Simulation Theory
Introduction to the Simulation Hypothesis: are we living in a comprehensive computer simulation? How would we know? And why would civilisations create simulations?
How do you know that what you see is real? How can you be sure that everything you interact with isn’t illusory or a dream?
Simulation theory drew me in from the moment I first heard it and as time goes on I’ve slowly been nudged in the direction of its truth. For those who haven’t heard, simulation theory claims our reality is not ‘base reality’ but a computer simulation. It seems like an idea straight from a Rick and Morty episode.
This brings up an interesting discussion regarding free will, morality and meaning -questions humanity has always struggled with. Some may compare this to religion, however, it differs because religions are formed based on past events, in contrast, the simulation hypothesis can be conceded after accepting a few basic assumptions. From there, it becomes a mathematical certainty.
Due to the depth of this subject, I’ll split this up into different posts, each tackling various questions about our supposed simulation. Here I will lay out the basics of simulation theory and why simulations may be created in the first place.
Simulation theory isn’t something new. Similar thought experiments exist which demonstrate that we cannot tell reality from an illusion, such as Plato’s allegory of the cave or the more recent brain in a vat.
Philosopher Nick Bostrom lays out his thoughts in his 2003 paper Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
Bostrom lays out 3 possible scenarios regarding simulation theory, either:
1) We achieve technological maturity to create simulations but choose not to.
2) It is impossible to create simulations.
3) We live in a simulation.
You’d think it’d be more complicated than that, wouldn’t you? Let’s look at each of these scenarios.
We Choose not to Create Simulations
There are a couple of reasons why we might not create simulations despite having the computational power and knowledge to do so. One reason could be we lose interest in simulations and would rather spend our computing power elsewhere.
Another reason is along ethical lines: if you believe suffering is bad, creating worlds containing conscious beings with the potential to suffer would inevitably lead to an increase in the total amount of suffering in existence.
However, these points can be refuted by looking at human nature. We are naturally curious creatures. We innovate for the sake of innovation. We create for the sake of creation. If we are capable, all it takes is one person to do it out of sheer curiosity.
Plus, when have ethical reasons ever stopped us from doing something?
It’s Impossible to Create Simulations
This is more likely than the earlier point, but not as probable as the last. It could be that all advanced civilisations inevitably annihilate themselves. Given our tribalistic nature and our attainment of weapons capable of destroying the planet many times over, we may never achieve the technological maturity required to create simulated realities. Rather glum, I know.
But, we’ve survived so far and with our exponential technological knowledge, I feel the ability to construct simulated realities is closer than expected.
One may be tempted to ask: what if the technology is physically impossible?
Well, If you’ve taken a cursory look at our advancement in video games you’ll see how far we’ve come. Projecting into the future may be a daunting task, however, based on our current technological trajectory it’s hard to imagine that we won’t have games that are practically indistinguishable from reality.
The next step is to populate that reality with conscious beings, and perhaps this would be the part that holds us back the most. How do we create consciousness when we barely know what consciousness is?
Ask yourself or any of your friends if they’re conscious and you will get an unequivocal ‘yes’. But are they actually conscious in the same way you are? Do they experience the sense of inner awareness, of being in the ‘driver’s seat’ behind their face? You can’t know for sure. Regardless, they will surely scream if you cut them open in search of ones and zeros.
Whether we populate these worlds with genuinely conscious beings or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that the beings inside believe they are conscious. This can be achieved with a couple of lines of code.
Am I missing something? If so, let me know. But I believe that once you rule out the first two possibilities then the conclusion must be as follows:
We live in a simulation.
Where’s the Proof?
How would you know if you were in a simulation? It seems, possibly by design, that we wouldn't definitively know if we were. Due to its unfalsifiable and untestable nature, many dismiss the claims that simulation theorists posit.
“But wait!”, you’re thinking, I’ve missed a point: why couldn’t we be the base reality that creates all other simulations? There has to be a base reality. So why not us?
This is why I say it’s a mathematical certainty. Let’s look at the likelihood that we are base reality when base reality creates one simulation:
If you were randomly placed in one of these realities you’d have a 50/50 chance of being in base reality.
