Are We Living in A Simulation
Are We Living in A Simulation
You remember last New Year’s party very well: the smoky-bacon tasting booze, the frightened
baying of the dogs in the neighbourhood that were woken up by the sound of people throwing up
in the bathroom, the group gyrating to the loud Leonard Cohen music, and the fraternal hangover
the next day. Nobody can take these memories away from you. They are yours. Or are they?
According to some people they may not be! This suspicion that reality may not be what we think
it is has a long history. But, if so, who or what could be imposing this counterfeit non-Kansas
sensory reality on us? The answer given depends to some extent on the dominant worldviews of
the time-period. In 17th century Europe, when the French philosopher Descartes was writing, the
Catholic world-view was predominant and Descartes brought up the possibility that maybe we
are all deceived by our senses, and that maybe reality is not what we think it is. How did he
arrive at this crazy view? According to Descartes, most of what we know about the external
world (the world of cars, cats, and products like Beano) comes from our sensory experiences (the
sounds we hear, what we see, etc.). OK so far. But what causes our sensory experiences, which
are in turn interpreted by our mind/brain? External objects, of course! I see the cup, bring it to
my lips and down the tea. Further, from the day we are born we automatically react to what we
perceive to be outside ourselves. The rattle hits us in the face and it hurts.2 As we grow up
family members ask us to stay away from the cookie jar, to finish our supper and not to tease the
dog. In learning about the world, few, if any doubts are brought up. Nobody asks us to sit on
what appears to be a chair, etc. So where’s the problem? Where else could our sensory
experiences come from if not external objects? A key point here is that, according to Descartes,
our sensory experiences are all in our minds. (I can’t feel your pain, or directly read your mind).
This means that while we naturally accept that external objects and events cause our inner
sensory experiences, it could be something else. This isn’t totally beyond the pale. After all, we
know that, when we dream or have hallucinations, we can have sensory experiences that are not
caused by external objects.
We directly know our sensory impressions, but only through them do we know about the
external world.3 What could we know or learn about the external world without any sense organs
to receive and interpret information from the external world? Descartes therefore hypothesized
that it was philosophically possible that an evil demon (are there good demons?) was responsible
for our sensory experiences of the world. This demon could be directly and deliberately
implanting false sensory patterns in our minds. Does this mean that it could be an illusion that
1
The footnotes were not incorporated into the talk. They have been placed here for those interested in various follow-ups of the
points mentioned in the talk. The references (but not the content of the talk) were given to those attending the talk.
2
Even young infants a few months old interact with the physical world in sophisticated orderly ways. See A. Trafton (2011)
“Inside the infant mind.” MIT News, May 27, http://news.mit.edu/2011/infant-cognition-0527
While you are at it, read A. Gopnik (2009) The Philosophical Baby: Children’s Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the
Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
3
This view has its challengers. See, for example, the writings on introspection by American philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel at
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/.
2
there are cars, houses, other people, the size of your hands, neighborhood dogs that crap on your
lawn every other day, and products like extra-strength Viagra and their effects? Is the only
“good news” (is it good news?) that the money we use to pay for some of these things would also
be illusory? Is “illusory” the right word? Who could ever, outside of long, lonely nights in the
bar, believe this? Well, the fact that a number of prominent people are considering it makes it
worthy of our attention. Some newspaper reports claim that even the Bank of America has said
that there is a 50% chance we are living in a simulation imposed by aliens or advanced computer
geeks from the future!4 If you can’t trust bankers, who can you trust?
The aptly called “simulation hypothesis” seems to be the latest version of this
philosophical speculation. The simulation hypothesis in its contemporary form is tied to
simulated sense inputs from sources other than external objects. Let’s explore this: so why might
some people think the modern-day philosophical simulation hypothesis makes sense and is
possible, and others think it is a bunch of covfefe?
Suppose I suddenly find myself on an operating table surrounded by laughing surgeons, who tell me
the course of my experience hitherto was simply programmed by a computer, that it was really an
illusion, that only now am I walking into the real world (Roberts, 1974, p. 145)
Here is another example: we could just be brains lying in a beer-tub connected to wires through
which our experiences are provided. While some may not see a downside to this, many will.
This was dubbed the “brain-in-a-vat” hypothesis by the American philosopher Hilary Putnam
(1981). While such scenarios have been common in philosophy classes, why is there an
expanded public interest today? The views of the idealists and Descartes do not feature in
4
F. Furedi (2017) ‘Bank of America analysts think there’s a 50 percent chance we live in the Matrix’ Independent, Sept.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bank-of-america-the-matrix-50-per-cent-virtual-reality-elon-
musk-nick-bostrom-a7287471.html
5
Idealism is the view that reality is at bottom mind/mental. Those interested in the topic might consult the early book by John
Foster (1982) The Case for Idealism. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Berkeley was not the only 18th century Christian philosopher to
advocate idealism. See J. Farris, S. M. Hamilton, & J. S. Spiegel (2016) Idealism and Christian Theology: Idealism and
Christianity. Vol 1. Bloomsbury Academic. I am aware that many Eastern traditions were/are associated with forms of idealism
but I do not have enough familiarity with them to comment at the present time. Note that idealism is different from the view that
both a physical world and a supernatural world exist.
3
popular magazines and newspapers but discussions of the present-day simulation speculation do.
Such scenarios have always been percolating in our cultural the background, and have long been
a part of science fiction.
Another recent contributing factor to the interest is the popularity of the movie The Matrix
(1999) where advanced artificial intelligence entities, which humans themselves have created,
take over and use humans as energy batteries. To keep us ignorant of this they have immersed us
in an artificially created reality by simulating our sensory inputs to make us think we are living
ordinary lives on earth. The movie likely also fits in with the existential concerns that many
people have about artificial intelligence and technological advances.
A third factor is the contemporary prevalence of the physicalist/materialist belief that our
mind is our brain and the associated belief that all our mental states are expressed in neural
connections. While for both Descartes and Berkeley the mind was a non-physical substance
about which little or nothing could be known, we do know many things about the physical brain.
This increases the surface plausibility of physicalist hypotheses that bypass non-physical
unknowns. This is famously expressed in The Matrix, when Morpheus, the leader of the
resistance against the AI purveyors of the artificially imposed reality, asks:
What is real? How do you define “real”? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can
smell, what you can taste and see, then “real” is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
While this physical view would not have gained much purchase in Descartes’ time, it expresses a
default view for many today. If what we consider real is just “electrical signals interpreted by
your brain,” then these “electrical signals” can be caused by physical objects or anything else
that can impinge on our neurons in the right way.
