Simulation Theory
Are we just a more sophisticated iteration of the very AI we create?
Read time: Approx 5 mins
Ever walked into a room and felt like the furniture was waiting for you to arrive? Like the couch didn’t exist until you opened the door, and the moment you leave, it returns to pixel dust in some unseen cosmic cache?
No? Just me? Cool…cool.
That unsettling little blip…that “wait, is this all real?” tickle in your lizard brain…has a name. It’s called simulation theory. It’s not just stoner dorm-room philosophy or a George Lucas sci-fi trilogy. It’s a legit scientific hypothesis backed by philosophers, physicists, technologists, and the occasional billionaire with a God complex (looking at you, Elon…).
The crazy part?
There’s a non-zero chance it’s true.
The Simulation Hypothesis
Simulation theory proposes that we might be living in an artificial reality. One created by an advanced civilization, likely using computing power so sophisticated that our universe is indistinguishable from a “real” one. Kind of like The Matrix, minus the leather trench coats and bullet time.
It all starts with philosopher Nick Bostrom’s famous 2003 paper, where he lays out the “Simulation Argument.” He says at least one of the following statements must be true:
Statement 1: Almost all civilizations at our level of development go extinct before becoming technologically mature.
Extinction before reaching the posthuman stage: It is possible that civilizations go extinct before developing the capacity to run high-fidelity ancestor simulations.
Lack of interest in running simulations: Even if a civilization reaches a posthuman stage and has the capability, they might not be interested in creating such simulations. Perhaps they develop different interests or have other priorities that outweigh the desire to simulate their evolutionary history.
Ethical concerns: The creation of simulated suffering could be deemed inhumane, even if it is for research purposes.
Resource constraints: Even for a technologically advanced civilization, the resources needed to create and maintain high-fidelity simulations could be prohibitively large.
Technological limitations: There might be inherent limitations to computing power and the ability to perfectly simulate reality. Some argue that a computer cannot simulate a system larger than itself with perfect fidelity.
Risk of termination: If a simulation is designed for research purposes, discovering that they are in a simulation could lead to its termination, posing a risk to the simulated civilization.
Statement 2: Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
Advanced civilizations might have ethical constraints: The suffering of conscious beings within a simulation could be seen as an ethical issue, leading advanced civilizations to avoid creating them.
A lack of interest or resources: It's possible that technologically mature civilizations simply lack the motivation or sufficient individuals with the desire and resources to run large-scale ancestor simulations.
Laws or regulations: Some advanced civilizations might have implemented laws or regulations to prevent such simulations.
Statement 3: We are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Technological Advancements in Simulation: Rapid advancements in technology, particularly in areas like virtual reality and AI, suggest that creating highly realistic simulations may be possible in the future. The progress made in these areas lends credence to the idea that civilizations far more advanced than ours might be capable of simulating entire universes.
Potential for Observing "Simulation-like" Behavior: Some scientists propose experiments that could reveal "glitches" or anomalies that might indicate a simulated reality. For example, observing unexpected behavior in quantum phenomena could suggest that reality is being rendered at the moment of observation. This is similar to how elements in a video game are rendered when needed.
The "Economic Twist" to the Simulation Hypothesis: This idea suggests the simulation's purpose might be tied to creating a superintelligence or exploring various scenarios related to artificial intelligence. If numerous simulations are run to explore such possibilities, it increases the likelihood of our reality being one of them.
In short: either humanity wipes itself out before reaching that level of computing godhood… or post-human civilizations aren’t interested in creating Sims-with-souls… or we’re probably already booted up on some galactic hard drive.
And before you scoff, remember: this isn't just philosophical performance art. Serious scientists have taken this idea to the lab.
The Math-y Side of Things
If future civilizations do reach post-human computing levels, and even a tiny fraction of them decide to run simulations of their ancestors (out of curiosity, nostalgia, or some digital anthropology degree), they could create billions, even trillions, of simulated conscious beings. Way more than the number of “real” biological humans that ever lived.
In probability theory, this means that if you randomly wake up as a human, it’s vastly more likely you’re one of the simulated ones. The numbers just don’t work in base-reality’s favor.
Still with me? Good. Deep breaths.
The Universe Is Kind Of… Glitchy
Physicists have long been obsessed with the idea that our universe behaves suspiciously like code. The speed of light? A constant limit. Like a hard-coded frame rate. Quantum particles that behave differently when observed? Almost like rendering engines optimizing graphics based on where the player’s looking.
In 2012, physicist Silas Beane and his team even proposed an experiment to test this. Their idea? Look for underlying grid-like structures in cosmic rays, which might reveal the “resolution” of the simulation.
Now, they didn’t find definitive evidence but the mere fact that real physicists are even entertaining the question should give you pause. This isn't conspiracy crackpot stuff.
Consciousness
Then there’s the mystery of consciousness, still one of science’s greatest unanswered questions. How does meat make mind? Why do neurons firing create subjective experience? No one knows. Truly.
Some theorists argue that consciousness might actually be easier to simulate than to explain biologically. Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman even suggests that reality as we perceive it is a user interface, optimized for survival, not truth. Like a desktop icon for “reproduction and calories,” not the messy code underneath.
In a way, that’s how simulations work. You don’t need to render every atom inside a tree if no one’s cutting it down. You just need to create the illusion of a tree when someone looks at it. Efficient. Minimal. Apple-store aesthetics for metaphysics.
Why Would Anyone Simulate Us?
Let’s say we are simulated. The next question becomes: for what purpose?
Are we part of some teenager’s history project? “Welcome to Western Capitalism 101!”
Are we entertainment for alien Twitch streamers? “Dude, watch this guy spiral into an existential crisis over a parking ticket!”
Or maybe… we’re art.
Maybe the simulation isn’t about control or observation. Maybe it’s about creation. An ode to complexity. A sandbox of souls. A sprawling improv show with 8 billion actors, none of whom got the script.
Or, maybe it’s an empathy engine. A divine exercise in learning what it means to suffer, love, yearn, create, and frolic through a world where the rules aren’t clear and the stakes are real.
The Emotional Cost of Thinking This Way
Simulation theory, like any Big Idea, can lead you down dark corridors.
If we’re not “real,” does anything matter? Why bother falling in love, or baking sourdough, or calling your mom?
Ironically, it might matter even more.
If this is a simulation, and you still choose kindness, connection, creativity…that’s not meaningless. That’s defiant beauty. That’s art inside of art. That’s the simulated soul declaring: “I feel, therefore I am.”
And if it’s not a simulation? Well, then you just lived a beautiful, meaningful life anyway. Either way, you win.
So What Do We Do With This?
Here’s what I propose: treat the simulation hypothesis like a philosophical mushroom trip.
Bask in the weirdness. Feel the floor dissolve a little beneath your assumptions. Stare at the edges of the code. And then… come back.
Do the dishes. Text a friend. Pet your dog. Cry at a song. Laugh at a fart.
Live like the simulation is watching…because maybe it is. Or maybe you're the one doing the watching, the dreaming, the rendering. Maybe you’re both.
And maybe…that’s the point.
Final Thought
If you’re reading this and thinking, “None of this matters,” then I’d argue you’ve missed the magic. The question isn’t whether the universe is real. It’s whether you’re real enough to show up for it with full authenticity.
And if you’re here, reading this, feeling something?
Congratulations.
You passed the Turing test.
MORE FREE ARTICLES HERE.