Physicist: This has become a whole thing. Although it has shown up in a lot of incarnations throughout history, the most recent is something like this: Computers are getting better all the time and some day artificial reality will be indistinguishable from reality. Also, people love to use computers to simulate stuff, so maybe people in the far future will want to simulate the whole universe. And if they do, they’ll probably do it lots of times. So that means that most of the consciousnesses that will ever exist, will exist inside of those simulations. So all things being equal, you’re probably a simulation. QED
The thing is… there are issues. Right off the bat, you can’t do a full-resolution, real-time simulation of an entire universe inside of a similar universe. Like all simulations, you have to cut corners. Maybe stars outside of our galaxy really are just dots. Maybe atoms are only rendered when someone bothers to break out an electron microscope. As far as anyone will ever be able to tell, there’s no difference between a “universe simulation” and a “perception of the universe simulation”.
Not everything can be swept under the digital rug. You, personally, must exist in some form because you’re thinking about it (right now in fact). More accurately, I must exist. The jury’s still out on you and everyone else. And as long as RAM is a problem, there’s no point fulling rendering everyone else’s mind, so maybe you don’t live in a huge universe simulation, you live in a tiny “you simulation”.
“Maybe we’re all just brains in (super gross) boxes!”
It is not impossible that all of our perceptions, or even our minds, are simulated, but there’s no way to know for sure. And that’s a huge problem. The statement “Hey, maybe we’re all just brains in boxes!” isn’t the beginning of a scientific debate, it’s the unceremonious end of it. The whole point of science is that we can have plenty of theories and ideas, but ultimately the physical universe is what settles debates. Removing physical reality from consideration means that nobody gets to be right or wrong or even informed. Instead of furthering human knowledge, we just get locked into a solipsistic cage match with no referee.
“Our avatars were created in our Simulator’s image and exist by Their whim alone” is… conveniently familiar. But the idea that the super-reality is anything like ours is a hard guess with no solid justification. Without a physical reality to experimentally bounce ideas off of, the scientific process is rudderless. There’s nothing we can usefully say about our hosting super-reality, and even less about the motivations of the “people” living in it. For example, we know that some people do use computers to simulate the universe (nerds), but the overwhelming majority of simulations, especially those with people in them, are used for absurdly unrealistic fantasies (congratulations to Kyle Giersdorf by the way). Therefore, assuming that we’re simulated and all things being equal, our simulation is totally unlike the super-reality where our universe is most likely running on a phone in someone’s pocket. Or it’s being simulated in a dream. Or in a book. Or a spontaneously spawned theocracy of Boltzmann Brains. Or any other mechanism that you’re totally free to make up. How could you be wrong? Double QED!
So declaring the unreality of our reality isn’t wrong, it’s just… not a useful way to spend time when you’re sober. If the simulation is convincing (and it seems to be), then the best you can do is a sort of Pascal’s Computer: given the two possibilities, either the universe is real or it isn’t, you may as well at least pretend it’s real. Keep eating food, don’t walk into traffic, be considerate to animals, etc. You know: live in the world.
That all said, if we do live in a computer simulation that isn’t explicitly designed to fool us, then hopefully there should be some way to determine that fact: scrolling green Matrix code, the same black cat walking by twice, or maybe something more subtle.
Enter James Gates, who noticed something subtle. If you’ve ever heard someone mention that some physicist found evidence that we’re living in a simulation, they’re probably talking about Gates (this has kinda been his thing for a while). The claim has been made that Gate “discovered computer code” in the laws of physics. Before you get too excited about that implying that some physicist found lines of code floating around in Newton’s laws or get overly worried that someone might accidentally execute a “goto 10”, that’s not what he’s talking about and more importantly, that’s not what he did.
Gates is a string theorist who’s unhappy with the equation-centric way physics is done. Which is fair. The universe is described beautifully and (as far as we can tell) perfectly by mathematics, but that doesn’t necessary mean that equations are the best way to do that math. For example, you could talk about light flux by saying “Hey everybody, 
Gates found a cute way to talk about the equations of string theory using what he calls “adinkras”, named after the symbols the Akan people used to represent complex ideas. How this is done is a whole thing, and he spell’s out the broad picture in the article he wrote for Physics World way better than I can. Here’s the long and the short of it: when Gates applied his adinkra-nating technique to some of the equations he was looking at, he found that the resulting adinkra had a cute pattern. That in itself is not unusual. Patterns show up all the time.
