Debunking The Theory of a Simulated Reality
Unveiling the Myths and Realities of Our Perceived Existence
Introduction
It’s a theory that has somewhat fascinated scientists, philosophers, and the public at large for decades: our reality could be sophisticatedly simulated on computers. Given a run with movies like The Matrix and contemporary thinkers such as Nick Bostrom, who gave it some credibility, the idea does raise profound questions with respect to the nature of existence, consciousness, and human knowledge. It’s an idea that many would accord some truth to, yet there are massive problems with it. Let’s dive in!
The Simulated Reality Hypothesis
Hundreds of philosophical concepts laying the groundwork for the idea of a simulated reality existed for millennia, such as Zhuang Zhou’s Butterfly Dream Hypothesis, where the ancient Chinese philosopher dreamt that he was a butterfly, without knowing that he was Zhuang Zhou. Then he woke up, however, he didn’t know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou.
The first actual proposal of the Simulated Reality Hypothesis was made in 2003 by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher. Bostrom proposed that advanced civilisations might have the computational power to run vast simulations of their ancestors. According to Bostrom’s argument, one of the following statements must be true:
1. Advanced civilisations will never reach a technological maturity capable of creating simulations of reality.
The theory that advanced civilisations will never reach a technological maturity capable of creating simulations of reality is rather dicy. In the scientific community, this idea is more often debated rather than being accepted or rejected. Some philosophers argue that the concept is true due to the technological and computational issues presented with simulating an entire reality.
Even if humanity reached an extremely advanced technological state, the concept of simulating an entire universe would require an incomprehensibly high amount of energy. Why is this so? Well, every natural or unnatural phenomena in every sector of the universe would need to be simulated by a futuristic technological device, from the smallest of particles to supernovas entirely, this would require an astronomical processing power and would take modern computers millennia to compute.
To provide an accurate simulation of reality as we perceive it, the future technology would also need to simulate quantum phenomena such as superposition, quantum entanglement, and much more, requiring an incredible amount of energy.
Ever feel your device getting hot after you used it for too long? Yeah, that applies for future computational devices as well. To maintain the cool state of the device and to prevent overheating, a massive cooling system is required, again consuming huge amounts of energy. As well as this, the simulation would have to run continuously without break for 13.8 billion years (as we perceive it), which would require approximately 470 more times energy than the the most destructive thermonuclear bomb in the world- the Tsar Bomba.
On the other hand, some philosophers and scientists argue that it is within future technological capacity to produce a computational device capable of simulating the existence of a universe and reality itself as in the modern age, there are many developing technologies with the same purpose. One such modern technology is Virtual Reality or VR. VR is a relatively new technological invention that involves wearing a device called VR Goggles to simulate a 3-D Immersive Experience, while VR models do not simulate entire universes altogether, they simulate specific predefined sections or maps.
‘AR’ models or Augmented Reality Models are also an emerging technology that combines both the real world and 3D Computer Generated objects, rather than simulating a virtual reality altogether, which may be a relatively possible technology used for simulating reality.
2. Advanced civilisations have no interest in running such simulations.
This theory is very reasonable and is often accepted both in the scientific community and the public themselves. There are many reasons to why this theory might be true, one of them being the ethical considerations.
To simulate an entire reality with billions of humans and creatures, there comes immense moral responsibility to ensure the well-being and rights of those beings. Simulating suffering and pain to beings might not be accepted by advanced civilisations as it is unethical to create a world full of suffering and pain.
Another reason to why this theory might be true is the lack of curiosity presented by advanced civilisations to actually simulate an entire universe. Advanced civilisations most likely already possess comprehensive knowledge of the universe, so there is no need to simulate another one simply to learn and understand more. They may be interested in other fields and pursue a different goal or be more interested in different advancing technologies rather than simulative technology.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
When Nick Bostrom first proposed the simulated reality hypothesis in 2003, he developed an argument named Bostrom’s argument that holds that if there ever comes a time in civilisation when we can create simulations, then the number of simulated realities will be very high as compared to the single base reality. Statistically speaking, this would mean that we have a better chance of being in one of the many simulations as opposed to the one base reality.
Besides, by that time, advances in computational technology may make it possible to create very fine-grained simulations, though, some some are skeptical if these simulations could be as in-depth as an entire universe. If technological progress continues unabated — especially concerning computing power, which has already followed Moore’s Law during the last decades — then in the future, civilisations may well build computers that can simulate whole universes.
From a physics perspective, the fine-tuning of physical constants and the apparent precision of the universe’s laws could suggest deliberate design by simulators.