A fourth contributing factor might, for some, be empirical anomalies of a weird sort. I’m
not thinking of shaving,6 bell-bottomed pants, or your bizarre uncle Festus, but real oddities of
various kinds.7 What’s a real oddity? A good question. What if we looked up one day and saw
writing in the sky all over the world that said “Hey, carbon-based weirdos, you are all sims in my
video game!” While that might give many pause, most (I suspect) would be unpersuaded. After
all, it could be a joke by aliens or some “high” scientists having fun showing off some new
technology. OK, but what about down-to-earth oddities? Perhaps some possible glitches in the
simulation are paranormal phenomena (if they could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of most
philosophers and scientists). You can add your own ideas here.
The fifth contributing factor to the present day popularity of the simulation idea is the
well-thought out and widely publicised work of philosopher Nick Bostrom. His views are
known not only in the philosophical community, but also in the computer science and the
6
19th century French writer Gustave Flaubert wrote to Louise Colet, August 1846: “What stops me from taking myself seriously,
even though I’m essentially a serious person, is that I find myself extremely ridiculous — not in the sense of the small scale
ridiculousness of slapstick comedy, but rather in the sense of a ridiculousness that seems intrinsic to human life and that
manifests itself in the simplest actions and most ordinary gestures. For example, I can never shave without starting to laugh; it
seems so idiotic.” Taken from Tim Timmerman’s blog, May 8, 2011. https://abiggerworldyet.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/nicole-
johnsons-portrait-of-the-artist/
7
People find oddities in different places. Larson (2011) asks us to consider the everyday experiences of losing socks and
misplacing keys and finding them in unexpected places. While Larson calls experiences like this and many other odd
experiences “reality shifts” and gives a paranormal twist to explaining them, one might also (with a stretch) consider such
experiences glitches in a complex simulated reality. C.S. Larson (2011) Reality shifts: when consciousness changes the physical
world. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
4
mainstream science communities. The difference between his version and earlier versions of the
simulation hypothesis (e.g Descartes) is that Bostrom’s view is more or less tied directly to
recent technological advances, has not been invented as a philosophical foil to critically examine
global scepticism, it is instead a serious discussion of a metaphysical possibility. On Bostrom’s
view, computers and technology are advancing at an unprecedented rate and we are continually
increasing the sophistication of the simulations used in both science and entertainment. Given
that in the future many large scale simulations will likely be created by trans-humans, we could
be living in such a simulation – perhaps an ancestor simulation. Our living in a simulated
universe need not require a Full-Monty simulation, according to Bostrom (2003), but only a
partial one.
Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new
physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is
needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human
ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of
the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly
compressed representations: [accuracy] need extend to the narrow [set] of properties that we can
observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in
inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be
filled in ad hoc….This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by post-
human standards. Moreover, a post-human simulator would have enough computing power to keep
track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human
was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the
simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director
could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the
simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a
way that avoids the problem.
A sixth contributing factor is the possibility of extending the view that the universe is
governed by mathematical laws, information or algorithms. If the universe is, at bottom,
information as some physicists contend, 8 a language that is the ultimate reality in the
universe, then it may not be a large step to go from using information to simulating a
universe. If bits of information are the ultimate reality then it is not elementary particles as
commonly believed.
8
See, for example, A. Ananthaswamy (2017) “Inside knowledge: is information the only thing that exists?” New Scientist,
March 29. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/ This
article provides a good quick overview of the claims and counter-claims on this information-based view. Also, Harari (2016)
Homo Deus, especially Chapter 11. A critique of this view of information can be found in D.N. Robinson (2017) “The limits of
information.” The New Atlantis, Winter, 17. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-limits-of-information
9
For those interested, this is discussed in detail in D.C Ainslie (2015) Hume’s True Skepticism. Oxford University Press.
5
One “off the top of our heads” response is to appeal to our everyday experiences. Don’t
we live in a world of cars, houses, and people with hands of differing sizes? In everyday life we
all distinguish between dreams and waking states, and between veridical states and illusions or
hallucinatory states. It flouts verbal conventions and our everyday life experiences to talk of “all
life being a dream” or “reality being something completely different from what appears to our
senses.” Why can’t we just straightforwardly appeal to our sensory experience to resolve the
issue? After all, we can check out odd sensory experiences like whether the stick in the water is
crooked or not by taking the stick out of the water and looking at it, or measuring the length of
the lines in the visual Muller illusion. Similarly, we distinguish between dream happenings in
everyday life by contrast with what we can do after we wake up. We fly and jump over tall
buildings in our dreams (at least I do) but fail the same attempts after breakfast (at least I do).
The down-to-earth British philosopher (18th century) John Locke thought we could appeal to
such experience to defuse wide-ranging, global skepticism at the start, claiming, basically, that
only someone who was joking or smoking something, or who belonged in a mad house, could
seriously be skeptical about an external reality.10 Locke tries to keep any global skeptical
hypothesis from even getting off the ground by asking skeptics to just go and stick their hand in
a fire. If they are still not convinced, “Just go away.” A difficulty that arises here is that the
responses use our experience. The tests conducted are within our experience. The simulation
hypothesis is outside our experience or “beyond experience.” It deals not so much with the
experiences themselves but what ultimately causes the particular experiences. Patterns of
experience allow us to tell truth from falsehood and to identify sensory illusions when we are
immersed in our experiences but not when we metaphysically consider our experiences as a
whole. The wide skeptical and simulation speculations are based on the view that we are trapped
in our world of experiences.
A second criticism involves variations on the “it’s too complex” argument. This most
certainly has intuitive appeal. Basically, while virtual simulations (such as Sim-City) and
specific large scale computer simulations (online games such as Wildstar) along with advances
in virtual technologies are impressive, critics contend it is something else entirely to simulate an
entire universe that includes large scale objects (suns, planets, galaxies), medium sized objects
(cars, rivers, mountains), intelligent creatures (humans, apes, elephants, dolphins, etc.), and
microscopic components (atoms, elementary particles, viruses, prions, DNA, etc.), all governed
by physical and biological laws. And simulating consciousness in sims seems unlikely.11 As
American philosopher Alexander Pruss (2017) puts it,
10
Locke’s view is actually more wide-ranging that what I have mentioned. See, for example, M. Priselac (2017) Locke’s
Science of Knowledge. Routledge.
