'Splain Like I'm Five: We Are Living in a Simulation
Tags: discuss, design, watercooler, philosophy
Published: 2022-04-20 20:43:10

Ever wonder if you are just an NPC in a videogame? You're not alone. The idea that the entire universe and everything in it could be a simulation has been the "shower thought" of humanity since philosophers of the ancient Greek, Aztec, and Mayan cultures, who mused about the possibility that our reality may be nothing more than a book, a painting, or simply a fever dream of the gods. 


![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/1occk5aq45mjv3vog6t8.jpg)

The dawn of the digital age inspired contemporary philosopher [Nick Bostrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom) to postulate on our existence in a simulation as a very real possibility. Predicting that future humans will be capable of vast amounts of computational power (around the year 2050ish), Bostrom presented a trilemma called "[the Simulation Argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)". Bostrom's trilemma, presented in 2003, suggests that one of three possible arguments _must_ be true:


1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero.


2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero

 
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

Bostrom's logic continues: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation."

![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/nzevkozhdxvrwhwj4jf7.png)

So, what's the consensus? Depends on who you ask. Other proponents of the Simulation Hypothesis include Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, and Phillip K. Dick, all of whom have publicly expressed a belief in the possibility that we might be living in a simulation. 

**Arguments For:**

True: A constant of any computational processing system is the "artifact", or the upper limit of its processing capability measured in terms of its processing speed. Also true: the differentiation of processing capability (or any additional hardware components) between programs is functionally irrelevant for any operations within the simulated reality of the program _except when it is discovered as the maximum container size for that program_. In other words, the observer within the program (the program itself) has no frame for quantifying its own processing capability except when it presents itself as an upper limit (aka the "artifact"). 

It serves to follow that if we live in a simulation of some kind there would be an artifact of our simulation's processing capability. So what is the upper limit in our universal simulation? Can you guess it?

That's right! **It's the speed of light**.  If a maximum limit on the container size for a computer program is its processing speeds, the maximum limit of space on which one operation can be performed would appear in our universe as a maximum speed. We don’t know what hardware is running the simulation of our universe or what properties it has... but one thing we can say is that the memory container size for the variable "space" would be about 300,000 kilometers if the processor performed one operation per second. This observation serves as the primary evidence for our existence in a simulation, barring our ability to otherwise measure the hardware and properties of our simulation should we live in it. 

![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/yh53yygs1hywiyzj871s.png)

**Consciousness for who?**

Another argument for the possibility of simulated reality is a thought experiment about consciousness... the tldr version of this discussion from [Fouad Khan's article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/) in Scientific American is a counter-argument to those stating that the existence of human consciousness is proof that we DON'T live in a simulation. Khan posits that because A. we don't have a working theory for an evolutionary PURPOSE of human consciousness, the only purpose is to simply "experience" and B. that the "product" of experience that we are creating in the form of consciousness is not here as an evolutionary mechanism for our own use, then C. the product of experiential consciousness must be for the consumption of someone else. 

Kahn goes on to discuss how the consciousness of a Grand Theft Auto NPC becomes essentially an extension of our own consciousness in gameplay, because we are effectively experiencing and emoting through the NPC. While that might feel like an evidence argument for an NPC gaining consciousness, Kahn suggests that it's actually the inverse... a metaphor for how our consciousness is simply a projection of a greater simulant's consciousness in the same way the GTA NPC becomes sentient of ours by proxy. Try not to go too far down that logical rabbit hole. 


**Arguments Against:**

As with any currently unprovable scientific theory, there are going to be some naysayers. Physicist [Marcelo Gleiser's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcelo_Gleiser) commentary on simulation theory posits that posthumans would be entirely too high-brow for such a pointless endeavor as ancestral simulation. "[Posthumans]...being so advanced they would have collected enough knowledge about their past to have little interest in this kind of simulation. ...They may have virtual-reality museums, where they could go and experience the lives and tribulations of their ancestors. But a full-fledged, resource-consuming simulation of an entire universe? Sounds like a colossal waste of time." 

Marcelo, honey... Have you ever met humans before? They'll literally spend hours trying to run a digital frog across a digital road. I'm sure prehistoric humans would have thought we'd find better use of our time with the kind of technological firepower we have at our finger tips these days, but they would be wrong. Assuming the priorities of people who don't exist yet might not be tenable scientific theory. ;) 

Or there's [Sabine Hossenfelder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder) who essentially states "We can't possibly test this theory, so why even bother thinking about it?", which, to me, is the scientist equivalent of taking your toys and going home because you don't have advanced enough tools to measure your hypothesis. Not very sciency, Sabine! 

And many more scholars who dismiss the hypothesis entirely by throwing around phrases like "merely philosophical", "unfalsifiable", or "inherently unscientific" (Unfalsifiable fact: Those scholars seem pretty unfun at parties). 


![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/mnguh644zxh0grmkaw3l.jpeg)

**Alternate Theories**

If you're not ready to believe that the entire universe and everything in it is a vast computer simulation, there are other theories born of Bostrom's ideas that may be more palatable. For example, theoretical physicist [Lorenzo Pieri](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lorenzo-pieri-a638b9a6/?originalSubdomain=uk), deferring to occams razor, thinks the reality is more "likely to be one of such Brain-in-a-Vat or 'solo players', as it is much easier to simulate the inputs to the brain than the full-blown reality".


![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/li67v8prh4rsg93f3lzs.jpeg)

Fair, but in the end does that distinction really matter? 

**Conclusion:**

There is a compelling case to be made for at least entertaining the idea that we may be living in a simulation created by our post-human descendants. The alternative possibilities can only be that 1. Humanity goes extinct before reaching the technological capability to do so, or 2. that post humanity reaches the capability to, but not one singular posthuman would want to recreate our reality as an ancestral experiment. Proof that we may be living in a simulation can be found in studying the inherent qualities of computer systems, and if those qualities can be extrapolated to our reality. Which possibility would you prefer? True existence but inevitable extinction? Sim? Brain in a vat? The world is your oyster.  


![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/galgp5ri6drze78tbjpg.JPG)


**References**

_[Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/)_

_[Simulation hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#:~:text=end%20the%20simulation.-,Universal%20Constants,through%20observation%20of%20universal%20constants.)_

_[Nick Bostrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom)_

_[Sabine Hossenfelder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder)_

_[Lorenzo Peiri ](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lorenzo-pieri-a638b9a6/?originalSubdomain=uk)_