The Truth About The Simulation Theory
The Sims is a video game centered around fake people who you can mess with and simulate through many different situations. Playing this game as a child was when I started asking the question: how real can simulations get? The “Sims” as they’re called, aren’t anything close to the complexities of real people. Although, it’s worth noting that this small scale simulation was made only 35 years after the first computer. On top of this, our technology is improving at an exponential rate. After some time, it’s not unlikely that we could create something that is indistinguishable from the real world. The fact that there’s even a chance of this being possible raises a frightening and thought provoking question: what if we are in a simulation? Many people say that we are. We don’t have a concrete way to prove this true or false, after all, this theoretical simulation would be exactly identical to the real world. What we do have are a set of assumptions that, if true, would almost guarantee the falsehood of our universe. So are these scientists and philosophers who say that we are simulated telling the truth? When looking at the probabilities and anomalies of the universe, yes, we are living inside of a simulation.
The universal rules are perfect… right?
Schrodinger’s cat is a famous thought experiment that demonstrates some key properties of quantum mechanics. It starts with a cat who is placed in a sealed box with a 50% chance of being killed by a device in the box within an hour. After an hour, is the cat alive or dead? The conclusion of the experiment is that the cat is both alive and dead until someone observes it (Lea). When I first heard this, I thought it was ridiculous. What I didn’t know was that Schrodinger was just simplifying the idea of superposition. Superposition is an idea used in quantum mechanics to identify the location of particles. Particles don’t act like particles most of the time, their position is constantly changing in a predictable but unobservable way. They only look like particles when we observe them (literally, they change their physical and visible properties when we look at them). Because of how unpredictable these particles are while we aren’t looking at them, they can exist in many different places at one time. The cat being alive and dead isn’t literal, but these particles are actually phasing in and out of reality all around us. A reasonable question would then be: where do they go? Quantum mechanics say that everything is just waves, and these waves have higher densities in some place, which is where the particles are more likely to be observed. While we’re not looking at them, they don’t need to exist anywhere specific (Lea). Now why do I bring this up? Well, many things about our universe are completely unexplainable and go against everything we think we know. Daniel Greenberger, a quantum physicist, said “quantum mechanics is magic”. Superposition is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things we don’t know, so an open mind about the universe is very important.
“It could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.” -Nick Bostrom
As fun as quantum mechanics may be, it’s definitely not enough to convince anyone that we live in a simulation. What is the basis of the claim? Nick Bostrom was one of the first concerned with the technicalities of showing the likelihood of our world being real. He presented 3 assumptions that, if true, confirm our place in a simulation. The first is that humans will continue to improve our technology without killing ourselves off first. The second is that humans in the future actually want to run simulations. The third is that the number of simulated universes outweigh the number of real ones (Bostrom 6).
Our technology needs to keep improving.
With our current understanding of computers, a simulation containing an entire universe is nearly impossible. But our progression shows no signs of slowing down any time soon. Our computing power is growing exponentially. In 1965, Gordon E Moore famously predicted that the number of transistors per silicon chip will double every year (Berman). And ever since, we have followed true to the claim. Although, in order to actually reach this level of computing, we need to live long enough to get there. Many people think that life is self destructive, which would explain why we can’t seem to find it anywhere else. This could be caused by climate change, or nuclear fallout, or overpopulation. If life is truly self destructive, there is no chance we would reach the technology needed to run simulations. This is one of the most important parts of the simulation theory, and as Elon Musk, lead designer at SpaceX, has said “Either we are going to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, or simulation will cease to exist. Those are the two options” (Musk). As a human myself, I would like to hope that we won’t kill ourselves off. If you believe the same thing, then you would be effectively saying that we are able to make universe simulations.
Humans have to actually want to run simulations.
It seems a little obvious, but for simulations to exist in the future, we will have to want to make them. It’s possible that the economic outcome of a simulation isn’t going to outweigh the costs of making it. This assumption is a little less important because we are already labeling and selling our best simulations all the time. Video games make up a huge market. Even if the purpose of our simulation is purely entertainment, it would be sold as the greatest video game of all time. Human psychology is also something that would be much easier with simulations. (Spoiler alert) On season 4 episode 4 of the Netflix show Black Mirror, a dating app uses a simulation of a potential couple to determine if they would be right for each other. This is one of many services a realistic simulation could serve as on an economic level. When talking about future humans choosing not to run simulations, Nick Bostrom, the author of the original simulation theory, said “This would require significant changes to the motivations driving their human predecessors” (Bostrom 11). So I would believe this assumption to be almost guaranteed. We will want to make realistic simulations, and if it is possible, it will be done.
The number of fabricated realities outweigh that of real ones.
