 For Authors: July 02, 2025 Issue [#13215] |
This week: Do You Live in a Computer Simulation Edited by: Max Griffin š³ļøāš  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| In 2003, the philosopher Nick Bostrom wrote a paper asking if you are living in a simulation. He framed the question in a way that let him estimate the chances that you are. His astonishing answer led to a cascade of discussions about the ethical and moral consequences of the answer he found. |
Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
Films like The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor popularized the notion of a simulated reality, populated by simulated people who didnāt know they were living in a simulation. This might seem like clever idea, but in fact itās not at all new. The Thirteenth Floor is based on Daniel F. Galouyeās 1964 novel, Simulacron-3, while in 1942, Robert Heinlein wrote āThe Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoagā, a short story with similar concepts. Indeed, one could argue that Platoās myth of the cave is the progenitor of the notion that our world is a mental construct.
So, how about it? Are you living in a simulation? Weāre going to look at this question from three perspectives: technology, philosophy, and neuroscience. Each gives us surprising answers.
Technology
In order for the question in the title to make sense, two things about our future state of technology must be true.
(A) We will eventually be able to produce simulated people, i.e., self-aware artificial intelligences with the ability to process information in a way thatās indistinguishable from human intelligences; and
(B) We will be able to produce a simulated reality of sensory inputs for these simulated people, and do so in such a way that the simulated people would be unable to determine that they were in a simulation.
Despite all the current hype around AI, we are nowhere close to achieving either of these things. Still, the general consensus is that it is possible, some think itās even likely, that someday, maybe as soon as in the next hundred years, we will achieve the above two things. But the consensus is clear that we wonāt do so any time soon.
In fact, we donāt even have a good definition of what it means to be self-aware, what consciousness is, or our how it arises in our brains. Weāre a long way from even a theory of how to do (A) and (B).
Besides these theoretical constraints, our hardware is also far from being capable of (A) and (B).
Just for comparison, our brains are capable processing between 1014 and 1016 operations per second. Our current fastest super computer processes roughly 1018 operations per second, so that computer couldāin theoryāsimulate as many 104 or as few as 102 human brains. But, that doesnāt take into account simulating the reality for these brains, which could use up another 108 (or so) operations per second. In other words, our fastest supercomputers couldnāt even do a simulation involving a few dozen simulated people and their associated reality, assuming we even knew how to simulate people or reality in the ways (A) and (B) posit.
Philosophy
We already mentioned the myth of the cave, but thereās a 2003 paper by the philosopher Nick Bostrom that asks the specific and personal question thatās the title of this newsletter: are you living in a computer simulation? Bostromās contribution is that he reframes this question: What are the chances you are living in a computer simulation? Instead of āyesā or āno,ā this reframing lets him assign the odds of this being true. Are they one in one hundred? One in a thousand? Even? His reframing gave the following astonishing conclusion.
Bostrom concluded there are exactly two possibilities.
(1) We someday acquire the abilities in (A) and (B) above, in which case it is almost certain you are living in a simulationāthe odds are trillions to one that this is true; OR
(2) We never acquire the abilities in (A) and (B) above, so weāre never able to create the necessary simulation, so the odds are zero.
Since Bostrom regards (A) and (B) as feasible, if weāre not living in a simulation, then conclusion (2) suggests we destroy ourselves before our technology advances to the point that we can create such simulations.
Part of Bostromās argument, by the way, is that if we ever achieve (A) and (B), many simulations will include past realities, as in The Thirteenth Floor. That means that if we ever achieve (A) and (B), the future reality in which we do so will generate simulations that exactly mimic the world we think we live in.
In passing, I should note that Bostromās reasoning in getting to (1) and (2) is open to argument. For example, if (B) includes simulating features like quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, itās not at all clear that we could ever achieve (B) on the scale required to reach his conclusions (1) and (2).
Neuroscience
Neuroscience tells us that most of what we think we see is a visual construct inside our brains, so weāre already living in a simulation, just not one thatās computer-generated.
Try this. Close your left eye. Whatās that big thing jutting into the left side of your visual field? Oh. Of course. Itās your nose. Open your left eye, and it magically disappears. Thatās evidence of your brain correcting what you āseeā by consolidating the visual information from the two eyes and editing out the unnecessary bits. Itās not that your nose isnāt necessary. Itās just that we donāt need to see it in order to avoid that saber tooth tiger lurking in the savanna.
Next, hold out your arm and give yourself a āthumbs up.ā See your thumbnail? Thatās roughly one degree of visual arc. It turns out, thatās how much of the world we can see with 20/20 vision. The rest is blurredāso much so, that weāre legally blind outside of that one degree arc. It doesnāt look that way, because your eye is subconsciously moving around all the time, scanning your environment. The brain patches these scans together, seeking out patterns and predicting whatās in the out-of-focus pieces. Under most circumstances, the brain does a good job of this. Fooling that prediction is the source of most optical illusions.
Then thereās that famous dress. You remember that one, right? Is it blue and black or is it white and gold? The dress revealed individual differences in color perception.
The brain has over 100 trillion neural connections. Thatās more connections than there are stars in the Milky Way. Those connections somehow work together to create us and the world we think we live in. Itās still a mystery how this gives birth to the self-aware, free-willed individuals we all consider ourselves to be. Itās even possible that our perception of self is an illusory construct of this complex neural network.
The point here is that neuroscience seems to be telling us that we already live in a simulated reality, one created by our brains based on our sensory inputs. Also, in case you didnāt know, that input includes information from between fourteen and twenty senses or even more, not just five.
Conclusion
So, whatās the answer? Are you living in a computer simulation?
The consensus is that itās possible we might build such a simulation someday. Bostromās analysis says if we ever do, then the answer is an emphatic yes. But neuroscience says weāre already living in a simulation.
If the real world we think we live in is an illusion constructed by our brains, does it matter if weāre living in a computer simulation? Would your choices be any different if it turned out you are living in a computer simulation? If so, what choices and why would they be different? How about other people? Are they NPCs, non-player characters in the game of life and thus expendable? Or are NPCs, who are exactly the same as real people except for their cybernetic origin, deserving of the same respect and agency as you? What if you're an NPC? If you were, you wouldn't know it (see (B) above).
As authors and artists, these are kinds of questions that are interesting. They are questions about the meaning and purpose of life, about what makes us human, about ethics and morality, about freedom and destiny. Whether reality is just shadows on the wall of Platoās cave or a simulation in Neoās matrix, whether it includes the uncertainty principle or is deterministic, we still have to answer these kinds of questions.
In thinking about fiction and reality, I always come back to something Hemingway said: "I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea, a real fish, and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough, they would mean many things. The hardest thing is to make something really true and sometimes truer than true."
Whether reality is simulated or not, thereās still the shared truth, the truth that Hemingway is talking about, the truth that makes us all human.
Thatās what matters.
|
| |  | Juneteenth (E)
June 19th 1865, a day to remember. Celebrate freedom!
#2342361 by Spud  |
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Footnotes
See this link
Are You Living in a Computer Simulationj. Philosophical Quarterly. 53 (211) April 2003, pp 243ā255.
See Probability and consequences of living inside a computer simulation
This PBS documentary is the source of most of this section.
the dress
How many senses? This printed copy is for your personal use only. Reproduction
of this work in any other form is not allowed and does violate its copyright. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
