The idea that we are softÂware emaÂnaÂtions in a vast, unimagÂinÂably comÂplex comÂputÂer simÂuÂlaÂtion may carÂry more dizzyÂing philoÂsophÂiÂcal, ethÂiÂcal, and psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal impliÂcaÂtions than any othÂer metaÂphysÂiÂcal assumpÂtion. It is not, howÂevÂer, quite a new idea, even if machines sophisÂtiÂcatÂed enough to make worlds are only now conÂceivÂable. We see ancient sages specÂuÂlate that solÂid matÂter is no more than some sort of graphÂiÂcal (tacÂtile, etc.) user interÂface origÂiÂnatÂing from the mind of a masÂter coder.
We see a simÂiÂlar idea in the immaÂteÂriÂalÂism of 18th cenÂtuÂry British empiriÂcist George BerkeÂley. And where would sciÂence ficÂtion be—especially the halÂluÂciÂnaÂtoÂry sci-fi of Philip K. Dick—withÂout variÂeties of the simÂuÂlaÂtion theÂoÂry? The TED-Ed lesÂson on simÂuÂlaÂtion theÂoÂry, above, by UniÂverÂsiÂty of MaryÂland physiÂcist Zohreh DavouÂdi (aniÂmatÂed by Eoin Duffy) opens with a quote from Dick: “This is a cardÂboard uniÂverse, and if you lean too long or too heavÂiÂly against it, you fall through.”
In Dick’s world, this hapÂpens freÂquentÂly. But if our realÂiÂty were a simÂuÂlaÂtion, how could we posÂsiÂbly step outÂside it to conÂfirm? ProvÂable or not, the theÂoÂry is endÂlessÂly comÂpelling. DavouÂdi walks us through a couÂple of fasÂciÂnatÂing sciÂenÂtifÂic attempts to “fall through” by theÂoÂrizÂing the eviÂdence we might expect to find if the uniÂverse is made of code.
For one thing, there would probÂaÂbly be glitchÂes. To corÂrect for errors, “the simÂuÂlaÂtors could adjust the conÂstants in the laws of nature.” Tiny shifts, perÂhaps undeÂtectable with curÂrent instruÂments, could sigÂnal heurisÂtic reviÂsions. OthÂer theÂoÂretÂiÂcal approachÂes involve using subÂatomÂic parÂtiÂcles to detect the finite limÂits of the godÂlike computer’s powÂer.
Would findÂing shifts in physÂiÂcal laws prove a simÂuÂlaÂtion. No. And in any case, our entire species could have come and gone before any such shifts have takÂen place. We canÂnot preÂsume that humans are the choÂsen benÂeÂfiÂciaÂries of the simÂuÂlatÂed uniÂverse. Maybe we’re proÂtoÂtypes. Maybe our solar sysÂtem is someone’s side project. Wouldn’t the simÂuÂlaÂtors notice us figÂurÂing it out and preÂvent us from doing so? (They would, preÂsumÂably, be watchÂing.)
And why should the great comÂputÂer have anyÂthing resemÂbling the comÂpuÂtaÂtionÂal limÂiÂtaÂtions of our own machines, DavouÂdi asks. After all, if it exists outÂside the uniÂverse as we know it and creÂatÂed its physÂiÂcal laws, it’s safe to assume that it exists in a difÂferÂent uniÂverse with entireÂly difÂferÂent laws, which we might nevÂer begin to underÂstand. If your mind falls into pools of infiÂnite regress when conÂtemÂplatÂing the idea—aided by conÂsciousÂness-raisÂing subÂstances or otherwise—you won’t find anyÂwhere safe to land in the othÂer simÂuÂlaÂtion videos here, from Vox and phiÂlosÂoÂphy YouTube chanÂnel KurzgeÂsagt. But you might begin to see the conÂcept as a litÂtle more plauÂsiÂble, and maybe more unsetÂtling, than before.
Elon Musk, for examÂple, drawÂing on the work of Oxford philosoÂpher Nick Bostrom, sugÂgests that the simÂuÂlaÂtors are not extra-dimenÂsionÂal beings (or whatÂevÂer), but hyper-sophisÂtiÂcatÂed future humans runÂning Sim verÂsions of their past. This verÂsion also becomes the philoÂsophÂiÂcal equivÂaÂlent of mise en abyme as ancesÂtor simÂuÂlaÂtions, run on othÂer planÂets, creÂate their own simÂuÂlaÂtions, ship them offÂworld, and so forth.…
You can go as far down this rabÂbit hole as you like. Or, you can do as Samuel JohnÂson supÂposÂedÂly did when he heard BishÂop BerkeÂley claim that matÂter didn’t exist. Kick the nearÂest heavy object and shout, “I refute it thus!”
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness.
Leave a Reply