Why We Might Be Living in a Computer Simulation

Article by Connor Raffa Photo by Anuha Tatineni Graphic by Jaidyn Holt

Why are we here? No single question has had a bigger impact on Earth today. It has undoubtedly changed the lives of billions (it’s the foundation of nearly 4300 religions) and has stumped even the most brilliant people of all time. In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom sought out to solve this question for himself. And, out of all the possible answers, his simulation hypothesis — as crazy as it sounds — is the best explanation yet.

The theory, sounding straight out of The Matrix, proposes that our entire universe is a computer simulation. As explained by Elon Musk and other proponents of the theory, if you assume any rate of improvement in our technology from now until the ultimate heat death of the universe, 1 Googol (10100) years from now, mankind will eventually be able to simulate our own existence.

This makes sense considering developments thus far. Writing was only invented 5,500 years ago, and innovation since then has followed an exponential progression. In the past 20 years alone, we have seen the evolution of smartphones, and have even developed complex virtual reality gear like the Oculus Rift.

Just as technology has improved, so has our understanding of the universe and the human body; we have made vast improvements in the realms of physics and anatomy, respectively. Plus, this current trajectory of innovation doesn’t even consider the idea of technological singularity and an intelligence explosion (that’s a topic for another time). Needless to say, the notion that we can one day simulate our own existence is not as absurd as it seems.

Given this context, Bostrom infers that one of the following three situations will occur: 1. Humans will die out before we are capable of running high-level simulations. 2. Humans will have no interest in developing or running high-level simulations. 3. Humans will develop and run high-level simulations indistinguishable from reality.

Out of these three possibilities, number three seems by far the most plausible. Though fears of a nuclear war or other doomsday events remain, it’s difficult to imagine the entirety of the human race being wiped out anytime soon. Furthermore, human curiosity has proven to be powerful, and given the benefits of running simulations it’s not hard to see all ethical concerns being tossed to the side.

This leaves us with situation three. If this the case, what’s to say we’re not already in a computer simulation ourselves, one created by a higher reality in which humankind has already reached that level of advancement?

Preston Greene, who received his doctorate in philosophy from Rutgers University, estimates that a computer could simulate the entire history of humankind a million times over every second. With only one “base reality” and an almost infinite amount of possible “ancestor simulations,” if humans become able to run high-level simulations, the chances that we are the original reality is not great. We could very well be a simulation, within a simulation, within a simulation and so forth.

A more contemporary analysis of the hypothesis done by Columbia University astronomer David Kipping combines situations one and two, condensing Bostrom’s trilemma into a dilemma, a statistical approach known as a Bayesian analysis. According to Kipping, this yields about a 50/50 chance we’re living in a simulation, and as mankind gets closer to being able to run high-level simulations, and time goes by without us wiping each other out, this will only increase.

Certain observations about our universe as it is today could also tip the scales in favor of Bostrom’s theory.

“If you look around us, you’ll see a lot of laws and rules that govern the physical world that seem almost arbitrary and in tune with the same limitations of a program,” senior Rom Peles said, who has explored the theory himself. “For example, proponents sometimes say that since speed of light limits the speed at which something can move, it resembles a type of limitation that is currently used in computer programs. Perhaps it exists because the rest of the universe hasn’t loaded yet.”

Though she doesn’t personally subscribe to the theory, physics teacher Dr. Elmaire Mortimer likens the theory to other questions elicited by the study of physics.

“There are constants in physics that we don’t understand why they’re there,” Mortimer said. “Why is the speed of light fixed? Why is the cosmological constant a certain value? Why is the Higgs boson a certain value? Those questions we do not yet have answers for. So, I think one of the takes of the simulation theory is ‘oh, maybe the answer is that it’s a simulation.’ But you can’t test that answer.”

Mortimer highlights that the two major issues with the theory are that it is unverifiable, but also unfalsifiable.

At this point, we’re left with the same question philosophers have been toying with for centuries: if we’re living in a simulation, then what is our purpose? Why are we here? Greene writes that there are two main possibilities: entertainment or research.

In regard to entertainment, there is a chance that we all live in a higher universe and have paid to live a more interesting life in this simulation. If that’s the case, we might wake up one day to find out we have an entirely different life on the outside.

However, Green argues that most likely, our simulation is for research purposes. He argues that, for example, if one were to study the causes of war, they would need to run a large number of simulations to be sure and could even run an infinite amount. Thus, if mankind does become able to run high-level simulations, there will likely be more for research purposes than there are for entertainment purposes, so we most likely inhabit the former.

Even if it turns out that we are not living in a simulation, there has yet to be an explanation for our existence better than this. Though this theory is far from certain — it’s difficult to fathom any idea of this magnitude ever being so — it at least poses a plausible explanation for us being here and deserves much more mainstream attention.