11
If consciousness is impossible to simulate, as some contend, the plausibility of us living in a simulated universe is greatly
reduced. Presumably, the only kinds of creatures in a simulated reality would be analogous to ‘philosophical zombies’ that go
through behavioural motions but lack an internal mental life. The claim that consciousness is a particularly serious problem for
advocates of the simulation hypothesis arises often in debates over a variety of philosophical speculations including talk of mind
uploading, etc. Consciousness still seems to be considered an intractable problem for many in philosophy and psychology (but
not all). See D. Burkeman (2015) “Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the problem of consciousness?” The Guardian,
Jan 15. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness.
But see also, M. Milkowski (2017) “Why think that the brain is not a computer?” Newsletter: The American Philosophical
Association, 16/2, Spring. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/EADE8D52-8D02-4136-9A2A-
729368501E43/ComputersV16n2.pdf
6
We would expect most computer simulations to be of pretty poor quality and limited in scope. If we
are in a simulation, the simulation we are in is of extremely high quality and of great scope. That’s
not what we would expect on the simulation hypothesis. So, probably, we don’t live in a computer
simulation.
The “we are stuck in a goldfish bowl” responses are variations of “If we are in a
simulation, it makes no sense to even state the hypothesis, since everything outside the
simulation may be operating according to completely different natural laws and so may be very
different from what is inside the simulation.” As philosopher LaBossiere (2016) puts it, we
would be like “the intelligent inhabitants of a Pac Man world trying to draw inferences from their
game to our world,” or a frog at the bottom of a well believing that where he exists is the whole
world.12 However, given that our default view is that we are living in base reality (a non-
simulated reality), the onus is on those who disagree to somehow make their case.
A related objection is the “comparatively we are dumber than a bag of hammers”
complaint. Whatever is able to make such a complex simulation is so imaginatively beyond us
that we cannot even talk about it in any meaningful way – we are in the position of insects
confronted with the theory of quantum mechanics. Whatever is going on, talk of “simulations”
(based on analogies with our video games like “Sim City”) is the only way we humans can think
about it, and this may be completely off base. Once again, given that our default view is that we
are living in base reality (a non-simulated reality), the onus is on those who disagree to somehow
make their case.
The “what kind of a mind does this” response emphasizes that in postulating the
simulation hypothesis we are anthropomorphizing the simulator mind. The implications seem to
be that while this all seems to be an interesting possibility to us humans, it isn’t something that
might even occur to anything else. Indeed, while to many of us, humans are the center of the
universe, in the case of future humans in a trans-human world (or creatures in an extra-terrestrial
world) there may be a variety of different kinds of intelligences without a hierarchy involving
whatever is the most top-valued species. As philosopher Justin Khoo says, perhaps an
extraterrestrial alien species only cares about “maximizing the number equilateral pentagons in
the universe.”13 On this objection, why would post-human or extraterrestrial alien interests
coincide with ours? Maybe we would be interested in conducting ancestor simulations if we
could, but why would it be on the bucket list for post-humans or ET?
The “reprobate to saint” objection contends that human beings have been, overall,
becoming more moral over time. Worldwide, fewer people are in poverty, childbirth deaths have
decreased, we are living longer than ever before and more people than ever are living in peace.
We are also more concerned with human rights and the rights of animals than ever before.14 It is
plausible (so it is argued) to believe that this will continue into the future, which means that our
12
The analogy with the frog is taken from the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi. B. Ziporyn (Tr.) (2009) Zhuangzi: the essential
readings. Hackett Pub Co Inc.
13
R. Marshall (2017) “Disagreement: interview with Justin Khoo.” 3AM magazine, May.
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/disagreement/
14
A good source for this optimistic view can be found in S. Pinker (2011) The better angels of our nature: why violence has
decreased. Penguin. Not everyone is persuaded that this is the case. For example, see J. Horgan (2015) “Stephen Pinker, John
Gray and the end of war.” Scientific American blog, April 1. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/steven-pinker-
john-gray-and-the-end-of-war/ The debate over whether we have made moral progress over time is a very lively contemporary
one.
7
post-human descendants will continue to advance morally. If our descendants are responsible for
a simulation, it would therefore be very unlikely that the simulation would have the suffering we
find in the world we live in. Hence, given the world we live in, it is unlikely that we are living in
a simulated universe/world. We might also expect the same for any other advanced
extraterrestrial intelligent civilization. In other words, they would likely have extended their
moral concerns to other life forms and nature, making it also unlikely that they would create a
simulation with the problems and suffering we find in our world.15
Then there is the “Get a Life” response. This approach isn’t an attempt at direct criticism
of the hypothesis itself. Instead, it views the simulation hypothesis as a “waste of time” rather
like spending money and time investigating Elvis or Socrates sightings. On this view, don’t we
have more pressing issues to deal with than unprovable philosophical speculations? Given this
objection, admittedly the contemporary simulation hypothesis is more plausible than the
Descartes etc. global skeptical philosophical stories, but such far-out “thought experiments”
should only entertain us at the bar, provide thinking exercises in philosophy classes, or give
bored rich people something to wax on about. Further to this line of thought, our priorities
should instead be climate change, wealth inequalities, world hunger, immigration crises, resource
shortages, possibly curing baldness, etc.16
15
16
This objection, like the others, can take a number of forms. A variation on it is “Isn’t this speculation just science fiction?” In
a sense this seems to me correct, but it isn’t a “just.” Bostrom gives arguments for his view.
17
After all, modifying brain states and thoughts is on the horizon of our present technologies, so Bostrom’s views regarding far
more advanced civilizations are far from implausible here. If we can make modifications within a simulation, then what could
the all-powerful (to us) simulators be able to do? See M. Ienca & R. Andorno (2017) “Toward new human rights in the age of
neuroscience and neurotechnology.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13/5.
https://lsspjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
8
simulation, breaking out of many such simulations may be impossible, similar to releasing Goofy
from a Mickey Mouse cartoon.
Of course, we also have the problem of what we would break out into. The “real”
reality we find ourselves in might be similar to our simulated reality or wildly different. In The
Matrix, the real world is not much different from the simulated reality, only more trashed. But
things could get weird: could there be simulations within simulations? Maybe we just end up
breaking out into another simulation – from the frying pan into the fire. We might confront a
more complex simulation, one with different natural laws, one in a state of decay, etc. Maybe
there are simulations inside simulations like a Russian nesting doll, or overlapping ones or co-
existing ones.18 Maybe some simulations are even worse in many ways than ours! 19 20On the
other hand, it seems reasonable to speculate that some worlds are not simulations at all. If all
worlds were simulations, how would the simulations get started in the first place?
