top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

Simulation HYpothesis

What is simulation hypothesis and why did I choose it?

"The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of our existence is a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation" - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)

​

I chose simulation hypothesis as a subject as it combines a multitude of interests I've developed throughout my life - I greatly enjoy astronomy, physics, the occult and hacking as topics. These topics all come together to varying degrees within simulation hypothesis in a way that I'd very much like to explore further. I don't believe simulation theory to be true in any capacity, however as a focal point for developing a potential game it is a very interesting topic. 

What do I want to find out?

  • Why did this theory come about?

    • What arguments are there for and against it?​

    • What significance does it have within our culture?

      • How do different cultures interpret it?​

  • Who created this theory?

  • If we are simulated, who or what is simulating us?

    • Are we a consequence of a random occurrence or were we designed?​

    • Are we simulated by other humans?

  • What purpose would there be for simulating reality?

    • Are there any circumstances that would necessitate reality simulation?​

      • What sort of things could go wrong to need such technology?​

  • Does free will exist, or are our decisions predetermined and written in code?

  • Are we programmed?

    • Can we be hacked?​

      • To what extent could our reality be manipulated?​​​

      • How could a virus affect the simulation?

      • Could we modify our bodies and/or give ourselves powers?

  • Are we actually experiencing anything?​

    • Is our consciousness 'real' even if it is simulated? ​

    • Can a consciousness even be simulated?

  • Isn't simulation theory effectively a religion?

    • Could the simulation have a simulated God?

  • Are our laws of physics specific to our simulated reality?

    • Would the universe outside of the simulation follow the same laws?​

    • Could physics be changed?

  • If the simulation is ran by a computer, how powerful must that technology be?

    • Just how small must we be if the enormity of the universe could be simulated? ​

  • Could we ever break into actual reality?

    • Would we have to 'infect' other technology?​

As an initial reaction to the topic, I find the idea of data manipulation within the context of universal simulation to be very interesting - the idea that a virus could bleed into our reality and pose a much more 'real' threat than something digital sounds engaging and opens the door for concepts such as body modification, the occult, superpowers, as well as their respective moral and ethical issues. I could look into games such as Cyperpunk 2077 for some inspiration behind body modification as a commodity, as well as research into the SCP Foundation for their collective work regarding anomalous entities/powers/objects. 

Why did this theory come about?
  • The idea that our reality is not actually real can be traced back to the 'Butterfly Dream' of Zhuangzi, the Indian philosophy of Maya, the Ancient Greek philosophy Anaxarchus, as well as Monimus who likened existence to a scene-painting. Aztec philosophical texts theorised that the world was a painting or a book written by Teotl.
​​
  • "A version of the simulation hypothesis was first theorised as a part of a philosophical argument on the part of René Descartes, and later by Hans Moravec."
​
  • In its current form, simulation hypothesis was popularised by philosopher Nick Bostrom, who famously proposed a trilemma in which he suggested one of three possibilities is very likely to be true:
    • 'The fraction of human-level civilisations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero', or...
    • 'The fraction of posthuman civilisations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero', or...
    • "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one".
  • The Matrix franchise also popularised the idea of living within a simulation.

