the concept of DNA as a digital virus shows that even the most fundamental building blocks of us can be rearranged into something that’s totally different. Our physical selves can easily be converted. You thought you were only your body but, actually, you're potentially a non-physical entity, as well. Naturally, and without any far-future modifications necessary. And that’s a little disturbing.

Next, though, and not every apparent instance of the code of life revealing itself is quite so unsettling. Social media is awash with snapshots of seeming glitches in the matrix. This might be a photograph of strangers sitting next to each other on the subway, but all are wearing the same clothes. Or it could be a video of two people walking alongside each other in perfect sync, despite being wholly unaware that their actions are being copied. As bizarre as these moments are, however, they can almost always be written off as plain coincidence. With clothing, for example, it’s perhaps not so surprising that any two (or more) people would choose to wear a couple of the same items. However, sometimes the coincidences do seem to go further, and American history serves up two of the best.

First, the birth and death of the writer, Mark Twain. He was born in November 1835, he died in April 1910. However, what’s interesting about those dates is that both double up as rare moments in time when the elusive Halley’s Comet appeared in the skies of Earth. Twain was born when the comet could still be seen, two weeks after its closest approach; and he died just one day after its next closest approach, seventy-four years later. The author is even said to have predicted his own passing, as he’s quoted foretelling; “The Almighty has said, no doubt: 'Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together”. For many, the scale of this coincidence is enough to hugely question the authenticity of what’s real.

Finally, though, and this time to the deaths of two American Presidents; Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The pair died on the same day in 1826, July 4th, a.k.a. the 50th anniversary of American Independence. You might think that that, in itself, would be coincidence enough, but it’s said that both passings were even more closely linked. Throughout their lives, Jefferson and Adams were friends, and then rivals, and then friends again. They were founding fathers of the USA before political clashes drove them apart and into opposite parties. Years later, they reconciled and remained close until their deaths. It’s said that, during his last words, Adams even remarked upon how Jefferson had survived him. However, unbeknownst to Adams, Jefferson had actually died a couple hours beforehand. For some, it’s as though their lives were entwined. In modern terms, we might even say that they were entangled. 

So could this have been a real world instance of something like Schrödinger's cat in action, extrapolated all the way up to the top of US politics? Could Mark Twain’s coming and going represent more than just a peculiarity? Might the contemporary realization that DNA is hackable offer some kind of explanation for when things happen in life that are otherwise unexplainable? Clearly, none of this serves to prove the world isn’t real… but it does leave cause to wonder, can you ever really trust reality?

So, how much of this world do you think is genuine? Are there parts of your life that sometimes feel not quite right? Over the years, across centuries of thought, debate, false dawns and seeming breakthroughs, the world’s greatest minds have been bent toward answering life’s biggest questions such as these. So much so, we now have a range of philosophies that offer up answers. Which do you think is the one that truly gets to the heart of the matter?

Broadly, we know that reality - that which we perceive as the tangible and unquestionable fabric of our existence - can be a disconcerting concept when examined closely. Even the act of questioning the nature of stuff can evoke a sense of unease in many, tapping into primal fears around a loss of control and unsettling the foundations upon which we usually live. Here, we’re going to take a closer look at the real world approaches that could offer some solutions. Traveling the realms of philosophy, probing the intricacies of the mind-body problem, and pitching it all alongside the notion that there’s probably more we don’t know, than do.

First off, why is it so discomforting to question what’s real, anyway? The fear of the unknown, coupled with existential dread, can trigger a variety of phobias such as basophobia (the fear of falling) agoraphobia (the fear of open spaces) or, more specifically, solipsism syndrome (the fear of the external world being an illusion). All underscore the profound impact that our perceptions have on our psychological well-being. That word, perception, is going to be key. But, clearly, whenever we do cast our lives into doubt, we should also ensure that we never dwell for too long. That said, thinking about thinking is also pretty fun.

So, let’s kick off with idealism. It posits that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial. In this worldview, everything exists within the mind or consciousness. The idealist enigma is wrapped up in a famous philosophical problem; if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does that tree make a sound? While some say yes, others say no… because sound, like all perceptions, is dependent on an observer. Real only happens when we perceive it; a mantra that might also be applied to Schrödinger's cat.

On the other side of the coin, materialism asserts another reality; one that’s entirely composed of physical matter. Materialists discount the existence of any non-material or supernatural entities. Probably the most well known encapsulation of this perspective comes from the astrophysicist, Carl Sagan. He famously said that; “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff”, fully emphasizing the interconnectedness of all physical matter. For materialists, it’s probably true that if the tree falls it does make a sound, regardless of who is (or isn’t) there.

There are a range of mid-points between idealism and materialism, though. Dualism separates reality into two distinct substances, usually mind and matter. The mind-body problem - largely born out of the dualist POV - explores the relationship between the mental and physical aspects of existence. In some ways it’s a much more complex depiction of what’s really real, and therefore it leaves a lot more room for interpretation. However, the seeming split does at least mean dualists are confident that their own thoughts are to be trusted. René Descartes is the influential voice here. As a key figure in the Enlightenment, he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), a line now widely used to highlight the certainty of mental existence, if nothing else.