Gates’ adinkra for some string theory equations. Each ball is an equation and the lines are relationships between them (a variety of different derivatives). The numbering is an artificial addition.
This pattern, once some binary digits have been slapped on, looks like a similar pattern that shows up when you deal with “doubly even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes“. Not for nothing, it also looks a bit like the skeleton of a hypercube. Patterns show up.
While “doubly even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes” does sound very scienceful, it’s also a long way to go to find a matching pattern. Especially considering that the equations in question have nothing to do with error correction. Gates, by way of Wigner, may have said it best:
“… If that sounds crazy to you – well, you could be right. It is certainly possible to overstate mathematical links between different systems: as the physicist Eugene Wigner pointed out in 1960, just because a piece of mathematics is ubiquitous and appears in the description of several distinct systems does not necessarily mean that those systems are related to each other. The number π , after all, occurs in the measurement of circles as well as in the measurement of population distributions. This does not mean that populations are related to circles.”
“Do we live in a computer simulation?” is a great question to ask and a terrible question to answer. Ultimately the simulation hypothesis is a theological idea, not just because it gives us all kinds of new gods to worry about (“Dear usr1, please do not delete me…”), but specifically because it can neither be proven nor refuted by any physical experiment or investigation. Until that changes, we should answer this like other similarly profound questions like: “Is there a really fast, quiet person standing behind me all the time?”, “Does the light stay on when I close the refrigerator door?”, “Did the universe suddenly start, as it is, ten minutes ago?”.
Nope.
Okay. You have all finally figured it out. Everyone is just living in a fantastic computer simulation.
The simulation was conceived and put in motion by my friend Gary. He is a very clever guy. He and I are the only real humans outside of the simulation, except for the few who were alive when we started the program, and who will eventually all die out.
And of course, we are also controlling every bit of data everywhere, including this interesting website.
I believe the assumption “You, personally, must exist in some form because you’re thinking about it” is wrong. Let’s assume that people in a computer simulation do have a consciousnesses. What if I do the simulation instead with a computer with pen and paper, i.e. every single calculation that the computer would do for the simulation I would do myself with pen and paper. Is now the consciousnesses of the people somehow embedded in the writings on the paper? I believe a simulation is only an illustration of theory, it hasn’t any meaning if that simulation happens or not, therefore I believe that consciousnesses can exist in theory.
Our universe is similar to a fractal. For example, the formula of the Mandelbrot set (z² +c) creates an infinite complex structure. The laws of nature create an infinite complex universe, including life. The question is: Does the Mandelbrot set only exists in the moment it is rendered by a computer? I believe it always exists in theory, the same applies to our universe.
The assumption that our universe only exists in theory also solves mysteries like “How does something come from nothing?”. Also, the multiverse theory makes more sense when we assume that all parallel universes and our own universe only exist in theory.
@Markus
“I think therefore I am” was about the only good thing to come out of Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy”. The idea is that, even if you are a brain in a box, if you can think, then at least you know you’re something. If your consciousness is successfully being calculated with pen and paper, then you still exist. You might be surprised to know that you’re being very slowly and inkily derived, but you’re still something.
@nekko
Thanks for letting us exist and please enjoy our many mini-quests!
“Removing physical reality from consideration means that nobody gets to be right or wrong or even informed. Instead of furthering human knowledge, we just get locked into a solipsistic cage match with no referee.”
Could not agree more. Would the author extend this concept to the string landscape and multiverses and all the other mathematically consistent yet utterly unobservable concepts? Because from where I sit, the concept of a simulation is a whole lot less complicated than some of the ideas I hear coming out of theoretical physics these days. Occam’s Razor. And if we reject simulations because they are unobservable (which may not be true), then we have to reject a good chunk of what passes as physics today.