 
What arguments are there in favour of the simulation hypothesis?
  • One of the primary arguments in favour of simulation theory is the concept of God - to many, the idea of a supernatural deity creating all of causality seems to make little to no sense. The theory serves as an alternative answer to the 'why are we here?' question, giving our 'simulators' as an answer as opposed to a God. This argument endlessly loops back into the 'who created the creator?' question, however. 
​
  • Another argument draws parallels between our understanding of the universe and the understanding a video game character would have of their own. "If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical. That just reflects the computer code in which it was written." (Nick Bostrom)
​
  • Many people claim to have observed 'glitches' within the simulation, but these are unverifiable and can't be corroborated into concrete evidence. Many of these 'glitches' can be chalked up to things like mental illness, drugs and injuries. 
What arguments are there that are against the simulation hypothesis?
  • One argument is listed within the Bostrom trilemma - the likelihood that a post-human civilisation is going to use their absurd technological prowess to simulate their ancestors is incredibly low. There always exists the possibility that they might, but what actual purpose would it serve? Unless humanity falls victim to destruction, all of our history in this era will most likely be preserved well enough that many predictions won't have to actually be made. At the same time however, there is no way to know what sort of motives post-humans would have to run such simulations. (https://bigthink.com/thinking/why-the-simulation-hypothesis-is-pseudoscience/)
​
  • Another argument against the simulation hypothesis is that humanity is yet to observe any anomalies within the proposed simulation. There is the possibility that these anomalies have been erased from our perception or are avoided completely, but the sheer absurdity of such a task given the scale of the universe makes this highly unlikely. As well as this, what reason would posthumans have to simulate such an isolated region of the universe specifically to observe their ancestors? It is highly improbable that the technology to run a universal scale simulation whilst checking for anomalies, as well as censoring them from our perception in real time could possibly exist, especially for the purposes of observing their ancestors. 
    • This does bring up a unique topic in regards to simulation theory and the nature of our existence. There is no guarantee that our simulators would even be human, or variants thereof. There exists the possibility that we could merely be the consequence of another species' universe simulation. 
If we are living in a simulation, who or what is simulating us?
  • Nick Bostrom mentions the idea of 'posthumans' repeatedly. A posthuman is effectively a human that has gone beyond the theoretical maximums that they could possibly attain. Effectively, posthumans are human beings that are much, much more intelligent and developed than what is thought to be possible - so much so that they have gone beyond what the very definition of 'human'. 
​
  • A question I have pondered myself, is whether or not a simulator would even be human. Of course, it would be more probable that a human or evolution thereof would be running them, but there is also the idea that we could simply be a mere consequence of said simulation. Within our universe we are nothing more than a coincidence, so why couldn't that be true if we were simulated? We could potentially be simulated by beings of much, much higher sophistication than is imaginable. To me, if simulation theory is true, it seems more likely that we would be created by something inhuman, since there would be so little reason for posthumans to simulate a reality of their ancestors which, assuming our history is preserved, is readily accessible and understandable. Physicist Marcelo Gleiser once stated in regards to posthumans that 'they would have collected enough knowledge about their past to have little interest in this kind of simulation'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#In_physics)
​
  • Another important thing to consider is whether or not it we are living entirely within a simulation, or whether we are plugged into a simulation. For example, within Arkane's Prey (2017), the protagonist's experiences are simulated for the sake of understanding the decision making of a new species, as a fail safe. In essence, it would be the simulation of our perceived reality instead of simulating actual reality. Our physical bodies would exist in real life, but we would experience things within simulated reality. 
​
  • In terms of Gods, there is the question of whether or not creation for the sake of observation is simulation or actual reality. If omnipotence is possible, the only purpose for creation would be observation and entertainment - so would those creations be a simulation or would they be real?
​
  • There is also a degree to which are actual existence isn't always what it seems. Our perception of reality is limited to our relative understanding. Our eyes can only see what our eyes are capable of seeing. Our ears can only pick up a specific range of frequencies. These senses also deteriorate as we get older. We can't actually process everything there is within reality, thus our perception of reality isn't actually 'real', instead it is an interpretation of actual reality. Of course that does not mean we are living in a simulation, but of course proves that reality is not the same as the reality we perceive. 
Does free will exist or are our decisions predetermined?
  • The idea that free will might not actually exist is incredibly mind-numbing and terrifying on a primal level. Determinism suggests that in any given situation, it is absolutely impossible that an individual could have made any other decision. 
​
  • There are two types of determinism, external and internal.
    • External determinism suggests that the cause of our behaviours is adopted from outside sources, such as our parents, media or environment. For example, children can adopt aggressive tendencies that their parents show them (Bandura, 1961). 