At the quantum level, particles act strangely with respect to superposition and entanglement, which might underlie some computational processes.
Events like déjà vu, unexplained coincidences, or anomalies in scientific observations could be artifacts or bugs in the simulation. Some theorists propose that the pixelated nature of space-time at the Planck scale may be evidence for the idea that our reality is underpinned by some kind of digital framework.
It may even be that breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and in understanding consciousness could provide the basis for self-aware virtual beings in the future, further increasing the plausibility of creating simulated realities.
4. Humans are living in a reality in which post-humans have not developed yet, and current humans are actually living in reality.
The fact that humans are living in a reality where post-humans have not yet developed, and that current human beings are living in base reality, is premised on the assumption that technological advancement has not yet reached a point at which the simulations of reality are possible. This is the scenario in which humankind is still in a very early phase of technological and social development, far from creating highly detailed and complex simulations as hypothesized by the simulation hypothesis.
Here, “post-humans” are referred to as a future phase of human evolution through biological or technological enhancement, with beings enormously advanced in intellectual, physical, and computational abilities relative to contemporary humans. If they are at a very much higher level of technological advancement, then such post-humans would be capable, in theory, of creating simulations of entire realities. On the other hand, if we assume that we are living in a reality where there is no post-human, then it follows quite straightforwardly that such simulations will not have been created, and ours is not one of them.
Such a view is in good company with the view that mankind has just followed a scientific and technological development curve, and there’s still much to discover and invent in the future. The lack of any sign for the existence of these civilizations or their simulations keeps us still in base reality. This is a base reality characterized by continuous technological and cosmological progress without the inclusion of hugely superior competence capable of creating and sustaining whole simulated realities.
The scenario therefore assumes that all the ethical, philosophical, and practical dilemmas that come with these simulations are more theoretical than practical at this point. Technological development of the means to simulate whole realities may happen in the future, but currently, human beings live in the fundamental reality where such technological leaps have not yet taken place. Simulations therefore remain for now a hypothetical assumption more than an experienced truth for humanity in the present.
5. Humans will have no way of knowing that they live in a simulation because they will never reach the technological capacity to realise the marks of a simulated reality.
The argument that humans will never know they are living in a simulation because they will never reach a technological capacity to realize the marks of a simulated reality assumes that the limits of our technological and scientific development prevent us from detecting any potential signs of a simulated existence. In this scenario, the technological development needed for the identification and understanding of markers for simulated reality is so high that it just could never be reached by humanity.
If humans are, indeed, living in a simulated reality, then the simulators would be using technologies and knowledge way beyond our current perception. The simulation will be so perfectly conceived that any visible digital bugs or anomalies that could give it away will be masked from its inhabitants. Thus, the artificial creatures — human beings, for instance — would experience their world as very real, with no indication of its artificiality.
Also, the notion of simulation is complex, involving very advanced theories and principles in computation that might just remain theoretical and stand beyond human understanding. Even as technology advances, there will most likely always be a gap between our understanding and the level of technology required to create and detect such simulations. The physical and computational laws ruling the perceived reality would thus seem self-consistent and natural, and we would stand little chance of distinguishing them from those of a base reality.
Another ethical point that can be made with regard to creating sentient beings inside a simulation is preventing such beings from learning the truth about their condition. This might be because of the way the simulation is programmed, which blocks any kind of attempt to learn about the artificiality of this reality, or such attempts end up inconclusive. Thus, human beings — constrained by the limitations of technology and the intentional design of simulation — could not be capable of perceiving or proving real existence as a simulation.
It thus boils down to the fact that, even if we are living in a simulated reality, because of the deep technological bounds and probably the intentional obscurity by the simulators, humans will never be able to recognise or confirm the simulated nature of their world. That experience of reality would thus be indistinguishable from that of a base reality, hence continuing the illusion of a genuine existence.
Scientific Arguments
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics brings randomness into the universe, which is not easy to reconcile with the simulation hypothesis. If our reality were a result of simulation, then everything must be driven by deterministic algorithms with predictable outputs.
However, quantum events are inherently random — very different from the pseudo-randomness of algorithms used in computer programs. This randomness in superposition and entanglement phenomena appears to take us directly to the very fundaments of how our universe works, which no computer simulation could possibly mock up. Quantum unpredictability, therefore, makes the idea of artificial reality hard to believe because it suggests a level of complexity and unpredictability way above the power even of the most advanced deterministic systems.
Information Theory
According to Claude Shannon’s information theory, the amount of information characterising all the particles in the universe is extremely high. Underlining that a universe is characterised by enormous amounts of data, he developed the theory of information. Storing this huge amount of data and processing it in real-time would require resources and technology far beyond our current capabilities.