With all of this in mind, then, the question remains; can you trust reality? In a world where the simulation hypothesis suggests that our entire existence might be a complex computer generated construct… and where multiverse theories propose the coexistence of infinite realities and timelines… it’s sure difficult to be certain these days. But this uncertainty ultimately boils down to the nature of perception. The fact is that our perception of reality is inevitably, inescapably, inherently subjective. It’s wholly shaped by sensory input and cognitive processes, which means that no-one’s perception is the same as anyone else’s. On a small scale, it means that no two people will watch this video in quite the same way, or taste a cake, or listen to a piece of music. But, on larger scales, it means that no two people comprehend life in quite the same way, visualize existence, or appreciate the universe. In general, sensory experiences are a pretty fragile foundation for truth… but they’re also all we have.

If even our senses are sketchy and up for interpretation, then is there anything else we could look to for a firmer understanding? Ultimately, no there isn’t. Aside from our senses, our memories are probably the most important sources we have to shape our understanding of what’s real. The certainty of memory, however, is famously fallible.

In 1974, a key study into eyewitness testimony and leading questions was carried out by the psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer. In it, participants watched a video of a car accident and were then asked about the speed of the cars using different forms of a question. Some were questioned using the word "smashed”, while others were asked using words like "hit" or "contacted”. Results showed that the choice of words significantly influenced participants' estimates of the speed of the cars. Those who heard the word "smashed" gave higher speed estimates compared to other groups. Loftus and Palmer had demonstrated how easily memory could become distorted.

Elsewhere, and more than forty years earlier, there was the “War of the Ghosts” study. Conducted by Sir Frederic Bartlett, participants were asked to read and then recall (at different intervals over time) a Native American folk tale called "War of the Ghosts". Results here showed that people tended to distort the story to fit with their existing schemas and cultural expectations - which in themselves may have shifted over time, as well. Information in the story that was inconsistent with a participant’s cultural background was often omitted or changed, showing how memory is clearly reconstructive.

Finally, and in the mid-90s, researchers Henry L. Roediger III and Kathleen McDermott conducted an experiment to show that people can easily remember things that not only happened differently, but in fact never happened at all. In their study, participants were presented with lists of words related to a critical word that actually didn’t appear in the list. For example, they might see the words sleep, rest, dream, etc., while the critical word - i.e. “bed" - is absent. Later, though, around half of the participants falsely remembered or recognized the critical word that was not presented. This revealed that false memories could be made based purely on association, or even a sub-conscious kind of guesswork.

We know, then, that memory can be significantly influenced by external factors. We also know that even the memories that are correct are formed mostly by our sensory experiences, which are entirely subjective to us. Going one step even further, the wider philosophies about thought, reality, memory - about everything - are ultimately subject to the same stumbling blocks. We all hear, interpret and remember them differently. We’re all prone to adjusting them to fit into whatever it is we already know.

With everything considered, it’s perhaps little wonder that many would rather describe their worldview as philosophical skepticism. Philosophical skeptics cast doubt on our ability to know anything with absolute certainty. From Descartes' methodical musings on the nature of the mind… to Loftus and Palmer’s seeming proof that we never remember anything correctly, the conclusion here is that we simply cannot trust our perceptions.

Of all the ideas we’ve covered, which do you most closely associate with? Are you an idealist or a materialist? A dualist or a skeptic? Have you ever remembered something very differently to someone else? Are you happy with your acquired sensory knowledge, or are you suspicious that the things you think you know are wrong? As always, air your views in the comments!

Clearly, it’s a labyrinth, but also it needn’t be a minefield. Whenever we think deeply about who we really are, it can lead to a nasty helping of existential despair. However, if we embrace the uncertainty rather than fear it, then actually it has the potential to be a wondrous journey. Again, thinking about thinking can be fun. As to whether or not you can trust reality, there’s perhaps no conclusive answer. The solution, it seems, is an infinite journey rather than a final destination.

Over the course of this video, we’ve covered a lot! And, if you’ve made it this far then your head may well be ringing! Again, be sure to let us know what you think about all the topics we’ve discussed in the comments! With any luck we can kick start some eye-opening debates. And if you have any suggestions for our future documentaries, then be sure to let us know!

For now, we’ve moved from simulation theory to the matrix, with AI and aliens along the way. We’ve skirted the multiverse, opened the box on Schrödinger's cat, hacked into our own DNA, and reviewed some of history’s greatest and strangest coincidences. We’ve also dived headfirst into philosophy, and come up for air with maybe even more questions than ever before. But, when you’re dealing with the true nature of reality at the most fundamental levels, that is to be expected!

Over the course of this episode, you might have found yourself picturing higher dimensions and parallel worlds. You may have been reminded of the massiveness (but also potential insignificance) of our universe. But one thing that’s clear is that the uncertainty surrounding the nature of reality doesn't diminish the value of our experiences. Whether we live in a base reality, a simulated construct, a parallel world, even if we live as a speck of dust on the fingertip of a hyper-advanced being on a plane that’s totally inconceivable for us… our emotions, relationships, and personal growth remain inherently meaningful. They are what makes us human.

Do we live in the real world? On one level we definitely do. On another, it’s very much unknown. The lines are drawn - between perception and reality, material and mystical, artificial and authentic, possible and impossible - but the edges are blurred, and that’s all part of the richness and mystery of life.