How does the simulation relate to the real world behind the veil? Indeed, the
simulated reality might not be wholesale and constant, and may be only periodically intermeshed
with our everyday experiences. Why would it have to be wholesale one way or the other? In
other words, our reality might at bottom be real but at times interacts with simulated intrusions
from elsewhere.21 In this case, the intrusive effects would be in our simulation but the causes
from outside the simulation. This might partially “explain” some of the most bizarre,
unexplainable actions we all engage in at times, or those very unpredictable events that happen to
us. We might also find the simulation contains more than is found in the behind-the-scenes
“reality” (or vice-versa), which would complicate things (as an analogy, we can have simple
video games within more complex video games). 22
18
How does this relate to the multi-universe idea, the view that there are many, perhaps an infinite number of co-existing over-
lapping universes? A useful start to thinking about this might be Mary-Jean Harris (2017) ‘The Philosophy of Other Worlds’ Sci
Phi Journal, Aug 6. https://sciphijournal.org/the-philosophy-of-other-worlds/ See also: D. Zimmerman (2017) “Evil triumphs in
these multiverses, and God is powerless.” Nautilus, March 2. http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/evil-triumphs-in-these-
multiverses-and-god-is-powerless Physicist Ray Davies thinks the simulation speculation is incompatible with the multi-universe
idea. http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html On the other hand, Chalmers (2017) thinks they are compatible.
The topic is avoided by most philosophers and scientists. One reason might be that the multiverse idea and even talk of ‘possible
worlds’ (by David Lewis) are considered natural phenomena and not part of a simulation. Another reason might be that talk of
multiverses and possible worlds themselves is already considered at the fringes of speculation so why add more controversial
simulation world speculation to what is already considered controversial?
19
Worse in what ways? Perhaps with respect to the suffering of creatures in the universe. This opens up many cans of worms:
we would need to consider different forms of suffering and how to balance the suffering and non-suffering. Also many different
simulated worlds are possible. What about one that has huge suffering for some but lifelong bliss for others? Or what about a
simulated world where creations take turns suffering?
20
Maybe the multiverse idea is relevant here after all. Highly advanced entities in one universe could create a variety of
simulations, including nested simulations. Within each natural universe the simulations would be causally connected since (I
presume) the same natural laws would pervade the base universe from which the simulations are constructed. In another
universe with different multiverses different natural laws might apply with different highly intelligent entities producing a
causally independent series of simulations (from the other universes within the multiverse).
21
How such interactions are possible would be a pertinent issue. But this does not seem to be a large impediment for many who
believe in religions that allow God (who is not part of our world) to periodically interfere with the workings of the world in we
live.
22
In the Matrix movie (1999) the AI that created the simulation programmed one very close to the real one, only less beat up.
But given they had the capacity to externally influence our perceptions they could placed us in a world with added trolls, goblins
and golems. Putting ourselves within the Matrix story, our evolved biology and psychology would likely allow limited deviations
from the real world in which we could survive and continue producing energy, This would not be the case if we were created
from scratch in a simulated reality.
9
Would the nature of the simulation give us any indication as to who or what the
simulators are like? Would the kind of simulated reality we live in (assuming we are living in
one) suggest anything about the nature of who or what created the simulated reality? What are
the possibilities here? Is it an evil demon, an alien mind, some kind of artificial intelligence
(AI), or our own trans-human descendants? For a start, we have no idea whether there is one
simulator, or several, or a group mind of some sort, or whether it was designed to be the way it is
or some accidental by-product. We also don’t know whether the originators are still around
(perhaps they or it went on to new projects or died or became something else). Maybe they/it
just set up the basics so it would run and evolve by itself, without ongoing tinkering.23 How
might we view the simulators themselves/itself? The philosopher Chalmers says:
Whoever created our universe—the simulator—in a way, that’s our god, our creator. This being
might be all-powerful, able to control our universe, all-knowing. Some people have even proposed
that we should be forming religions around the idea that our simulator is our god….. This being
would count as a creator; it would be all-powerful, all-knowing. But at the same time this would all
be naturally explicable in terms of, say, the laws of physics of the next universe up. There’d be
nothing supernatural about it. To be a religion, there’s got to be something like worship or some deep
spirituality involved. We might have respect, maybe even a kind of awe, for a being who creates our
universe by a simulation, in virtue of knowing everything and being all-powerful. But I’m not going
to worship that being. Who knows? Maybe it’s just a teenage hacker in the next universe up that’s
created this universe for fun. Great, I’m glad that I exist, so thank you, but I refuse to worship you.24
How would /should we act if we really believed we were living in a simulation?
There is something odd around words like “belief” and “probability” in such
academic/philosophical contexts.25 It’s all very well that the Bank of America says there is a 50%
chance we are living in a simulated universe (as reported in several American newspapers), but
what follows from saying this? Nothing, it seems! Either way, the Bank of America (assuming
they are being serious) has to make no changes in the way it acts. The rest of us likely “sims”
are not given a break with lower loan rates or gifts of money. Isn’t this odd? For our everyday
beliefs, there are different consequences to a belief and to its opposite – you expect a
23
These suggestions are influenced by 18th century British philosopher David Hume.
24
D. Chalmers (2017) “The mind bleeds into the world.” Edge, Jan.(see references)
25
The term “belief” is thrown around a lot here. While in everyday life we don’t have gunfights over the word, for a number of
cases, we may not be sure what to say. Consider people who say they sincerely believe we are living in a simulated universe (do
you know anyone who says this?): what is going on here? In everyday life, when we say we believe something we expect our
actions to be fairly consistent with the belief. If I believe Steve is a liar, I will not take everything he says at face value, nor will I
act on much of what he tells me. If a friend says they believe in God, we expect they will try to act in ways consistent with the
implications of this belief. What happens when people say one thing and do another? While the connection between what we
say and our behaviour seems important, it is not easy to know what to say when they come apart. We might say one thing but act
in other ways. Schwitzegebel calls these “in-between beliefs.” See E. Schwitzegebel (forthcoming) “The pragmatic metaphysics
of belief.” Sept 28 (draft). The opposite might occur, we might act in certain ways but deny belief! Noggle gives the example of
obsessive-compulsive behavior. He calls such actions as being tied to “quasi-beliefs” since they don’t fit with the person’s other
beliefs. R Noggle (2016) “Belief, quasi-belief, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Philosophical Psychology, 29:5, 654-668,
DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1130220 Another approach to puzzling beliefs is addressed by Boudry and Coyne, whose concern
is supernatural beliefs. For these authors belief is tied to behavior and motivates particular actions, which seems to be lacking in
talk of belief in simulated realities. See M Boudry & J Coyne (2016) “Disbelief in belief: On the cognitive status of supernatural
beliefs.” Philosophical Psychology, 29:4, 601-615, DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2015.1110852
How would you characterize talk of simulated realities – would “belief” be useful in this context?