This kind of activity suggests that the amount of computational power needed to perform it would be enormous, arguably more than anything even the most advanced civilisation could ever produce. This fact cripples the simulation hypothesis, for it means creating a fully detailed and correct simulated reality is technologically way beyond what we could ever imagine or achieve today.
Observational Evidence and Experimental Verification
There is, to this day, no empirical evidence that our universe is a simulation. Experimental tests conducted in search of anomalies or inconsistencies in physical laws, which would have provided an indication of simulated reality, have returned no positive results. The hypothesis of a simulation could therefore be regarded as speculative, as it does not rest on concrete observational evidence.
Thermodynamic Constraints
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system shall never decrease, thus the disorder increases with time. Attempting to simulate such a universe would require an enormous amount of energy with perfect efficiency, which is nearly impossible. Immense thermodynamic bounds into the availability of energy and management of waste heat present enormous problems in the possibility of running a simulation at the scale of a universe.
Philosophical Arguments
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor is the principle that states that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation with the fewest possible assumptions is usually the correct one. The simulation hypothesis requires a host of assumptions: that there are advanced civilisations out there that have the wherewithal and motivation needed to create simulations, that such simulations exist in sizeable numbers, and that there is some special motivation to simulate our particular universe. In contrast, the idea that we live in base reality involves fewer assumptions, making it the simpler and more parsimonious explanation.
Implications on Ethics
The consequences on ethics would be huge if we lived in a simulation. Simulated beings would bring along issues of the moral duty of the simulators. Aren’t the creators responsible ethically for the “suffering” or experience of the simulated entities? The argument challenges the morality of creating sentient beings inside a simulation and by doing so, it implies that such action would be ethically doubtful, if not flatly unethical.
Anthropic Principle
The anthropic principle essentially defines any theory of the universe that, to be valid, must allow for the evolution of conscious beings inside it who can observe it. Thus, the simulation hypothesis relies on the idea that our universe is just one of the many possible simulations. One way to look at it is this kind of selection bias that only allows us to observe and question our reality precisely because it is a reality that allows for conscious life. It does not necessarily point to the principle that our reality is simulated, but rather to one in which there exist conscious observers.
Philosophical Zombies and Consciousness
The concept of philosophical zombies — creatures indistinguishable from humans in terms of behavior and physicality but not conscious — brings out the question of the nature of simulated beings. If we are simulations, then are we really conscious, or are we philosophical zombies? The nature of consciousness is a very basic philosophical issue, and it is something the simulation hypothesis has to address: whether the simulated entities can have subjective experiences and self-awareness, hence making this hypothesis complex.
Infinite Regress
The simulation hypothesis gives rise to the problem of infinite regress. Supposing our universe were simulated due to some higher level of civilization, what would be the reality with respect to that civilization? Would that also be a simulation? Now, an endless chain of simulated realities within simulations gives rise to questions of where any reality ultimately comes from and whether there even is a true base reality.
The Problem of Induction
The so-called problem of induction, famously pointed out by philosopher David Hume, questions the justification for believing that the future will be like the past from experience. If we are living in a simulation, our reliance on induction — the very bedrock of scientific inquiry and reasoning — may be misplaced, for the rules governing the simulation could be changed or manipulated without notice, thus undermining our trust in the reliability of natural laws.
It is what has come to be referred to as the simulation hypothesis: That our universe might be a stimulation realized within a computer has long fired the imagination of many, for some, combining themes of science fiction, philosophy, and high technology. The argument would be that according to advanced civilizations, large numbers of simulations can be created. If that were the case, then statistically speaking, most of us would more likely be living in a simulation. There are immense scientific, technological, and philosophical problems with this hypothesis at the second thought.
The situation is further complicated by scientific arguments based on the fact that quantum mechanics is random, and simulating a universe requires enormous computational and energetic resources — a proposition that seems, at best, highly unlikely.
It is also dubitable, philosophically speaking, because of epistemological boundaries, Occam’s Razor, and moral concerns over the validity and morality of creating simulated realities. The anthropic principle, the nature of consciousness, the problem of infinite regress — all add depth to the argument. In addition, there is the problem of induction that questions our ability to trust the consistency of a simulated world.
Though the simulation hypothesis may be an exciting topic of argumentation, scientific and philosophic evidence does clearly point toward our reality being the base. It is the increasing knowledge regarding the universe that shall one day offer up what is hidden today concerning our existence, and such a search goes on to inspire and challenge us right at the very edge of human knowledge and imagination.
