Is Reality a Simulation? Exploring the Possibilities - Essay Sample

Introduction

The pace of technological advancement in today's society is unprecedented. The advancements made in virtual reality technology and artificial intelligence has led some physicists ad philosophers to wonder whether we, as a human race and the universe around us, is merely a simulation so rich in detail that it is impossible to distinguish it from reality. Consequently, debates have developed on whether what we experience as reality is indeed a simulation by a highly advanced civilization. Such debates are backed by the fact that modern computer technology is extremely sophisticated and coupled with advancements in quantum computing, complexity is further increased such that modern computers have enough power to perform large scale simulations of complex systems including living organisms. As such, it is not completely wrong to question whether we are part of an ancestor simulation by a highly developed future civilization with access to near unlimited power, can we really tell if we are in a simulation and if so, does it matter.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The simulation hypothesis was popularized by the Swedish philosopher, Nick Bostrom, and he began by recognizing the current trends in technology such as the mapping of the human brain and the advancement of virtual realities that are extremely close to real life. As such, the simulation argument is founded on two premises; that if self-awareness or consciousness can develop from a lump of neurons, it is also likely that consciousness can be simulated by a powerful computer with logic gates representing brain synapses and neurotransmitters. Secondly, advanced civilizations in the future will have access to vast amounts of resources and computing power. Consequently, the consensus among the majority of physicists and philosophers at present is that there is no material constraint or physical law that would prevent the emulation of a human mind by sufficiently powerful computer systems (Bostrom 23). As such, simulations of human beings are a possibility with enough computing power.

In the current real world, there is constant progress in biotechnology, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence and different sectors that would help make more realistic simulations. Moreover, it is apparent that with each new achievement in innovation, better and more realistic simulations of the present and past real world are being developed. With the expectation that these improvements as well as our continued interest in making simulations of the world continue, then at some moment in the future, it is sensible to accept that the distinction between simulations and the real world will be impossible to differentiate (Virk 101). As a result, we as the human race will have the ability to create virtual beings that have consciousness.

Yet, if the creation of simulations that are self-aware is the unavoidable result of constant advancements in technology, unless an extinction-level catastrophe occurs, at that point it is very conceivable that it has already occurred, and this reality is an ancestor simulation created by a highly advanced future human civilization. Besides, it makes sense that such an advanced future human civilization may utilize that computing capacity to run thousands of simulations of their history of evolutions that in the future could be controlled by one computer (Francis).

If multiple simulations of ancestor simulations is a valid option, then simulated humans could greatly outnumber non-simulated human consciousnesses, in which case one is more likely to be living inside a simulation or in one level of nested simulations right now than to be living outside of a simulation. In fact, according to Bostrom, if one accepts the premise that future generations will possess enough computing power to fully and realistically emulate human brains in a computer, one has to believe that highly advanced human descendants will run multiple simulations of their ancestors, that is the present-day human beings, and consequently, one has to at least accept they are in one of the simulations ( (Bostrom 249).

On the other hand, a popular counter-argument to the question of whether we are in a computer simulation is the idea that simulating the entire universe with all its intricacies would require an absurd amount of energy and computing power which, even to a highly advanced civilization, might be unfeasible. However, it is not necessarily the case. The simulators do not necessarily need to simulate every aspect of the universe, rather similar to present-day simulations; the simulator would only simulate the human experience of the universe and make sure that simulations do not pick up on any inconsistencies or irregularities in the simulations (Virk 93).

Furthermore, it would not be necessary to simulate things that the human mind would not ordinarily notice such as things at the microscopic level. Also, should any mistakes or inconsistencies occur in the simulations, the simulator can easily edit the states of any simulated humans that had become aware of the errors before the simulated human spoiled the simulation. Alternatively, the simulator can go back a few minutes and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the simulations from being aware of any errors in the simulation (Francis).

Although the simulation hypothesis is more inclined to show that we are more likely than not to be living in a simulation, scientists and philosophers alike are more interested in obtaining substantial proof of whether or not we are in a simulation, in line with the scientific approach which is concerned with the what can be tested via experimentation and observations. Accordingly, there are some things we can infer from any simulation we might be a part of. For starters, if this reality we exist in is a simulation, it abides by a set of well-defined laws and any dynamic alterations to these laws are relatively minimal. This inference is based on the great success of the scientific principle over the years. Additionally, the more scientists learn about this reality, the more it appears to be based on specific mathematical laws. As such, some scientists and philosophers have posited that this effect is simply a function of the simulation and explains why the universe obey relatively simple laws; because it was programmed to do so, in the same way, a sentient computer game character would eventually discover that the rules seemed rigid and mathematical (Moskowitz).

However, any evidence obtained from observation and experimentation of and in the simulation would not offer any useful information to tell if one is living in a simulation or not. If the simulation is good enough without any obvious errors or hidden messages left by the simulators, any experiment carried out in the simulation will return the results programmed by the simulator. And if the simulation is based on the real world of the simulator, those results would be similar to those conducted outside of the simulation and would not shed any light in determining if one is living in a simulation (Francis).

Accordingly, the endeavor to obtain proof has led many philosophers and physicists to suggest that trying to prove whether we are in a computer simulation is a moot point. It is impossible to definitively prove that we are in a simulation as there is no experiment performed inside a simulation that can prove the existence of the simulation. All evidence collected in such experiments would most likely be simulated evidence and would be in line with the simulator's intentions or coding (Moskowitz). Thus there is no means in which a person in a simulation can ever tell with complete certainty that they are living in a simulation. The only way one can absolutely know that they are in a simulation is if the simulators revealed that you are in a simulation.

Ultimately, in the scientific sense, it does not matter whether we are living in a computer simulation. As such, if there is no distinction between the simulation and the real world, then the issue of whether we are living in a simulation is moot. Additionally, as stated above, there is no way that one can prove that living in a simulation; furthermore, it does not matter. In that regard, the simulation hypothesis can be viewed only as an almost religious thought experiment. And if we, in the future, can make simulations of our ancestors, then it would confirm the impossibility of definitive knowledge of the universe in the face of our ultimate human potential of creating worlds.

Works Cited

Bostrom, Nick. "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 211, (2003): 243255.

Bostrom, Nick. "Are You in a Computer Simulation." Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence, edited by Susan Schneider, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp. 22-25.

Francis, Matthew. "Is this life real?" Aeon Media Group, 21 January 2014, www. aeon.co/essays/is-reality-a-computer-simulation-does-it-matter. Accessed 9 April 2020.

Moskowitz, Clara. "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" Scientific America, 7 April 2017, www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation. Accessed 9 April 2020.

Virk, Rizwan. The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quantum Physics and Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are In a Video Game. Cambridge, Bayview Labs, 2019.