10
conservative government to act differently in some ways from a leftist government. If you
believe it will rain today you will dress differently than if you don’t think it will, but the belief
about living in a simulated reality doesn’t make much (if any) difference to our lives apart from
our being inclined to utter a particular string of words. Similarly, if I sincerely believe I love X,
then certain implications follow – you won’t typically expect me to send them parcels full of
doggie dung, or sabotage the tires on their car so that they fall off when they turn a corner.
However, Bostrom (2003, 2011; also Baggini, 2017) contends that even if we really believed
that we were living in a simulation, it should not make much difference to how we are now
living. So, who cares! One can understand why he would say this. After all, we only know one
empirical reality – you will go to the bathroom if you have to, avoid the speeding cars on the
road, get dumped by lovers, interact with sock puppets on the internet, and feel misunderstood by
the neighbour who calls you a demented rogue, no matter whether we live in a simulated reality
or not. Bostrom (2017) says,
Supposing we live in a simulation, what are the implications for us humans? … the implications are
not all that radical. Our best guide to how our … creators have chosen to set up our world is the
standard empirical study of the universe we see. The revisions to most parts of our belief networks
would be rather slight and subtle – in proportion to our lack of confidence in our ability to understand
the ways of [the post-human simulators]. Properly understood, therefore, the truth [that we are in a
simulated world] should have no tendency to make us “go crazy” or to prevent us from going about
our business and making plans and predictions for tomorrow.
Others disagree and contend that if we seriously believed that the world of our experiences was a
simulation we would value other people, the environment, other creatures, our own lives, less
than we do at present. Kassan (2016, p. 39) says,
Should we treat everyone around us as if they’re just a figment of someone else’s imagination,
shamelessly manipulating them for our own pleasure or gain? Should we take careless risks knowing
we’ll live again in another simulation or after a reboot? Should we even bother to get out of bed,
knowing that it is all unreal?
Would a belief that we live in a simulation make the world a worse place? After all, there would
be, as far as I can tell, no compelling reason to believe that any creator of a simulated world
would design it to be an overall good place (however one defines good). If they are post-
humans, why would we expect them to share some or many of the same concerns or emotions as
we do, including caring for their simulated ancestors or other creations?
For those who like to mix their drinks, we can go further. When was this simulation we
“live in” put into place? Maybe it was set up five minutes ago, complete with a fake past? 26
Are there natural limits to what we can do in our simulated reality that could be transcended if
we were living in other simulations? After all, I can’t walk through walls in many computer
games. Have the simulator(s) of our universe set it up so that we can’t go beyond the speed of
light or live to be three-hundred? Will they thwart our attempts to transcend such limits? If
there are different simulations with different natural laws, could there be worlds in which there
are dragons, fairies, honest politicians, and students who always find our lectures fascinating?
26
Thanks to philosopher Bertrand Russell here. See B. Russell (1921) Analysis of Mind. Allen & Unwin, pp. 159-160.
For those who are losing sleep over this philosophical scepticism, see E. Schwitzgebel (2013) “Empirical evidence that the world
was not created five minutes ago.” The Splintered Mind (blog), Feb 13. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2013/02/empirical-
evidence-that-world-was-not.html or E. Schwitzgebel & A. T. Moore (2015) ‘Experimental evidence for the existence of an
external world’, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, pp. 564-582. doi: 10.1017/apa.2014.27
11
Could the simulator(s) decide to shut it all down? Could they hack around with the present laws
of nature and suddenly modify or program new ones? Could a simulated world have only two
dimensions? 27
The simulation hypothesis, while philosophical, seems to have a degree of plausibility
that “Maybe my neighbour is a shape-shifter” does not. In the end, is it just a matter of
temperament whether people say they “believe” the philosophical simulation hypothesis in the
unusual sense of belief that would be applied in this case? 28 Is it more than just a “dummy
hypothesis” – empirically empty – as some contend? 29 Is there anything that could happen in the
future that would make you re-think your position, pro or con, on the simulated universe idea?
How do you view the probability of arguments given for and against the simulation hypothesis –
do they count for much in your own view? Is the metaphysical simulation hypothesis more or
less probable than the view we are not living in something’s simulation? I think my present
view is closest to that of LaBossiere (2016). Either there is a world that is not a simulation or we
end up with an infinite hierarchy of simulated worlds. The latter is impossible. If there must be
a world that is not a simulation, why not this one?
-----H. Putnam (1981) Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge University Press. Like Descartes,
Putnam considers a thought-experiment regarding global scepticism. In this book, he imagines
someone or something taking your brain out of your skull and putting it in a vat filled with a
special kind of “soup” full of life-sustaining chemicals. Your brain is connected to electrical
wires which stimulate the relevant neurons to produce the same experiences you would get from
external objects. Putnam himself is skeptical about the soundness of the “brain-in-a-vat”
27
Of course, I’m thinking of E.A. Abbott (1884) Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. Seeley & Co. Available online at
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ A tear jerker two-dimensional world where men are polygons and women are
lines.
28
This is an interesting question in many ways, and there is a lot more to it. After all, what about some of the “crazy” views
people have held throughout history regarding the supernatural and metaphysics? See for example, E. Schwitzgebel (2014) “The
crazyist metaphysics of mind.” Australian Journal of Philosophy, 92, 665-682, and by the same author, “Why metaphysics is
always bizarre.” The Splintered Mind Blog, Sept 19, 2011. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2011/09/why-metaphysics-is-
always-bizarre.html Could the universe be information ‘bits’ at bottom after all?
29
My use of the expression “dummy hypothesis” is taken from S. M. Cahn (2017) Religion within reason. Columbia University
Press. Cahn considers a dummy hypothesis to be one compatible with all possible empirical evidence and therefore lacking any
explanatory power.
12
hypothesis. While the speculation goes way, way beyond present day surgical and medical
science, it does rest on some science. For example, Canadian neuro-surgeon Wilder Penfield in
the later 20th century found that memories and past experiences could be triggered in patients by
electrically stimulating parts of his patients’ brains. See
https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/mcgill-pioneers/penfield
Further, we already use medical devices to bypass external sensory inputs and communicate
directly with the brain …think of cochlear implants and neuro-stimulation used with Parkinson’s
patients. The Economist (2017) “What is a brain computer?” The Economist, May 26.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/05/economist-explains-6
-----G. Yeffeth (Ed) (2002) Taking the red pill: science, philosophy and religion in The Matrix.
