Is this world we occupy a simulation? We might never find out, and here's why.

Let's say we manage to build a supercomputer the size of a planet and powerful enough to create a virtual version of the universe.

 

Is it possible that everything we encounter, right up to and including reality itself, is just an illusion crafted by an unknown power? In 2003, Professor Nick Bostrom at the University of Oxford proposed this idea, now known as the simulation hypothesis.

 

Is any convincing evidence to support the simulation idea, or is it merely thought-provoking speculation? What is it?

 

Let's suppose that the future of computing holds ever greater speed, efficiency, and functionality. Let's say that in the future, we will build a supercomputer the size of a planet that can simulate the whole universe, including all the physics, chemistry, and biology we see in the real world.

 

Let's also agree that consciousness can live in either a real brain or a digital one. Any simulated organisms inside the computer that become conscious will have an experience of reality that is the same as ours.

 

The Matrix, if you will.

 

Try counting the number of virtual animals that have appeared and vanished in video games since we invented the technology to realize how many will be created once our grandchildren construct such the computer. Conscious computer simulations will soon exceed organic brains in the real universe by an enormous margin. There are three options open to us if this occurs:

 

No one in the future (or anywhere else in the universe, for that matter) will ever have the technology to create a simulation of the universe that is accurate to the point that it could be used to solve real-world problems.

 

Second, our offspring (or any other sentient beings in the universe) will perfect technology, but they won't use it to try and recreate the universe.

 

Third, you and the great majority of other sentient beings are simulated.

 

The simulation argument is the most recent development in a long line of philosophical speculation about the foundations of our everyday experience. Philosophers have long debated whether or not we exist in someone else's dream or the creation of an evil demon. It is the perfect example of skepticism and an excellent way to remember that we can't always look at and objectively understand the natural world.

 

The simulation hypothesis is a solid philosophical argument. However, the hypothesis concludes with a trilemma or a set of three statements; only one can be factual (assuming all the arguments' assumptions are accepted).

 

It's OK to admit you're stumped and can't decide which of two options is more likely to be correct. You can also make a case for your preferred solution. To provide two examples, you could argue that computers will never be able to simulate the universe accurately or that technologically advanced societies will never accept the morality of creating artificial consciousness. You could even say that everything is already set in stone and that we live in someone else's virtual world.

 

Regardless of your course of action, you will need to introduce new evidence that contradicts the simulation hypothesis. You could also challenge the underlying assumptions of the argument.

 

Our expanding universe: age, history, and other information

 

Doing a factory reset on the PC

 

The premise that simulated brains would rapidly outnumber biological brains is central to the simulation hypothesis. You can figure out the probabilities that you're living in a simulation if you assume (another large assumption) that simulated and organic consciousness are identical. There might be 99 billion artificially intelligent entities for every billion living ones in the far future. To put it another way, if you are one of the simulated people, the odds are 99% that you are not real.

 

But in 2017, Brian Eggleston, an undergraduate systems analysis student at Stanford University, identified a severe problem in Bostrom's accounting. Given that we are the only known species capable of manufacturing computers, the simulation argument depends on our grandchildren creating extremely sophisticated computer systems. When our descendants build these kinds of computers, we will know that we are not one of the simulated creatures inside them because we will be able to point to them and say with absolute certainty that we are not inside them.

 

Whether our progeny creates ten simulated conscious individuals or 10 trillion, we still won't be able to utilize them to determine the probability that we're living in a simulation. Their potential to generate artificial universes in the future tells us nothing about whether or not we are already living in one. The odds cannot be determined by looking into the future. And if we can't figure out the probabilities, we don't have a trilemma, to begin with.

 

We can only go back to our ancestors, whether they were humans from a different era (in a genuine, non-simulated cosmos) or aliens who found human simulations fascinating. While it's feasible that both of these worlds exist, there's currently no way to determine how many simulated beings do.

 

Is this world we occupy a simulation? In the end, we don't know, and there's no convincing evidence to support the simulation idea for you to get back to living your life.

Reference: https://www.livescience.com/universe-simulation-hypothesis-problems

Image source: https://pixabay.com/id/vectors/maya-realitas-permainan-kacamata-2055227