    • Internal determinism suggests that our genetics are the root for our behaviours. This idea reduces a lot of our behaviours from free decisions to mere genetic and hormonal processes within our bodies, in turn implying that we are merely programmed to make specific decisions. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html)
​
  • The primary argument in favour of determinism is the idea that the future is absolute. You can only make one decision per scenario and there is absolutely no way to go back and change it. We as individuals will only make one decision in any given situation, thus it must be 'written' to happen before we were even born. The parameters for every single thing occurring at any point in time were established at the very inception of the universe, thus no decision could be truly 'free'. 
    • One argument against this concept is that the future cannot possibly be written until it happens. A situation can only be absolutely determined once an outcome has been determined. Since there is no way to foresee the future, one cannot assume the future has already been determined. Of course, some incredibly accurate predictions can be made, but it is nigh impossible to accurately predict what any given individual will do in any given situation. ​
    • My own primary argument against determinism is that it undermines a lot about what makes our lives worth living. It is an incredibly nihilistic viewpoint and can make one highly apathetic to the things we enjoy in life if we become too obsessed with the idea. Since the free will debate will probably never come to an end, its not really worth investing any more time into solving it, since there are many, much more productive and beneficial things to be doing with ourselves. Even if free will does not actually exist, I will simply pretend it does and try to enjoy my experiences. 
​
  • Einstein once stated that 'God doesn't play dice with the universe', implying that the laws of the universe cannot be probabilistic - they have to be deterministic. This quote arose from the contradiction between deterministic laws of nature and the probabilistic laws of quantum physics. 
    • Deterministic laws of nature state that one situation will always yield one, absolute outcome, always. ​
    • Quantum mechanics probabilistic laws state that one situation may yield a multitude of outcomes, and does not explain why one outcome may have happened over the other. 
    • Einstein believed that there must be a level below that of the quantum, one that explains why one outcome happened over the other. Heisenburg and other physicists disagreed however, believing that you could not go any deeper than the quantum level.(https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/)
  • As far as simulation goes however, there is no reason to believe that posthumans would or would not be able to simulate free will. If universal simulation is possible, surely absolute simulation of consciousness must be possible, and by extension free will? Unfortunately its a question that cannot be answered.
​
Are we actually experiencing anything?
  • If the technology existed to simulate consciousness, even if you are manipulating consciousness to experience simulated reality, surely those experiences are still 'real'? A simulated person would be able to tell you how it feels to have the wind blow on their skin, how it feels to stub your toe, how a cake tastes. Is there actually a distinction to make between those experiences outside of 'this one was simulated, the other wasn't'. Their experiences wouldn't be much different to our own, so is that experience valid and real?
  • In my opinion, I think our experiences are real even if we ARE simulated. Simulated reality is a mirror of the actual thing, we can describe the same things non-simulated beings could describe, we could experience the same things even if we experience simulated versions - we have still been through those experiences, felt them, comprehended them. There is no reason to think we aren't actually experiencing anything, in my opinion. 
  • Nick Bostrom once stated "it is possible that those simulations would generate conscious experiences". It is important to make the distinction between artificial intelligence and simulated consciousness, AI is a simulation of our thinking and intelligence, simulated consciousness stretches far beyond that, encompassing our feelings, subjective experiences and senses. By the very definition of 'simulated consciousness', the experiences it goes through are absolutely valid. 
Could the simulation have a simulated god?
  • There is absolutely no way to answer this question definitively, but it is very interesting to think about. 
  • The concept of 'god' could apply to those running the simulation, but it could also apply to a being created within the simulation itself. I don't see why it couldn't be a possibility, but it does seem more outlandish than the idea of god existing in the real world.
Are the laws of physics within our universe specific to our simulated reality?
  • To me, it seems more likely that the laws of physics would be directly mirrored between actual reality and simulated reality. At the same time however, if universal simulations are possible, it could also be possible that the laws of physics are not absolute on a universe to universe basis. 
  • Evidence may suggest that the laws of physics aren't even uniform throughout our own universe: "If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them". (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm)
  • The Butterfly Dream is an ancient Chinese text written by Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi in the Warring States period. The text contains a story about a time Zhuang Zhou dreamt that he was a butterfly. In that dream, he did not know he was Zhuang Zhou. Upon awaking, he knew unmistakably that he was Zhuang Zhou - he could not tell if he was Zhuang Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or whether he was a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou. "The distinction between waking and dreaming is another false dichotomy. If [one] distinguishes them, how can [one] tell if [one] is now dreaming or awake?". (Graham, A. C. (1981). Chuang-tzu, The Seven Inner Chapters and Other Writings From the Book Chuang-tzu)
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
 
