Skip to main content

Simulation theory’s basic proposition

There is so much information to unpack when making your case to others about the validity of simulation theory, so we thought we would share the most fundamental principles which could help to support the proposition.

At a fundamental level, the idea of simulation theory is that we live in a construct of sorts, specifically within a digital or computational framework.

Quantum physics has shown to us almost unequivocally that there is no outside world, matter doesn’t exist. In fact, consciousness is what is fundamental. The outside world is made of consciousness, being generated from our own cognitive systems. For some people, that concept alone is tricky to grasp as everything on the outside feels so real. Unless it’s being perceived, or as simulation theory would suggest, rendered, it doesn’t exist. There is a rigidity to the outside world which makes things more interesting, even though each individual has different interpretations of what is perceived by the senses. What is clear though is the dualistic nature of things, the mind (or consciousness) being distinct from the body.

Because simulation theory has become recently popularized, it has obviously created a divide and there is a section of humanity that is opposed to it because of its recent and sudden appearance in the timeline of our universe, which we are told is around 13.7 billion years old. That’s quite a long time.

The primary argument, of course, and one that popularized by Elon Musk (one of the minds at the forefront of tech) is that of technological progression.

It’s probably the best starting point given the evidence that is around us. It states that given even the slightest continued technological progression on our linear timeline in a relatively short time period will inevitably lead to the creation of hyper-realistic simulations. This one is hard to dispute with the apparent rate of progress in AI and with quantum computing on the horizon, which would make processes infinitely more complex and powerful.

To give this a bit more context, let’s take our current video game technology and even the generative models that are being built. It has been argued that OpenAI have already reached AGI by certain metrics. Even if we were to imagine a slow and steady progress, in 100 years from now it is almost guaranteed that we could produce computational realities that have the detail and complexity necessary to become inhabitable immersive worlds.

The second argument would be based on Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis. You can read more about it on our website here. In short, Bostrom thinks one of the following must be true:

1. Human civilizations are likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage capable of creating ancestor simulations.
2. Posthuman civilizations are unlikely to run many ancestor simulations.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

The 3rd option is most statistically probable.

The next possibility, and third fundamental argument, is that of fine-tuning.

This considers the conditions of our current reality in that it seems so finely tuned to support life on Earth as we know it. Given the complexity of life and the precision we see in patterns across nature, it could be argued that reality is programmed, not some kind of random occurrence as implied by the Big Bang theory. Could these rules be a feature of the design?

The next aspect of the argument which could lend credibility to simulation theory are glitches in the matrix.

We aren’t necessarily talking about the movie The Matrix here and the famous black cat deja-vu scene.

Rather, this argument revolves around quantum mechanics and the strange behavior of particles and the building blocks of our world. This strangeness on a sub-atomic level could suggest that our reality is rendered, just like on a computer game, rather than deterministic as posited by Darwin. The double-slit experiment is a good example of this, quantum superposition. Entanglement is another difficult to explain phenomenon as particles can exist in states which defy the linear nature of time.

The oneness and inter-connectedness of all things imply that we are part of a larger system, which could be the advanced computer (or arguably AI) which is powering reality. The source is what many refer to as God.

The fifth and final argument could be the dream-like nature of consciousness.

As mentioned earlier, consciousness is what gives birth to everything we see around us, which is often why reality feels like a mirror reflection of our inner state. The brain creates a subjective experience, through our conditioning and the sum of our learned experiences.

Evidence of this can be seen even in man-made VR simulators that have been produced. Rizwan Virk often discusses this which also relates to the holographic principle. Immersion within a reasonably advanced VR system can sometimes feel extremely real which lends credibility to the nature of our own realities.

So, if an experience within a VR still feels real, what does real even mean? Reality is of course relative, and this can be traced back to Plato’s Cave allegory which might mean we are part of something much greater. What we consider as reality could only represent a small part of a much greater whole.

In conclusion, the evidence presented forms quite a strong argument to support the likelihood that we live in some kind of a construct or simulation. It doesn’t mean life is any less real, because life is indeed a subjective experience. Simulation theory can be used positively for those who wake up to it. Once you understand the mechanics of the world, you can find a deeper understanding of meaning and purpose and find a way to break out of the programming, or transcend it, to live a more spiritually fulfilling life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *