第183回 WORKSHOP報告(10月20日) / 参加者41名

1.前半マテリアルの紹介 Sさん

2.後半マテリアルの紹介 M先生

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
《 今回のworkshop 》
○workshop参加人数:49名(うち新人の方:3名)
○【前半】:フェス/祭
○【後半】:Simulation vs Reality
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[今週のマテリアル]
≪FIRST HALF≫
It’s October and many stores are decorated for Halloween. Halloween festival became popular in this 10 or 20 years. In 2015, the economic effects became bigger than Valentine.
These days many フェス are held in Japan. Around 2000s, the word フェス was used mostly for music festivals. But recently, many different sorts of festivals are held all over Japan. There theme are such as food(B級グルメ, meat, ramen, etc.) , drink(Oktoberfest, Japanese sake), country, or camps and more.
This movement can say that Japanese loves 祭. Let’s talk about フェス and festivals.

フェスとは:イベントやショーなど、特定の目的を持つ集まりを指す造語。主に英語のフェスト(fest)の語感で使われる。祭りの意味の「フェスティバル(festival)」の略としても使われる。「音楽フェス」や「野外フェス」などと用いる。

1. Have you joined any フェス/festivals recently? Please share your experience.

2. Please share information about フェス/festivals of your hometown.
If there’s none, please search an interesting festival in abroad, and share.

3. If you have a chance to hold a フェス/festival and be a producer of it, what would it be?
Please include the concept, target and location.

4. The ranking below is the number of spectator in festivals held in Japan.
Do you know or have you joined any of them?
Can you think of the reasons why these festivals are so popular?

全国を代表する有名なお祭り人出 動員数 ランキング TOP10


第1位 博多祇園山笠 3000000人
第2位 青森ねぶた祭 2760000人
第3位 さっぽろ雪まつり 2609000人
第4位 仙台七夕まつり 2283000人
第5位 日本ど真ん中祭り 2202000人

≪LATTER HALF≫
Simulation vs Reality

● Hypothesis

A concept that’s been bouncing around in scientific circles for several years – and in science fiction stories for several decades before that.
The gist, according to proponents, is that all of reality is actually an incredibly complex computer simulation created by an advanced civilization.
This controlling civilization may be an existing alien culture, or it may be a future iteration of humanity, one of many spun out into the far-future multiverse of parallel realities.
The incredible rate of computer advancement we’ve seen in recent decades, specifically with video games and simulators. We’ve gone from the Atari 2600 to high-resolution virtual reality in forty-some years.
Projecting that rate of advancement forward, unthinkable amounts of computing power will be available to advanced species, either our own or others in the universe, who might like to create the ultimate cosmic simulation.
These simulations would essentially replicate physical reality down to the subatomic level. Approximated humans within the simulation would be conscious entities – that’s us –
If future computers can generate limitless simulated universes, then the likelihood of our current reality being the original universe, or the Prime Reality, is actually quite small.
If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the simulations will become indistinguishable from reality.
In fact, it’s statistically probable that we’re already living inside some kind of cosmic computational construct.

● Philosophy

Besides attempting to assess whether the simulation hypothesis is true or false, philosophers have also used it to illustrate other philosophical problems, especially in metaphysics(*1). It has been argued that simulated beings might wonder whether their mental lives are governed by the physics of their environment. They might eventually find that their thoughts fail to be physically caused. This means that dualism(*2) is not necessarily as problematic of a philosophical view as is commonly supposed.
Computer simulation scenarios to illuminate further facts that do not follow logically from the physical facts. What it is like to have specific experiences, and personal identity.
Imagine a person in the real world who is observing a simulated world on a screen, from the perspective of one of the simulated agents in it. The person observing knows that besides the code responsible for the physics of the simulation, there must be additional code that determines in which colors the simulation is displayed on the screen, and which agent’s perspective is displayed.
These questions are related to the inverted spectrum(*3) scenario and whether there are further facts about personal identity. That is, the person can conclude that the facts about the physics of the simulation do not fully determine her experience by themselves.
Imagine someone who has become so engrossed in the simulation that they have forgotten that it is a simulation completely captured by the code governing the physics. For this to be the case, the simulation needs to have an exceptionally high fidelity, bringing us into the territory of simulated reality.
This situation resembles the one in the dream argument(*4). In this case, could we not still reach the same conclusion that the facts about the physics of the simulated reality, though we do not realize it is simulated?
Do we not fully determine our experience by ourselves? And if so, can we not conclude the same in our own daily lives?