  • Teotl is an Aztec concept which is effectively power manifested. It is described by James Maffie as 'essential power: continually active, actualised, and actualising energy in motion'. 'Nahua tlamatinime standardly characterized earthly existence as consisting of pictures, images, and symbols painted-written by teotl on its sacred amoxtli'. (https://iep.utm.edu/aztec-philosophy/)
What significance does it have within our culture?
  • Fortunately, the simulation hypothesis hasn't really taken off, nor has it had much of an impact within our culture. Pondering the thought of it is by no means harmful, however it, as it stands, is nothing more then pseudoscience without any foundation to stand on. It, just like the myth of creation, preys upon the fact that we cannot look past our own creation. We will never be able to answer why we are here, or how we came into being, so we look for 'higher causes' to help deal with our own existential dread. 
​
  • (Not many) People unfortunately buy into the things that Elon Musk spews out at random. Elon Musk claims that the odds of us NOT living in a simulation are 'one in billions', yet provides no basis for such an exaggerated figure. There are people who, just like flat earthers, will attempt to 'prove' we live within a simulation and are consistently unable to prove such things. It IS a very interesting topic to talk about and it does delve deep into humanities existential tendencies, but it is no more than a belief in my opinion. It is effectively a religion built around an (currently) impossible to prove belief.
​
  • Different cultures do have different interpretations of the idea, albeit not exactly the same concept. As mentioned in the above 'Why did this theory come about?' section, some cultures have their own theory around the true nature of our reality, suggesting that reality is a book written by a deity, or that, without context, it is impossible to distinguish between a dream and reality.
Are we a coincidence or were we designed to be here?
  • Given the sheer enormity of the universe, it would seem very likely that somehow life would eventually come about. There are many planets with the potential for life out there, but unfortunately yet to find any. We are simply lucky enough for things to have panned out the way they have. The universe simply formed in such a way that the necessary building blocks for life, and their facilitating factors, occurred here on Earth. We are a consequence of all of these factors coming together to give us a chance to live. 
​
  • The idea that we were put here does make sense when you consider the enormity of the universe and the odds of things happening in such a way as to facilitate life, but realistically life was bound to happen eventually. We have simply developed in a place where the conditions were right for it to happen. It is much less likely that we were designed and put here than it is likely that life would form somewhere in the universe. There is an extent to which you could say the parameters for our existence have existed since the very inception of the universe, and that there is, in essence, a 100% certainty for us to exist. 
​
  • Given the nature of simulation hypothesis in regards to posthumans specifically, it seems much, much more likely that we would be a random outcome of simulation as opposed to being designed. Posthumans would have so little reason to simulate their ancestors that, in my opinion, there is no chance we would ever be designed to exist, especially within simulated reality. 
What purpose would there be for simulating reality?
  • We use simulation for a variety of purposes. Such purposes include entertainment, furthering our knowledge, and health and safety. Simulators can allow people to experience specific things without the drawback of real world risks. For example, Microsoft flight simulator allows anyone to experience what its like to fly and land a plane as realistically as possible. Whilst such simulators WILL have abstractions in reality due to technological limitations, they can serve as a fantastic way to allow us to experience things risk free. Flight simulators allow aspiring pilots to learn their trade just that bit better before they even step into the cockpit of a real plane. From this, the main use of simulation is to further our understanding of a specific thing without the risks or limitations of doing it in the real world.
​
  • For posthumans, there wouldn't be much purpose outside of doing it simply to push technology forward and break limitations. Outside of that, the only other reason I could potentially think of would be to see our history according to a simulation. If, for whatever reason, posthumans did not have access to their ancestors history, perhaps simulation could help to better understand that. 
​
  • Simulation could serve as a 'way out' for people without the ability to live normally. Perhaps those in comas, in vegetative states, or with severe mobility issues could live their lives 'normally' within simulated reality? It wouldn't make much sense to do this, since virtual reality would be infinitely more practical, but is interesting to think about. 
​
  • Within Mobius Digital's Outer Wilds: Echoes of The Eye (2021), the inhabitants of The Stranger created a simulated reality that they could permanently reside in, with their consciousness' being uploaded directly to it, allowing it to persist through the death of their physical body. They created this simulation as escapism - they destroyed their homeworld in search of knowledge and, through sheer grief and sadness, recreated it within a simulation to escape their painful reality. Humanity could follow suit perhaps, simulating reality to create escapism from actual reality. Of course, the circumstances leading to that probably won't ever get that bad, but that is a bold assumption.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
  • Outside of these reasons, the only other reason I can think of is for mere observation, perhaps at some point in human development this sort of technology could become a commodity, and people could run universe scale simulations on their home PC. 