Smart Pop. A variety of essays on topics such as religious symbolism in the Matrix and thoughts
on virtual reality, artificial intelligence, science fiction and glitches in the Matrix. Well-known
contributors include Robert J Sawyer, Ray Kurzweil, Bill Joy, and Nick Bostrom. All essays are
worth reading.
-----W. Irwin (Ed) (2002) The Matrix and philosophy: Welcome to the desert of the real. Open
Court. A set of essays on a variety of issues that arise from The Matrix, including religion,
reality, mind and matter, and fiction. A bit academic in places, best for those with some
background in philosophy.
----M. Rowlands (2003) SCI-PHI: Philosophy from Socrates to Schwarzenegger. St. Martin’s
Griffin. An enjoyable introduction to philosophy through science fiction movies such as The
Matrix, the first two Terminator movies, Total Recall, Minority Report, Independence Day, Star
Wars, and Blade Runner. The chapter on The Matrix ties the AI in The Matrix with Descartes
demon, the brain in a vat speculation, scepticism, and idealism.
--------N. Bostrom (2003) “Are you living in a computer simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly,
53/111, pp. 243-255. Available at: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Also, “Nick Bostrom on the simulation argument” Philosophy Bites (auditory), 2011.
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/e/4/5e46985a00186b04/Nick_Bostrom_on_the_Simulation_Argume
nt.mp3?c_id=3612374&expiration=1484957808&hwt=1b981b30a2f98ca27cbd31e5ff4a1d5c
Also see (dated 2011) http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html for Bostrom’s replies to
common criticisms of his simulation argument. Bostrom’s 2003 article brought the simulation
hypothesis out of the realm of “just philosophical speculation.” Bostrom is not saying we are
living in a simulation, only that it is a more serious possibility than most realize. The 2003
article covers a wide field, but basically contends that if technological development continues at
the breakneck speed it has over the last few decades, it is likely that we will be able to create a
variety of simulated worlds that contain conscious beings and it is further likely that (given that
this development continues and that mental states can occur in physical creations other than
biological ones), we could be living in a simulated world. His website is available at
http://www.nickbostrom.com/
-----W. Irwin (Ed) (2005) More Matrix and philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded decoded.
Open Court. A follow-up to Irwin’s earlier edited book The Matrix and Philosophy (2002).
Covers all the films in the Matrix movie trilogy; the original The Matrix (1999), The Matrix
13
Reloaded (2003) and the last in the series The Matrix Revolutions (2003). New topics are
discussed such as the meaning of life, faith, love, cynicism, post-modernism and religious
themes.
-----A. Crau (2005) Philosophers explore the Matrix. OUP. A really good quality group of
essays for those with a background in philosophy. Topics covered are largely those covered in
introductory courses in philosophy such as ethics, freedom, values, belief and truth, religion,
skepticism, metaphysics, and robots. Those topics covered are tied in with contemporary
philosophical debates over the status of beliefs for those living in the Matrix along with Nozick’s
“Experience Machine” and Putnam’s ideas.
----P. Jenkins (2006) “Historical simulations: motivational, ethical and legal issues.” Journal of
Future Studies, 11, 1, 23-42. Contends that in the near future we will be able to create historical
simulations that will include artificial intelligences. It is highly likely we are living in one of
those simulations.
----A. Hammarstrom (2008) “I, Sim: An exploration of the simulation argument.” Masters
Thesis. Umea University, Sweden. http://www.simulation-argument.com/hammarstrom.pdf
An academic discussion of Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, most suitable for those with a
background in philosophy and familiarity with recent debates over the mind-body problem.
Contends that given our current stage of technological development and limited knowledge of
the world we live in, Bostrom’s position is, in principle, irrefutable. Further, if we are living in a
simulation then either epiphenomenalism or idealism is true.
-----J. Stangroom (2010) “Maybe we’re not living in a simulation.” Talking Philosophy, Jan 20.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2063
Strangroom argues that if we are living in a simulation then what we say only makes sense
within our simulation and, second that an alternative to the simulation speculation is that we are
living in a “baby” universe – an existing physical universe that we created within our universe.
[For more on the ‘baby universe’ idea, read Z.Merali (2017) ‘The idea of creating a universe in
the lab is no joke’ Aeon magazine, https://aeon.co/ideas/the-idea-of-creating-a-new-universe-in-
the-lab-is-no-joke. ] Very interesting exchanges in the comments section.
-----D. K. Johnson (2011) “Natural evil and the simulation hypothesis.” Philo, 14/2.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/johnson.pdf
Johnson contends the natural evil in our world is better explained by our living in a simulated
world than by appeals to the Christian God. See also Mizrahl, 2017.
-----M. Mahin (2013) “Why you are not living in a computer simulation.” Future and Cosmos
Blogspot. http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013/10/why-you-are-not-living-in-computer.html
Provides several reasons to doubt we are living in a simulated universe. First, the view assumes
human-like consciousness can be produced on a computer, but simulating a universe is more
complex than those advocating the claim believe. Second, there are no plausible motives for
making such a simulation in the first place. Third, we would expect to come across more
anomalies in a simulated world than we do. For example, powerful telescopes might not provide
any more detail than everyday observation of distant objects. Fourth, it would be easier to
14
produce a simulation with one conscious being than one with many so it seems to lead to
solipsism.
-----J. Birch (2013) “On the “simulation argument” and selective skepticism.” Erkenntnis, 78, 1,
95-107. The point of the article is that we do not know if the laws in our (supposedly) simulated
world would reflect in any way the laws outside the simulation, so even the assumptions the
simulation hypothesis relies on may not provide any basis for grounding the simulation
hypothesis in the first place. If the physical laws in a simulated universe are very different from
those outside the simulation, then we have no foundation for talking about limits of what can
happen in computer development or anything else outside the simulation.
-----E. C. Steinherst (2014) Your digital afterlives: computational theories of life after death.
Palgrave Macmillan. A wide ranging trans-humanist speculative review of how computer
science (digital) ideas can revise our thinking about ghosts, reincarnation (as in nested
simulations) and an afterlife (very differently conceived than traditional theological views).
Contends our future identities will be quite different from our bodily biological identities.
-----S. R. Beane, Z. Davoudi, & M.J. Savage (2014) “Constraints on the universe as a
numerical simulation.” European Physical Journal, 50, 148. A paper for physicists! Contends
that there are likely some physical glitches in any simulated universe. They suggest a glitch
might be found regarding cosmic ray energies.