● Multiverse

The structure and nature of each universe within it, the relationships among these universes vary from one multiverse hypothesis to another.
Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, and literature, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called “alternate universes”, “quantum universes”, “interpenetrating dimensions”, “parallel dimensions”, “parallel worlds”, “parallel realities”, “quantum realities”, “alternate realities”, “alternate timelines”, “alternate dimensions”, and “dimensional planes”.
The physics community continues to debate the multiverse hypotheses, where physicists are divided in opinion about whether any other universes exist.
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics.
Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method.
It was suggested that if the multiverse existed, “the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses, and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed; for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live.”

● Skepticism

If every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it.
The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot out of a science fiction movie(*5), but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis.
The gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA; somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own.
We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence. If that’s the case, it is easy to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for entertainment.
Other reasons to think we might be virtual: the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws.
A character in a computer game would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical.
The statistical argument that most minds in the future will turn out to be artificial rather than biological is also not a given.
Researchers think they could find experimental evidence that we are living in a computer game. One idea is that the programmers might cut corners to make the simulation easier to run.
That evidence might come in the form of an unusual distribution of energies, among the cosmic rays hitting Earth that suggest space-time is not continuous.
You’re not going to get proof that we’re not in a simulation, because any evidence that we do get could be simulated.
If the simulation hypothesis is valid, then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection; things that have been formally discussed in the realm of religion.

● Discussion

1 Why are people asking this in the first place?

2 Must there always be something changing in order for time to exist?(*6)

3 What is there missing from our lives that makes us feel this way?

4 What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe?

5 What happens if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?

● Personal Note
With the ultimate goal of using robots and artificial intelligence to make it unnecessary for humans to do any actual work.
I think it’s unfair to ask this question in the 21st century, because the entire industrial and scientific communities are working feverishly to create environments that are all mind based.

以下、補足となります。

(*1)metaphysics「形而上学」:我々が直接経験することができる物理的(physical)な現象の背後(meta)にあるものついて考察する学問。
ここでの”other philosophical problems, especially in metaphysics”とは、精神と物質の関係に関する問題を指している。

(*2)dualism「(心身)二元論」:精神と物質は性質の異なるものであるため、精神の働きは物理法則によって決定されるものではないとする考え方。
これに対し、直前に述べられている”mental lives are governed by the physics”とする考え方は「(物的)一元論」と呼ばれる。

(*3)inverted spectrum「逆転スペクトル」:仮に熟したある1つのリンゴを、色の見え方の感覚が逆転しているA氏とB氏の2人が見ているとする。(つまり、B氏にとってのリンゴの色の見え方が、A氏にとっての緑色だったとする。)
この場合、2人が自分達の色の感覚が逆転していることに気づくことは困難である。なぜなら、二人ともリンゴの色を「赤」と呼ぶように教育を受けてきているため、それぞれにとってのリンゴの色の感覚の違いをお互い確認できない。

(*4)the one in the dream argument「夢を見る男の議論」:我々は今現実にいるのか、それとも夢の中にいるのか、ということを証明することはできない、という議論。有名な例として、荘子による「胡蝶の夢」という説話がある。
ある時、荘子は蝶になって空を飛んでいる夢を見た。目が覚めた時、荘子は「果たして自分は蝶になった夢をみていたのか、それとも今の自分は蝶が見ている夢なのか」と考えたが、どちらかなのかは分からなかった。

(*5)science fiction movie:今回のようなテーマを題材としたSF作品は数多く、有名な例としては映画「マトリックス」がある。イメージが掴みづらい方は下のリンクからあらすじを読んでみてください。
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9E%E3%83%88%E3%83%AA%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9_(%E6%98%A0%E7%94%BB)

(*6)something changing in order for time to exist?:例えば「日」が日の出の周期によって、「月」が月の満ち欠けの周期によって定められるといったように、時間は事物の変化に基づいて定義されると考えられている。
もしその通りだとすると、事物の変化が一切ない状況において、時間のみが単独で存在するということはできないため、宇宙の誕生前や宇宙が無くなった後には、時間そのものが存在しないということになる。
一方で、こういった事物の変化が一切存在しなくとも、(客観的な)時間の流れというものが存在している、という考え方もある。
この設問は以上のようなことを念頭に置いて考えてみてください。

***********************************************************
私たちと一緒に英語コミュニケーション能力を鍛えませんか?
ご興味を持たれた方は、
入会申込フォーム

ご入会申込みフォーム


よりお申し込みください。お待ちしています!
***********************************************************