What is simulation theory?

Simulation theory is a fascinating and controversial idea that proposes that our reality might not be as real as we think. According to this hypothesis, everything we perceive and experience could be a product of a sophisticated computer simulation, created by some advanced civilization or being. In other words, we could be living in a virtual world, unaware of our true nature and origin.

But why would anyone simulate us and our world? And how can we tell if we are indeed simulated or not? These are some of the questions that simulation theory tries to answer, drawing from various fields of philosophy, physics, computer science and psychology. In this blog post, we will explore some of the main arguments and implications of simulation theory, as well as some of the challenges and criticisms it faces.

The Origin of Simulation Theory

The idea that reality might be an illusion is not new. Many ancient and modern philosophers have speculated about the possibility that our senses deceive us, or that we are dreaming, or that we are under the influence of some evil demon or deity. For example, Plato's allegory of the cave depicts a group of people who are chained inside a dark cave, watching shadows projected on the wall by a fire behind them. They mistake these shadows for reality, until one of them escapes and sees the true world outside. Similarly, Descartes' famous cogito ergo sum argument (I think therefore I am) starts from the premise that he cannot trust his senses or his memory, and that he could be deceived by a malicious entity. He concludes that the only thing he can be certain of is his own existence as a thinking being.

However, simulation theory as we know it today emerged in the late 20th and early 21st century, influenced by the development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. One of the first proponents of simulation theory was Hans Moravec, a computer scientist and futurist who suggested in 1988 that our descendants might create realistic simulations of their ancestors using powerful computers. He argued that these simulations would be indistinguishable from reality for the simulated beings, and that they would outnumber the original beings by a large margin. Therefore, he concluded that it is more likely that we are living in such a simulation than in the original reality.

Another influential figure in simulation theory is Nick Bostrom, a philosopher and transhumanist who formalized Moravec's argument in a paper published in 2003 titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?". Bostrom proposed a trilemma: either human civilization will go extinct before reaching a technological level capable of creating realistic simulations of its past; or human civilization will reach such a level but will not be interested in creating such simulations; or human civilization will create such simulations and we are almost certainly living in one of them. Bostrom argued that the third option is the most plausible one, based on some assumptions about the feasibility and desirability of creating ancestor simulations.

The Evidence for Simulation Theory

Simulation theory is not a scientific theory in the strict sense, as it is not directly testable or falsifiable by empirical observation or experimentation. However, some proponents of simulation theory have suggested some possible ways to find evidence for or against it. For example:

• The simulation argument: This is Bostrom's original argument, which relies on probability and logic. It states that if we assume that it is possible and desirable to create realistic simulations of human history, then there must be many more simulated humans than original humans in existence. Therefore, unless we have some reason to believe that we are among the original humans, we should assume that we are among the simulated ones.
• The fine-tuning argument: This argument points out that some of the physical constants and parameters of our universe seem to be finely tuned for life to exist and evolve. For example, if the gravitational constant or the cosmological constant were slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible. Some simulation theorists suggest that this fine-tuning could be explained by assuming that our universe is designed by a simulator who wanted to create life or observe its development.
• The glitches argument: This argument claims that if our reality is a simulation, then there might be some errors or anomalies in its programming or execution. These glitches could manifest as paradoxes, inconsistencies or violations of natural laws.