“be considerate to animals”; I’m glad you take this stance; many people don’t (and I don’t particularly like those people);
As for the rest … I think not;
We all have read about Newton’s Clockwork Universe (some stuff below from Wikipedia)
“In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every aspect of the machine predictable”
“The Notion of the World’s being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God’s Government in reality out of the World”
Yup – back then everybody said “that’s it ! it’s a Clockwork Universe”; everybody was excited – ‘finally we’ve figured it out!’ now comes the computer age and ….
@The Physicist
With the pen and paper analogy I was trying to show that there doesn’t seem to be a hard border between simulation and theory. I mean, I draw some signs on a paper and then suddenly a consciousnesses comes into existences? I don’t believe that.
The fact that I’m thinking doesn’t prove to me that I’m either real or simulated. Myself and the rest of the universe can only be a theoretical construct without being real or simulated. 1 + 1 always equals 2, regardless if someone is calculating 1 + 1 or not. When you can’t answer the question whether or not you are a simulation then you can’t answer the question whether or not you are only a theoretical construct.
I see our universe like a four-dimensional (or five-dimensional with many-worlds interpretation) fractal that can be calculated out of the formula represented by the laws of nature. Multiverse theory says that there are an infinite amount of universes with different laws of nature. I don’t believe that these infinite amount of universes actually exist or are being simulated. But I believe in multiverse theory, because our universe seems to be fine-tuned and I don’t believe in a god.
See “Physics and the Integers” by David Tong. His claim is that “… when it comes to constructing a lattice version of the theory, it has consequence: no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model. Which means that no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the current laws of physics.” From this he says, “I included it in this essay mostly as a warning shot to those who would insist that it is obvious that Nature is digital. But it may be worth considering the possibility that the difficulty in placing chiral fermions on the lattice is telling us something important: the laws of physics are not, at heart, discrete. We are not living inside a computer simulation.”
I light can be curved by gravity (ie the lens effect), the it must have mass. If it has mass, then how can it have instaneous acceleration?
What are magnetic force fields made of? Could they possibly be broken down into define packets or defined, individual entities?
It seems obvious to me that gravity is not a force at all but the warping of space and time.
the “Russell’s teapot” theory seems very applicable to this question.
“Ultimately the simulation hypothesis is a theological idea […] specifically because it can neither be proven nor refuted by any physical experiment or investigation.”
What makes you think that? That may or may not be true. A lot of things have been thought to be untestable until they turn out to be testable.
As I’ve already said, I don’t seriously believe this theory as attractive as it might be. It falls under the category of things that have zero supporting evidence, and yet cannot realistically be disproven. i.e. It’s a “Russell’s Teapot” problem, and should be ignored.
But I will admit, there is one rather pesky problem that it would answer rather neatly, if true. The “Where is everybody?” problem that plagued astronomers everywhere is getting increasingly hard to swallow the longer we search. And if there really isn’t anybody else out there, because the universe is really just a simulation centered around earth, then it would make a certain amount of sense for the rest of the universe to be a bit less detailed than our little piece of it.
After all, from earth, we can’t really see the rest of the universe all that clearly. The simulator can fudge some details here or there to make it easier to manage. Maybe that explains the whole cosmic background radiation thing, and why the universe seems to have such a finite start date.
But just because this in a sense answers a question, doesn’t really make it valid. There is to my knowledge, no way to prove this is true. And equally important, there is no way to prove it isn’t. Lacking any evidence either way this whole notion is exactly what it sounds like, a crazy unfounded theory.
As long as you consider the String Landscape to also be a Russell’s Teapot, then we’re in agreement.
Thanks for dotting those i. Years back when I exited the movie theater after viewing “Matrix” my first reaction was disdain for the many in the audience who were manifesting that the general idea had never independently crossed their minds, therefore blown. Descartes’ Cogito, as you point out. I was also dismayed at how the movie “educated” to it in the way that now shows in the unquestioned grammar of the question, “Do we live in a computer simulation?” — I mean, the plural of “we” together with the singular of “a simulation”. Etc.
To keep this short I’d just quote an aphorism of my own that alludes to another angle on the general matter:
Ambiguities are like microbes : the pathogenic ones kidnap the attention.
@nekko
shush, don’t tell anyone