Reality As Simulation

A strong argument that we are living in a simulated universe
-- by: Huxwell
MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only

Living in a Computer Simulation

In May 2001, Dr. Nick Bostrom published an interesting article entitled "Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?" in which he argues that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation! This essay provides a synopsis of the article along with some further speculation about the concepts that it presents.

The author begins by pointing out that the process of "consciousness" is essentially independent of a particular platform and could be simulated by any sufficiently powerful processor. By extrapolation of existing technology, a hypothetical "post-human" civilization would have such computing power available.

"It would suffice (for generation of subjective experiences) if the computational processes of a human brain were structurally replicated in suitably fine-grained detail. The amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can likewise be roughly estimated... the number of synapses in the brain and their firing frequency gives a figure of ~10^16 operations per second.

A rough approximation of the computational power of a single planetary-mass computer is 10^42 operations per second... Such a computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an 'ancestor-simulation') in less than 10^-7 seconds."

Along with simulating individual human minds, the environment that they exist in could likewise be simulated, creating a totally seamless "virtual reality".

"Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible... 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 observation of distant stars could easily be simulated without having to simulate every aspect of their internal processes. Microscopic phenomena could also be simulated "as needed" to satisfy a particular observer at a particular time.

"In general, the posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. 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 can skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem."

A "director" who edits the simulated minds and their environment at will?? Now it begins to get interesting. The paper continues with it's main thesis:

"If there were a substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come you are not living in such a simulation?"

First, there's a good chance that we will self-destruct before we ever make it to the post-human stage where we would have the capability of running such simulations. Second, post-human civilizations might choose not to run such simulations either because they consider the practice unethical (due to the suffering of the simulated beings) or because it is simply of no interest to them. However, that still leaves open the possibility.

"If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe...that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the physics of the world we observe. While the world we see is in some sense 'real', it is not located at the fundamental level of reality." [which we could never perceive]

By extending this concept, even a simulated civilization might eventually become capable of generating its own simulated civilizations.

"It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. If we do go on to create ancestor-simulations... we would therefore have to conclude that we live in a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.

Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be too expensive [in terms of the computational power required]. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to reach the posthuman stage."

Before ending the paper, the author briefly touches on the relationship that the creator of such a simulation might have with respect to the created beings inside the simulation.

"In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are omnipotent in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; they are omniscient in the sense that they can see everything that happens.

If nobody can be sure that they are at the "basement-level", then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators [creators]. Our best guide to how our posthuman creators have chosen to set up our world is the standard empirical study of the universe we see."

Comments and Speculation

In recent decades, the theorists of cybernetics and quantum physics have glimpsed the matrix which is the substrate of our perceived reality. Even "solid matter" proves to be nothing but quantum probability, and our consciousness as ephemeral as a bit of software. To quote the author: "We are almost certainly living in a simulation".

Perhaps our only hope to avoid an existential crisis is to realize that any simulation (by definition) is the product of a designing intellect, and that an intellect sufficiently advanced to create such a simulation might have some purpose besides its own amusement for creating it (and us).

Observing the cause-and-effect rules within the simulated reality may be useful for the survival and progress of its inhabitants, but may not be the "best guide" for determining the motivation of the creator who exists outside of the simulation and (by definition) has an incomprehensible intellect. How does one determine the motivation of the artist simply by looking at a painting? Who can know the knower of knowing?

It is possible and in fact likely that the creator would also provide other clues to the game, including his purpose for running the simulation and what he expected the simulated beings (ie, ourselves) to achieve as a result of it. This "meta-knowledge" would certainly be of much greater value than mere observation of the mechanics of the simulated universe!

In traditional religious terms, such clues might be revealed to selected "prophets" or "adepts" within the simulation who were sufficiently "righteous" or "enlightened", as defined by the creator. These "holy men" would then attempt to transmit the revealed "word" or spiritual "insight" to the rest of the group. The value of such knowledge would quickly be tested within the simulation itself; some would accept it, others would reject it.

In this scenario, those who pursue the spiritual meta-knowledge and align themselves with "the will" of the creator (whatever it might be) would continue on to the "higher plane" or "new earth" of the next iteration of the simulation. Those who don't would simply cease to exist at the end of the simulation or perhaps face a series of "rebirths" at various points within the simulation.

The creator might terminate the simulation at "the end of time" not because it is too expensive to continue it, but because the current iteration was planned to run only for a finite time. Why would humans be allowed to colonize the galaxy, for example? The process could take millions of extra cycles, but what benefit would it generate for the creator (or us)? It also seems unlikely that we would ever become "post-human" within the current simulation; there would be no point in allowing it to occur.

UPDATE: For further discussion, see the "Quantum Realism" series by Dr. Brian Whitworth (2010). He proposes an alternative to the "standard model" of particle physics based on a discrete grid of quantum states and a much simpler set of rules describing their interactions:

"The current dominant theory, physical realism, was simple enough a hundred years ago, but what began with mass and charge now needs isospin, hypercharge, color, chirality, flavor, anti-matter and other esoteric properties to work. The 'standard model' today is an ad-hoc theory of sixty two core particles, with dozens of data-derived parameters...but it [still] can’t explain dark energy, gravity, proton stability, dark matter, anti-matter, quark charge, neutrino mass, neutrino spin, family generations, quantum randomness or inflation -- none of which are minor issues... The standard model of physics is a masterpiece of descriptive science that should have led to a causal model, but since quantum states aren’t physical, the options for physical realism were bleak... The standard model survives because it refuses to say what 'physical existence' is. If asked what its particles are made of, it retreats to equations of quantum waves that aren’t particles at all...

In quantum realism, light is space spread out, matter is light bottled up, and charge is the permanent processing remainder. The sixty two elementary particles, five invisible fields, sixteen charges and fourteen virtual bosons of the standard model are replaced by one core program interacting on the channels of one grid network that generates the entire physical world, so the universe is simplicity combined not complexity reduced."

-- from Quantum Realism, chapter 4, "The Matter Glitch"