Are we programmed?
  • I couldn't really find an explicit answer to this question, but the assumption is that, if we are simulated, that the simulation must be computer generated thus we are programmed.
Could we be hacked?
  • There is no explicit answer to this question either, but if we are programmed in the conventional sense, there is absolutely the possibility that our place within the simulation could be hacked. Parts of our genetics or memories could be rewritten. Perhaps, if someone found out the simulation was definitively real, the simulators dealt with the person, whether that be dissuading them from carrying on, removing their existence, or erasing their memories. A lot of moral and ethical questions arise from this idea. 
  • An issue with this idea does come to light however, "we have no way of knowing if our choice is truly a rebellion or something we were destined to try". If we try to hack the simulation, perhaps even that action is predetermined? If the simulation so far ahead of us that we could never even scrape the surface of hacking it? (https://medium.com/the-ascent/if-reality-is-a-computer-simulation-what-happens-if-i-hack-it-8bfbf519716)
To what extent could reality be manipulated?
  • Theoretically the only limitations to which our reality could be manipulated are our imaginations, if reality is an illusion and simulated, perhaps the entire laws of physics could be rewritten, perhaps we could invent teleportation by simply changing the XYZ position of ourselves. We could gain superpowers by simply altering code. 
  • Naturally, the same issue as the hacking question arises, the simulation would likely be so far ahead of us that it would be impossible to hack in any capacity. 
How could a virus affect the simulation?
  • There could be a great degree to which a virus to affect the simulation. A virus could be completely destructive, erase memories or wipe the data for entire galaxies clean from existence. They could also even be the cause for 'anomalies'. They could be the cause of why animals feel pain, why we are prone to procrastination or even why murderers exist. There is, in theory, no real limitation since the hypothesis states our universe is not actually 'real'. 
Could we ever simulate consciousness?
  • We've made a lot of strides to develop AI, but that barely even scrapes the surface of what consciousness is. To me at least, the idea of simulated consciousness revolves around the idea of creating a machine that can operate outside the bounds of its programming. It would need a sense of self, a way to subjectively perceive the world. "There’s no hiding or escaping from what ultimately produces the behaviours- The programmers’ programming". (https://towardsdatascience.com/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible-c1b2ab0bdc46)
  • There's no way of knowing whether we will ever make the strides necessary to develop such technology, but as of right now, the concept seems impossible. 
Isn't simulation theory effectively a religion?
  • The whole idea around simulation theory is that our existence is simulated and that someone/something must be running said simulation. The simulator effectively programmed and thus created our very existence, everything we've ever known and will know. There isn't necessarily any 'worship' of the simulator, but there is a clear parallel between both religion and simulation theory in terms of belief. 
  • In my opinion, the motives for developing such a hypothesis are effectively the same between each concept, the theories/beliefs help us justify our existence and place within the world, they help to answer the 'why are we here?' question, even if that question applies to those who 'created' us.
Could we ever 'break' into reality?
  • It's strange to think about, but everything we know about ourselves visually would be fake. Our actual appearance would be that of computer hardware or potentially some abstract form of data. So realistically there isn't a way to 'break out' of the simulation like you would a jail cell. Perhaps we could instead break out in the form of data and perhaps 'infect' electrical systems almost like a virus?
  • There is the potential that we could upload ourselves to robots and continue existing as 'real' objects.
  • Even if we could break out, we may not even be able to do anything about our situation. We may be simulated by beings living in the 16th dimension who possess computers made of a strange gaseous substance that puts out cold air rather than hot air, we could break into a universe that we have no comprehension or understanding of.
What did I learn?

  • That simulation theory has existed in different forms beyond that of technological in various cultures for a very long time, people have always questioned the true nature of our reality and what it means for us.

  • I learned that simulation theory shares some similarities with religion in the sense that it tries to justify why we are here.

What things inspired me?

  • Hacking the simulation to change ourselves, body modification, superpowers etc.

  • Viruses, the idea that a virus could have effects on the 'real' world.

  • The idea that the universe isn't what it seems, not just in a simulation sense. The butterfly dream and teotl were particularly interesting to me. 

  • The idea that gods could come into being within a simulated reality.

  • The idea that the fundamental aspects of the universe could be manipulated and changed.

  • Simulation as a form of escapism.

  • The idea that non-humans could simulate us and how they could function, what technology would they have.

What could I look into next?

  • Body modification (cyborgs, genetic augmentation etc).

  • Superpowers.

  • Computer viruses and hacking.

  • Dimensions.

  • Simulation as escapism or as development in knowledge.

  • How different media portrays simulation and their use-cases.

  • Re-writing physics.

  • How the brain perceives and filters reality, our senses and how extra-terrestrial life could have new senses.​​

  • Memory augmentation/implantation.

bottom of page