The simulation hypothesis is a fascinating idea. If you're unfamiliar with it, it goes something like this. In 1962 we saw the release of Space War! Certifiably, the earliest known digital computer game. This, the predecessor to Pong was as simple as it gets. One took control of a rotatable triangle (sorry, spaceship) and turned it to shoot incoming squares (sorry, asteroids). Simple.
Fast-forward 54 years and we now have near hyper-realistic video games that instantaneously interconnect millions of people worldwide. This, alongside the dawn of virtual reality headsets so powerful they can fool our perceptive and cognitive faculties that they result in a total physiological response, i.e., they can make their user feel sick, experience their body differently, etc. The psychological significance of this new technology is also propelling an entirely new field of study on perception.
Seeing the immense power of our technology and the direction it may be headed in, we can start to see the plausible logic behind the simulation hypothesis. To uncover the idea more clearly let's ask it in the form of a question. Following this projection, will we be able to create a simulation so realistic that its inhabitants wouldn’t be able to tell if it were real? And if this is a possible case, could we be living in one now?
The desire to create such a powerful simulation lies in the hopes of discovering our origins. Many people wish to create such a simulation to do just that. Swimming in the mystery of existence, a powerful simulation could, in theory, answer many of our questions. From abiogenesis and the seeding of life on our planet to a causal model of how the Big Bang could have led to me typing this and you reading it is a profound mystery. A mystery the simulation hopes to shine some light on.
But it remains just a hypothesis. But even as such, it affords us a novel way at looking at some of the problems we’re presented with and are incessantly working on. For instance, its correlation with the Big Bang and inflation theory is profound when one first considers it. Imagine, before space and time, before the Big Bang, the “simulation” is not yet up and running but the “hardware” (ie. a void of potential) is there, already in place, and all of the "circuits" (rules of the game, laws of physics, rational relationships) are programmed into this spaceless space. One only need to put in the particular program they wish to run (Big Bang to Human origins) and add the necessary energy to set it in motion. As one commenter remarked: “The Simulation Argument is perhaps the first interesting argument for the existence of a Creator in 2000 years.” This, because “somebody” needed to create the rules and turn the power on.
One only need to put in the particular program they wish to run (Big Bang to Human origins) and add the necessary energy to set it in motion. As one commenter remarked: “The Simulation Argument is perhaps the first interesting argument for the existence of a Creator in 2000 years.” This, because “somebody” needed to create the rules and turn the power on.
A similar process takes place when, within a video game console or PC, an external source presses the power button. The “simulation” goes from nothing to nearly completely running in an instant. An exquisite analogy seeking to explain the immeasurable insanity of cosmic inflation at the Big Bang and why the laws of physics would breakdown during start-up. Only after this “moment” of chaotic cosmological genesis did the energy condense and the laws and constants of the universe assert themselves could the “simulation” start running properly. Just as it does when you turn on your PC. The physical constants and laws in this scenario are but the necessary rules to ensure smooth operation — the laws of the circuit boards so to speak.
The fact that the gravitational constant is what it is, for instance, is strictly to ensure proper functioning. Yet, there exist anomalies where this “law” may be taken to its limit and break down and "out." In that particular area, the coherency of the simulation falls apart. Of course, we are speaking of a black hole. For, as is well known, tremendous amounts of matter and energy fall into a black hole, yet only the slightest infinitesimal fraction of it is re-released in the form of useless Hawking radiation. Here, in our hypothetical simulation scenario, by “out” we can think of the same energy that needs to dissipate from one’s running computer. The heat energy that necessitates a fan pulling that excess energy away on the “other” side of the simulation. In this world its heat, in cyberspace, a black hole. Hmmm….
One is the all?
Another parallel of this analogy is that the entire simulation is, in essence, one. One and the same energy, one and the same “program,” one and the same ground and void. When we look into a video game from an outsider’s perspective, everything we see on screen is information. 1’s and 0’s. This was beautifully dramatized in the movie The Matrix. Near the end, Neo (and anagram for One) pierces the veil of Maya and sees through the illusion of separateness.
The "ground" in a video game is only the ground by virtue of what it's programmed to be relative to the other information within the game. Likewise, the outer space programmed for our character to run through is equivalent — on the informational level — to that of the objects taking up the very space within it. It’s all purely program, software as pure information.
One could take the analogy further and consider the holographic principle which states that every part contains the information within it to reconstitute the whole. This is how a hologram works; every pixelated part has the informational capacity to reconstitute the entire image. Albeit at different levels of granularity. When you begin to consider the discrete nature of reality as illustrated by Planck's constant, things start to get a bit spooky. The universe begins to look like a distilled lower-dimensional construct of a higher-dimensional who-knows-what.
Finally, to illustrate the blurring of the lines between computers and consciousness, consider an advance recently made in biotechnology. A physical computer chip was installed onto the retina of a blind patient and connected to their optic nerve. It has enabled them to see (although crudely) again. Although this science and technology is still in its infancy, we have here the most powerful and undeniable proof of the link between biological mechanisms and the act of turning the world into a unified field of immaterial consciousness. We have only begun to tinker, and the results, so far, have been astonishing. Newtonian mechanics may no longer help us in predicting the future we are continuously co-creating. Where we may lead ourselves we know not, for we are unable to see past our own horizon. Yet we can see what lies before us on this side; opportunity and further freedom.
One need only carry these recent breakthroughs into the future to start hypothesizing of what we may become and of what we might already be, i.e. a simulation. And thus, we are brought around to answer our question. To which we answer an emphatic no, we do not live in a simulation. This world is far too real and meaningful to give it up to the whims of some all-powerful simulation. To give it up to something outside of and other than ourselves is childish and irresponsible.
Like many of today’s analogies and metaphors, the simulation hypothesis offers us a novel way to look at the world we find ourselves in. But it remains just that, a way of looking and in some cases, aids our understanding. Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk asserted that there is a one and billions chance that we are “base” reality. I assert that we are just that. I don’t believe a simulation of this scale, complexity and beauty is even possible. Furthermore, one would always end in an infinite regress of simulation created simulation created simulation. On and on, ad infinitum. We can avoid this problem of infinite regress by assuming that it is we that are base reality. Further, that any such simulations are not possible or will only ever come from us.
Again, we cannot see past our horizon so we know not what the future may bring. Yet, that doesn’t stop untold amounts of people from predicting this, that, and the other thing. I’ve seen far too many gracious and powerful minds fooled by prediction so I shall refrain from predicting what the future may bring. Until proven otherwise I’ll treat the world as the real place I know it to be. But the truth about what were all doing “down here” is, as far as I can tell, that none of us can tell, and no one truly knows, yet every morning we wake up living a dream we know to be a mystery.
Casey Mitchell is an avid reader and incurable thinker who finally thought to pick up the pen to share his thoughts on life and love and the meaning of existence. A lover of philosophy, he is consistently perplexed and amazed by the ever-unfolding universe. He is the creative pulse behind SophiasIchor.com and writes to share his curiosity and thoughts about this mystery we live.
This article (Coherency in the Simulation — The Metaphysical Laws of its Circuitry) was originally created and published by Sophias Ichor and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Casey Mitchell and sophiasichor.com It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
Featured image is by Ivan Tantsiura