----R.L Kuha (2015) “Is our universe a fake?” Space.com, July 31.
http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html
This article includes engaging interviews with some of the top minds in the science community
on the simulation hypothesis – Nick Nick Bostrom, astronomer Martin Rees, artificial
intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky, technology visionary Ray Kurzweil, and David Brin, space
scientist and sci-fi writer. Kuha thinks the problem of whether consciousness can be simulated
in a computer to be the main hurdle to the plausibility of the simulation hypothesis. Also, its
credibility rests on a number of assumptions regarding the existence and survival of intelligent
civilizations. He maintains that a skeptical agnosticism should be the default view on the topic.
----A. Z. Jones (2015) “Are we living in a computer simulation?” The Nature of Reality,PBS,
Jul. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/07/are-we-living-in-a-computer-
simulation/
Good outline of Bostrom’s simulation argument. Suggests that the universe will be incompletely
known even to advanced civilizations and that “our entire known universe is itself [may be] only
a small part of a grand experiment to understand the fundamental mysteries of the universe.”
---- S. Schneider (Ed) (2016) Science fiction and philosophy: From time travel to
superintelligence. Wiley-Blackwell. Part one of this engaging book covers the topics of
skepticism along with the consideration that we might be living in a computer simulation. Some
of the possible downsides of living in a simulation are described in two short stories. Papers by
the stalwarts Nick Bostrom and David Chalmers are, of course, included. Chalmers contends
that even if we are living in a simulation (here he agrees with Bostrom), it doesn’t lead to full-
15
blown skepticism about everything. We can still learn things, do research and know things (even
if it is only about the simulation we are living in).
----J. Baggini (2016) “We are simulations living in a virtual realm, says Elon Musk. But why do
we like the idea?” The Guardian, June 3.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/03/uploads-universe-simulations-virtual-
world Interesting speculations on why many people find the possibility that we are living in a
simulation thrilling, even though it seems flawed in a number of ways. He agrees with Bostrom
and Chalmers that even if we believed that we were living in a simulation nothing would change:
“Your joys, heartaches, pleasures and pains feel the way they feel, whether they’re experienced
in silicon or carbon.” He suggests that the fact that life remains the same whatever we believe on
this topic might be part of the attraction of the idea, and that such a belief might make life more
interesting.
----R. Manzotti & A. Smart (2016) “Elon Musk is wrong. We aren’t living in a simulation.”
Motherboard, June 20. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-dont-live-in-a-simulation
The authors contend the simulation argument is confused from the start. It is just an updated
version of the old, dated conundrum about the difference between reality and appearance that
found the difference in some imagined immaterial reality. Simulations, whether those in
computer games or the idealistic models scientists use, are not non-physical but aspects of the
physical reality we live in and when we expand talk of simulation to encompass all of reality we
are making a category mistake, viz., talking as if “nobility” is something non-physical beyond
the labels and conventions we give to some people. We live in a physical world and
consciousness and associated feelings and thoughts are tied-in with our physical bodies. There is
no good evidence that consciousness can be realized in computational processes.
----J, Rothman (2016) “What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation?” The New
Yorker, June 9. http://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/what-are-the-odds-we-are-
living-in-a-computer-simulation
The author does not attempt to criticize the simulation argument so much as place it in a cultural
context of recent science fiction and theological speculation.
---C. Moskowitz (2016) “Are we living in a computer simulation?” Scientific American, April
7. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
Moskowitz reports on a debate between those sympathetic to the simulation hypothesis and those
skeptical at a debate at the American Museum of Natural History. Advocates point out that
extrapolating from present technology, it is reasonable to think advanced civilizations will have
the computer capacities to engage in such simulations. Others are skeptical: the probabilistic talk
of being in a simulation is ill-defined claim some skeptics while others contend this concern with
simulation is overly focused on ourselves as well as being untestable.
16
----L. D”Olimpio (2016) “Is reality an illusion? Scientists says we may be living in a computer
simulation controlled by an evil genius.” Mail On Line, Aug 2.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3718312/Is-reality-ILLUSION-Scientist-says-
living-computer-simulation-controlled-evil-genius.html
An enjoyable read through Descartes” evil demon 17th century speculation and Putnam’s 20th
century updated brain-in-a-vat hypothesis. Happily, neither Descartes nor Putnam believed in
their scenarios. The author points out, the only thing that follows is that we cannot be absolutely
certain (whatever that means) that we are not living in a simulation, but we can be certain that we
are thinking.
----S. Kriss (2016) “Tech billionaires want to destroy the universe – seriously.” The Atlantic,
Oct. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/silicon-valley-is-obsessed-with-a-
false-notion-of-reality/503963/
A blunt and satirical look at the simulation speculations and the people sympathetic to it. The
author tells us a super-rich guy says that many of those working in Silicon Valley are obsessed
with the idea that we are living in an artificial computer-generated reality, and that some want to
break out of this simulation. But apart from the computer-generated aspects of the simulation
speculation, Kriss points out that variations on the simulation idea have been around for
millennia so it’s nothing new, and is not sure what these contemporary people are really on
about. After all, the billionaires who, if you can believe them, want to break out of the simulated
reality are already doing pretty damn well inside it, unlike many of us. If these guys think we are
really living in a simulation maybe they should be more concerned about the big honchos pulling
the plug on us rather than spending money on trying to break out into who knows what!
-----P. Juli (2016) “Debunking the simulation argument.” Human Economics, Oct 23.
https://patrickjuli.us/2016/10/23/debunking-the-simulation-argument/ A captivating paper in
which the author provides a moral argument against us living in a simulation created by our
descendants (as advocated by many of those sympathetic to the simulation argument). Basically,
the author contends that over time human beings have become more moral in that we have
expanded our moral concerns for both other human beings and other creatures. It makes sense to
think that this will not be reversed but will continue into any post-human future. If this is the
case, then post-humans in our future would not create the world of suffering that we presently
live in. Further, the author provides arguments from physics to undermine the simulation
argument. The laws of nature don’t seem to be of the type that can be reduced to algorithms or
“computable functions.” He also appeals to the complexity argument – the amount of data alone
that would be required to simulate the universe down to what happens at the nanometer and
femtosecond level would be extraordinary, and besides, surely they would have better things to
do. The author concludes that the probability that we are NOT living in a simulation is at least
99.9%.
----E. Cobb (2016) “Computer simulation as the best explanation for the nature of reality.”
Dissertation for BA Philosophy Honors Degree, Oxford Brooks University.
http://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/ElliotCobb A spirited defence that the simulation hypothesis
based on ideas taken from Bostrom and 17th century philosophy George Berkeley is the best
available explanation of our reality. Cobb considers the assumptions underlying the simulation
17
hypothesis to be plausible given contemporary materialist (functionalist) theories of mind and the
likelihood of our technological advancements continuing at an accelerated rate.
