I get what a simulation is, at least in the very literal sense. What I’m experiencing feels like reality, it would have to, it’s all any of us have ever known. But what would it mean for us if we truly lived in a simulation? Can it just be turned off and we cease to exist? If we found out we did live in one, how could it change our reality? How do we even hypothesize such a thing? I have zero background in physics just so we’re at an understanding of my physics understanding.
In: 794
From what (little) I understand, there are a few factors that lead physicists to suspect we’re in a simulation.
First, they discovered that, on a quantum scale, matter exists in an indeterminate state until it is observed. In other words, *data off-screen isn’t rendered until it is visible on camera.* This is a common high-level programming practice to save on memory usage.
Additionally, our universe is rendered in Planck-length “pixels,” the absolute minimum size for anything in existence, including photons of light.
I believe there are a small handful of other reasons why physicists suspect simulation, but these are the most significant ones that stood out to me.
Like others have pointed out, it’s just philosophical thought experiment and not grounded in physics. The assumption behind it is that since we see our computing power increasing to a point where it seems possible to create a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, any sufficiently advanced civilization should be able to come up with such a simulation. Then, the simulated beeings in those simulations should also be able to create a similar simulation (within their simulation) and so on. This means, that given the original assumption is true, there would be an enormous amount of simulations within simulations but only one true “originial” reality. Therefore, the odds of us actually living in that one true reality are small compared to those of living in one of these simulations.
Every few years, some new theory comes along in physics and non-physicists who don’t understand it spin it up into some all-encompassing philosophy, if not quasi-religion. It’s totally ridiculous.
As far as I know, there is no particular reason to think that “we’re living in a simulation” from a physics standpoint. Could we all be brains in a tank? Sure, it seems as likely to me as the idea that Smurfs created the universe.
Its a statement that emerges from technological advances and statistics, not physics.
The thought process goes something like this: we as humans have existed for a very short period of time on a universal scale. We have made very fast and very big advancements in computing and recently AI. If this technological advancement continues and we dont destroy ourselves, it is likely that we will be able to simulate a universe with all of its laws at some point in the future – there is nothing really stopping us from doing so in theory, just computational power and energy constraints, both of which can be solved with time.
Now the simulation itself would – at some point – also create a simulation of a universe and so on.
If WE can make a simulation of a universe, that would mean that
A) Our universe is “the original” among and infinite number of simulated universes
Or
B) One of the many simulations
Option B is simply much more likely statistically.
It is a tought experiment, but everyone commenting seems to be missing two important things:
1. That doesn’t mean it’s not scientific. A lot of physics is “just a thought experiment” in this sense. Take dark matter for example (ELI5: there seems to be some gravitational forces acting on large scale things in the universe, so scientists came up with invisible matter that exerts those forces). That is also just a “made up” thing based on observations. There seems to be some gravitational force that’s not coming from something else we can observe, so there’s probably some matter that we can’t otherwise observe.
2. It doesn’t mean it’s useless. There’s some interesting questions it opens up, and there’s some interesting interpretations you can make with this model.
The important thing is the question is usually actually posed as “are we living in a simulation that we could theoretically eventually produce?”. For instance, we seem to only be able to simulate discrete things: the picture on your screen is composed of individible pixels, the numbers have finite precision, time is actually made up of chopped up intervals. But that seems to be the way the universe is also made (as I understand it; quantum theory). Matter is made of indivisible particles, time actually moves in quanta… But we’re not sure that’s actually how it is (important thing about physics, the theories change and refine all the time). Maybe the universe is actually continuous, and we will never be able to harness the continuity for our purposes. Maybe the universe is continuous, and we *will* be able to harness it.
Take that dark matter thing again. A less popular alternative to it is that laws of motion just behave differently at large scales, and that’s why galaxies move in this surprising way. That seems far fetched, but in a simulation, there’s no reason that couldn’t be true. We make games with inconsistent “physical” laws all the time.
—
My favorite though experiment based on this simulation idea (and this is far fetched, so bear with me, but it does ilustrate what this could be used) is how heaven could work. You know how religious people talk about heaven and hell and what not, and then you ask “ok, well, where is it?”, and the answer is that it’s not here, you can’t interact with it. The reasonable reaction to that is “well, that sounds like the definition of not existing”, how can it be real if we can’t interact with it in any way and it doesn’t occupy any space, how do people move in there…
Now imagine you have a game of sims running. Any time a sim dies, their data is saved to a flash disk or something. Then that sim is moved to another computer, and loaded into another game of sims. There’s no way for the sims in the first game to know about this second game, no way to interact with it. Yet it’s a very real scenario that you can go create right now.