However, we wouldn’t create just one simulation; We would create many - potentially millions, or even billions. Each of these simulations could, in turn, develop more simulations inside it. We could be facing upwards of trillions of simulations.
That’s why I look at it in terms of likelihood. Pick one reality and it is a statistical certainty that you land in a simulated one.
What’s the Point of Simulations?
To conclude our initial exploration into simulation theory, let’s ask ourselves why simulations may be created in the first place.
I mentioned earlier that curiosity is a strong enough reason by itself. However, I am basing this off human nature and the creators of the simulation may not share this innate characteristic so here are a few more reasons.
Second reality.
Our reality could be a video game for the simulation creators to spend time inside. We are merely avatars for their experiential pleasure. Once they die in one simulation they jump right back into another one. Doing so can make someone, for all intents and purposes, virtually immortal.
Entertainment.
I mean, look at the world today. Is this not the most entertaining spectacle you’ve seen? We’ve got a bunch of whacky characters taking up space on the global stage with Musk and Trump being the ultimate shitposters. You can dislike them, but if you take a step back you can’t deny that they increase our universe’s total entertainment value.
This is pure amusement for me - and I’m the one living in it! I only get to experience a small slice, whereas the simulation creators get to watch the whole show. Maybe we’re only here for the entertainment we bring. We better put on a good show.
Problem-solving.
There’s nothing stopping simulations from being run at extremely high speeds, to the outside world, we could be zipping around at 1000x the speed, but to us, we would perceive it as normal. With this, the long-term effects of different problems can be studied which can help educate simulation creators on how they should act in similar situations.
Entertainment problem-solving.
I watched a video of a dog trainer teaching a dog not to jump up on people. He walked over to the dog and as soon as the dog jumped up in excitement, he walked away and tried again. Through trial and error the dog slowly realised that if he’s patient and doesn’t jump up, he will receive all the pats he could ever want. It was fascinating to watch the dog solve a problem in real time, you could see the cogs slowly turning in his mind. He eventually got those pats he desperately wanted, and then in a moment of ecstasy, he jumped up and the whole process started again.
What’s more interesting than watching one creature problem-solve? Watching a group of them work together. Have you ever placed an obstacle in the middle of a predetermined path of ants just to see what they’d do? Will they scatter in confusion, climb over the object, or find a way around it? We’re captivated by seeing how creatures react to different problems.
Animals may be interesting, but highly sophisticated and globally connected beings are far even more so.
If I were to create a simulation, now and then I’d throw a wrench in the mix to see how they react. At some point, I’d make it so that competing countries attain technology that is capable of destroying all of civilisation and see if they figure it out.
That’s the Cold War.
I’d later produce a global pandemic to the world. That’s COVID-19.
Oh, you figured out atomic weapons? Cool, let’s see how you deal with a global recession. Climate change. AI. Seeing all the problems get solved one after another -man, you couldn’t ask for anything more intriguing than that.
We have gone over the three possibilities relating to simulation theory. We’ve tackled the likelihood of being in a simulated reality compared to the single base reality, and also why simulations would be created.
If it becomes apparent that we live in a simulated reality, which I think it may in our lifetime, how would that change your perspective on things, and would you act differently?
What do you think of the simulation theory? Does it sound as whack as it did before you started reading?
I plan to do more of these so if there’s any feedback or would like me to expand on something, then leave a comment or email back and I’ll happily respond.
There’s more to come.
"One may be tempted to ask: what if the technology is physically impossible?" Video games progress doesn't suggest that its not impossible. If something is impossible then progress that looks like 1% of the way there doesn't matter at all. 90% of the needed steps for a warp drive will never get you a warp drive. You need 100%. If something is impossible you can devote a trillion years trying to make it happen and won't get any closer. Its hard to deal with something that could never happen cause something could always guess well maybe it could happen.. eventually. Unless its impossible in which case it doesn't matter how impressive chances are; maybe you hit a limit tomorrow or the next day. You don't know. If something is impossible no arguments about fast progress happen because no amount of time you devote can make the universe able to do things it CAN'T. So if its impossible then it will never happen. And if it is possible maybe it has happened. But there is no reason to rule out it being impossible.