----P. Kassan (2016) “I am not living in a computer simulation, and neither are you.” Skeptic
magazine, 21/4, pp. 37-39. A short article that briefly introduces a large variety of arguments
against the belief that we might be living in a simulated world. The objections include its being
untestable, anthropocentric, and solipsist, and that world/consciousness is too complex to
simulate, and intuitively silly. A nice, quick, overview for the skeptic.
----B. Nye (‘the Science Guy”) (2016) “Is “we are living in a simulation” a testable hypothesis?”
Big Think. Video: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/scientists-find-first-observed-evidence-that-
our-universe-may-be-a-hologram Nye says the whole idea of us living in a simulated world is
untestable and unknowable since who/whatever is doing the simulation could thwart us at every
attempt to test the idea. While we can imagine that we are living in a simulation (after all, many
science fiction stories refer to the idea) it is just unknowable to us, so get on with your life.
-----O. Solon (2016) “Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say its more likely than
not.” Guardian, Oct 11. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-
elon-musk-the-matrix This article is one of the better newspaper reads on the topic. It points out
that some people in Silicon Valley take it seriously, people such as Elon Musk and Rich Terrile
(NASA Propulsion Lab). The case for it includes the observations that we have come so far in
video games in forty years that future games will likely include simulated minds, and that we
might be part of one. Further, the universe conforms to mathematical laws and has small parts
(elementary particles) just like the pixels in video games. Skeptical scientists are also
interviewed. Max Tegmark (MIT physicist) points out that the arguments for living in a
simulation are based on the laws of physics but that is a non-starter if we are living in a
simulated universe since they would themselves be simulated laws and not real laws.
----Ding-Yu Chung (2016) “We are living in a computer simulation.” Journal of Modern
Physics, 7, 1210-1227. An article for physicists. The author contends that conventional physics
cannot clearly explain the physical reality we live in, while a physics of the sort to be found in a
simulated reality would make better sense.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67750
----D. Chalmers (2017) “The mind bleeds into the world.” Edge, Jan.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_chalmers-the-mind-bleeds-into-the-world
Also check out this podcast (Dec 23, 2016) with Chalmers:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/dec/23/constructed-consciousness-are-we-
living-in-computer-simulation-tech-podcast
A wide-ranging and very readable interview with Australian philosopher David Chalmers that
covers the implications of virtual reality and developing technologies for our way of considering
many central philosophical questions. He contends that virtual reality is just as real as the
physical world and that, relatedly, a simulated world would be just as real – the only difference is
that a simulated world would be grounded in information. Multi-universes might be simulated
worlds, we might consider the simulators of our universes local “gods” (but not worthy of
worship), and life would still be meaningful even if we lived in a simulated world.
18
--- A. Gopnik (2017) “Did the Oscars just prove that we are living in a computer simulation?”
The New Yorker, Feb 27. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/did-the-oscars-
just-prove-that-we-are-living-in-a-computer-simulation
An enjoyable tongue-in-cheek article. The recent (February, 2017) Oscar mix-up regarding the
“Best Picture” and the subsequent confusion and panic is obviously evidence of a super-glitch in
the Matrix-simulation we are living in. The recent unprecedented events at the Super Bowl can
only be further evidence that we must be living in a simulated universe.
----- M. Gleiser (2017) “Why reality is not a video game — and why it matters.” NPR, March 8.
https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.it%2F9qfkKy-why-reality-is-not-a-video-game--and-wh/f-
b60f63d5fe%2Fnpr.org
Gleiser does not find Gopnik’s article (above) very funny. Believing that we are living in a
simulated reality has negative consequences for us. It assumes that future advanced civilizations
would be interested in doing ancestor simulations, which is unlikely. After all, they would
already have more knowledge about the world and past than we do and would more likely be
focused on learning even more about the world than looking backwards. Believing that we are
living in such a simulated reality also conflicts with our beliefs in free will and freedom of
choice which “abdicates our right to fight for what we believe in.” Let’s focus on our social-
political realities rather than waste serious time on such philosophical speculations. …
-----S. Hossenfelder (2017) “No, we probably don’t live in a simulation.” Back ReAction,
March 17. http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html
The author (a physicist) contends that the simulation speculation is incompatible with our
contemporary understanding of the natural laws governing the universe as shown in the standard
model and general relativity. We would not be able to reproduce these laws on a computer; at
best we could only approximate them. Those with a science background will find the argument
and accompanying comments of interest.
-----A. Pruss (2017) “Are we in a computer simulation?” Alexander Pruss’s Blog, April 25.
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.ca/2017/04/are-we-in-computer-simulation.html
While the main focus of Pruss’s points is the implausibility of materialism, he does make some
observations relevant to the simulation hypothesis. He contends that the world we live in seems
too high in quality and too large to be simulated. Further, our consciousness is likely too
complicated to be simulated by a computer.
19
----B. E. C. Crew (2017) “Things are super-weird right now, but it’s not a glitch in the Matrix,
says Harvard physicist.” Science Alert. Com, March 3. http://www.sciencealert.com/things-are-
super-weird-right-now-but-it-s-not-a-glitch-in-the-matrix-says-harvard-physicist
Focuses on the skeptical views of Harvard physicist Lisa Randall, who contends the likelihood of
us living in a giant simulation is “effectively zero.” There is much wrong with the simulation
hypothesis; it is untestable, the probabilities stated as positive evidence for it are poorly defined,
we are being overly egotistical even in bringing it up (we are not that interesting as a species),
and weird things happen all the time (that’s just the way the universe is). We don’t need to
postulate weird scenarios like simulation hypotheses.
----M. Mizrahl (2017) “The fine-tuning argument and the simulation hypothesis.” Think,
Summer, 93-102. If we have several competing alternative explanations of the same event, then
our confidence in any particular one of those hypotheses may be reduced until more evidence is
available to make a more informed choice. We can agree that the universe looks “fine-tuned;”
the parts fit together and seem to be “designed” for life. Mizrahl contends that the simulation
hypothesis would be a strong and preferred competitor to the hypothesis that a God designed the
universe on grounds of simplicity and overall predictive sense since it does not require a
“supernatural” creator. See also, Johnson, 2011.
----L. Randall (2017) “Does dark matter harbor life?” Nautilus (online), May 11.
http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/does-dark-matter-harbor-life
I’m not sure how relevant this article is, but it sure got my interest. Most scientists would
consider dark matter as part of our universe, so if our universe is simulated so would dark matter.