The idea is that there could be something outside our observable universe that makes everything run. As an idea it’s on the same level as a creator god. We also don’t have real means to find out if we are in a simulation or not. Maybe our thoughts are really simple in comparison to the real thing. Real reality would not need to be anything similar to ours, or we could be basically a carbon copy. Absolutely no way to tell.
So the simulation hypothesis is not something thats taken seriously from a natural science perspective, it’s more of a philosophy thing.
Why? Because science doesn’t consider unfalsifiable claims. The simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable, meaning that you can’t do an experiment to deny or verify it. A principle that science follows is Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword: If it can’t be tested experimentally, it’s not worth debating about.
There isn’t anything to argue about, nobody can be unambiguously correct or wrong. So science cannot be applied here.
The hypothesis simply suggests that this isn’t actual reality but a computer simulation. What is the simulation about, how it works, etc aren’t concerns. The thing is about asking what if we aren’t living in actual reality.
A more interesting question here would be: what is the probability that we are living in a simulation? And if you applied the principles that can be applied here you can show that it’s smaller than 50%.
Unless you believe in souls, our consciousness is made up of atoms, and some electrical stuff happening between them. Not magic. So we should eventually be able to recreate that, either physically or in a computer. Like way down the road, but shouldnt be impossible.
And if we could simulate a universe, what’s stopping that universe from simulating one as well. Then you realize it’s almost infinitely unlikely we’re the first universe.
It’s just creationism dressed up to seem more scientific.
A lot of comments have already made a lot of very valid points about this being more of a thought experiment than anything.
However I think there’s a simpler (ELI5’ier) explanation for this.
It’s not “We potentially live in a simulation, because we have found verifiable proof to support that conclusion”
It’s “We potentially live in a simulation, because we technically can’t prove we don’t”
Though the outcome is the same, “we potentially live in a simulation”, the two statements arrive at that conclusion in a completely different way.
The problem here is that the second statement employs a very well known logical fallacy, the burden of proof fallacy. In order for a claim to be valid, the person making the claim should provide proof their claim is true, not the other way around, since it’s impossible to prove a negative. You can think of this like “innocent until proven guilty” but for ideas instead of people. The absence of proof for something doesn’t automatically count as proof for the opposite.
The concept can be a bit vague sometimes, but it’s basically like saying “I own an invisible, intangible unicorn only I can see, hear and feel”. Technically, there’s no way for me to prove you don’t. However, my inability to prove you don’t own that unicorn doesn’t automatically prove you do. Other (way more likely) explanations could be, you’re just a liar or you’re a schizophrenic and the unicorn is just a figment of your imagination.
Essentially, this discussion is as old as time and it’s just creationism dressed up to seem more scientific. Technically speaking, there MIGHT be a god (very heavily stressing MIGHT), just because there is no way for us to prove there isn’t one. You can’t prove a negative.
The idea of our reality being a simulation often comes up in discussions about an infinite universe expanding from the big bang, infinite time, infinite “alternate universes” (a.k.a. the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) or other ideas generally related to infinity in some way.
I personally believe the concept of actual “infinity” lies so far beyond our imagination we can’t make sense of it. We can’t visualise it, we can’t equate it to anything. It’s such an abstract concept we might never fully understand what it means. Maybe our physics and mathematics aren’t “ripe” enough yet to make sense of it and maybe never will.
Note that this is absolutely no different from people all throughout history using religion as an explanation for phenomena their science couldn’t explain.
“We can’t explain lightning because we have no concept of electricity yet? Must be god.”
“We can’t explain why a bunch of people are suddenly dying because we have no concept of how infection works yet? Must be god.”
“We can’t explain how the human race came to be because we have no concept of evolution yet? Must be god.”
“We don’t have a good grasp on what an infinite universe actually entails and what that means for our perception of reality? Must be a simulation.”
It’s the idea that even if we don’t understand how something works, there must be someone or something out there who does, because how else can it exist like that in the first place?
I personally think that’s a very naive way to look at the universe.
Really, in its very essence, it’s just new age pseudo scientific creationism, but it’s still a fun thought experiment to think about.
A couple of scientists have vaguely posed it as a possibility. It’s not science, nor is is the consensus. It’s mostly conspiracy theorists, tech bros and DMT enthusiasts saying it with gusto.
The hypothesis is – is what philosophers and stoners discuss and what The Matrix is saying in fiction… could in theory be true.
That you are in a simulation, and the entire universe is made in a computer on an alien’s desktop for your experience. Or that we are all in a simulation. Or that we are all parts of a program.
It’s essentially religion. A good, interesting bullshit story which you can’t prove or disprove. Popular with right wing people and stoners alike.
Latest Answers