I have already talked about enough quantum mechanics, so I will try to explain this in a more conceptual way. The average person would agree that there’s only one “real life”. The reason this is the last assumption is because the former 2 only prove that fabricated realities are possible. They don’t say much about our world. Consider this, if a society can create just one perfect simulation, then by definition, the simulated society could also create its own. This means that for every “real life” that exists in our universe, there are an infinite series of simulated ones. In the end, it comes down to likelihood. What’s the likelihood that you are in the real one? When talking about this probability, Niel DeGrasse Tyson says “One in a zillion you’re the real universe” (Degrasse Tyson). If the former 2 assumptions are true, the chance of us being real is just about zero.
That’s the essence of the simulation theory. Those 3 assumptions. Which may have been a lot of information for someone who hasn’t put a lot of thought into this subject. So now I’ll give you the chance to be the one putting information together. How likely do you think it is that we progress as a species without killing ourselves off? Now, how likely do you think it is that if we had the ability to make a perfect simulated reality, we would do it? Personally, I would give us a solid 75% and 99% respectively. If you multiple these two numbers together, you get the likelihood of the third assumption being true. This third assumption doubles as our likelihood of being simulated. Mine is 74.25%. If yours is anything close to mine, then this universe is most likely fake, just numbers in a computer. Elon musk, who has been previously mentioned, is closer to 100%. And for a more conservative estimate, Niel DeGrasse Tyson gives us a 50% chance. Those numbers are still much much higher than the average person may have previously thought.
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.” -Niels Bohr
Statistics are one thing, but what do we actually have when it comes to proving our falsehood? I have experience in video game creation, which has taught me a lot about maximizing computing speed. I understand that a simulation would require shortcuts to make sure it wasn’t too intensive on the computer. One very common shortcut is only showing things when a player is looking at them. If a character is not actively looking at or using an item, it doesn’t need to actually be rendered. It is stored in the ram, the temporary memory that stores fluid position data that can be used when it needs to. Why do I bring this up you may ask? A fluid position that isn’t put into reality until absolutely necessary sounds very familiar. Remember Schrodinger’s cat and superposition? Superposition is what we call the state of particles that are not observed. They don’t exist in a manner that we can visualize. When we aren’t observing or using matter, it exists as a fluid wave (Lea). This is why Schrodinger’s cat is such an important quantum argument. If you wanted a tangible testimony to the simulation theory, the superposition phenomenon is a great place to start. Why else would matter do this? As a species, we have no idea.
Human consciousness is a long disputed mystery of the world. This stands as one the most common arguments against the simulation theory amongst the general population. “But I feel real” you may think. It’s true that we feel real, and that our consciousness is incredibly complicated. Although, who’s to say that the unexplainable behavior of consciousness does not contribute to the theory. Let’s assume that if you can perfectly simulate a human brain, it will have a consciousness. If this is true, then our previous conclusions still apply and nothing changes. Now let’s assume that our brain doesn’t come with a soul, and consciousness is our personal connection to god, or the universe, or whatever you may believe in. In this case, somebody had to have put it there. A simulation would explain this in its entirety. You can code whatever you want. A programmer could add plenty of things that are unexplainable according to the people living in a computer. I think that the more things that we can’t explain, the more likely it is that we are fake.
So what does this all mean?
If you started this essay with a 0% belief that we live in a simulation, I would hope that you can now see the clear possibility of such a situation being real. Even if you give it a one in 100 chance, that’s still a larger world view than you had before. But what does it all mean? Does nothing matter? Is everything we do useless? No, not at all. Finding purpose in life is something that we have been working on for as long as humans have existed. Our universal place on this wet rock is truly a bit confusing, but if we are a simulation for another reality, we serve a purpose to whoever made it. We actually mean something to somebody. I would argue that “nothing being real” is a bigger reason to live your life to the fullest. I hope that this essay does not fill you with existential dread, but instead, a feeling of comfort that we have a reason to be here, and that someone is watching over us.
Works cited
Berman, Alison and Jason Dorrier. “Technology Feels Like It’s Accelerating — Because It Actually Is.” Singularity Hub. Singularity Education Group, 22 Mar 2016. Web. <http://singularityhub.com/2016/03/22/technology-feels-like-its-accelerating-because-it-actually-is/>.
Bostrom, Nick. “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?.” Philosophical Quarterly. 53. Philosophical Quarterly, 2003. 243–255. Web. <http://www.maximusveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/simulation.pdf>.
DeGrasse Tyson, Niel and Chuck Nice. “Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis.” Youtube. Youtube, 17 Mar 2020. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc>.
Lea, Rob. “Superposition! The strange tale of Schrödinger’s cat.” ZME Science. ZME Science, 29 Apr 2020. Web. <http://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/superposition-the-strange-tale-of-schrodingers-cat/>.
Musk, Elon and Kara Swisher. “Elon Musk | Full interview | Code Conference 2016.” Youtube. Youtube, 2 Jun 2016. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsixsRI-Sz4>.