The simulated universe theory implies that our universe, with all its galaxies, planets and life forms, is a meticulously programmed computer simulation. In this scenario, the physical laws governing our reality are simply algorithms. The experiences we have are generated by the computational processes of an immensely advanced system.
While inherently speculative, the simulated universe theory has gained attention from scientists and philosophers due to its intriguing implications. The idea has made its mark in popular culture, across movies, TV shows and books—including the 1999 film "The Matrix."
The earliest records of the concept that reality is an illusion are from ancient Greece. There, the question "What is the nature of our reality?" posed by Plato (427 BC) and others, gave birth to idealism. Idealist ancient thinkers such as Plato considered mind and spirit as the abiding reality. Matter, they argued, was just a manifestation or illusion.
Fast forward to modern times, and idealism has morphed into a new philosophy. This is the idea that both the material world and consciousness are part of a simulated reality. This is simply a modern extension of idealism, driven by recent technological advancements in computing and digital technologies. In both cases, the true nature of reality transcends the physical.
Within the scientific community, the concept of a simulated universe has sparked both fascination and skepticism. Some scientists suggest that if our reality is a simulation, there may be glitches or patterns within the fabric of the universe that betray its simulated nature.
However, the search for such anomalies remains a challenge. Our understanding of the laws of physics is still evolving. Ultimately, we lack a definitive framework to distinguish between simulated and non-simulated reality.
If we are, we're emergent behavior, not the topic of study.
Frankly, simulation theory feels a lot like other previous "humans are super special!" ontologies. We're not, we're just organic bags of complex chemical processes like every other lifeform on Earth, with all the cool potential and shitty vulnerabilities that such a thing entails. I've yet to see anything which truly sets us apart as a species beyond the need to ascribe a meaning to our mortality.
Also, phys.org is (yet again) trash and have just reposted this piece as "news" from a book advertisement by the author on theconversation.com but altered the title in a small but meaningful way that conceals the disclosure
Phys.org title:
Original title:
I got dubious as soon as the author talked about “my theory” and then there was the plug for his dumb book.
I haven't looked at it in detail, but the Matrix comparison is likely just a relatable catch phrase to get the average Joe pick up the book.
We are though. As far as we know, we're the only advanced life forms in the known universe. We've scanned the sky for decades and haven't found evidence of even a single culture, not within hundreds of millions of light years from us. That's pretty special. Yes, other animals are likely sentient, but there are no other animals that can build computers, jet engines, and spacecraft. There are no other animals that even have a spoken language as far as we know.
Compared to a being that can build a universe? A spacecraft might as well be a bird's nest. I'm inclined to agree with the guy that you're replying to. If this universe is a simulation, I personally doubt that its creator is specifically aware of us as a species, let alone as individuals. The fact that life appears so rare in this universe only tells me that if the universe was designed, it wasn't designed for us or entities like us.
Also are you sure about that last sentence? Surely none have language as sophisticated as we do, but don't dolphins have a sort-of language? I genuinely don't know
To us a being that can create a universe is a god, not just another creature.
I don't follow your train of thought that the creator of a simulation wouldn't know of the only advanced intelligence within their simulation. They would have specifically coded us, or at least the conditions that led to us. The vastness of the universe and the speed of light limitation is likely the invisible wall meant to keep us where we are.
Dolphins, birds, and some other species have rudimentary auditory communication, but it's very limited as far as we know. They fall far short of a spoken language . They seem to communicate simple concepts such as "I am here. I want food. I want to fuck. You're not welcome", nothing that allows communication of abstract concepts required for an advanced intelligence to flourish.
That's my point - we're just another creature. On a scale of bird to god, we might as well be a bird. It's vain to assume that a universe-creator of all people would give a fuck about human achievements. Only other humans care.
I'm not saying that the creator couldn't know, I'm saying they likely wouldn't care. Of course I'm just guessing same as you, but life in general is probably just noise considering all that goes on in the universe without a trace of life as we define it. My bet is that we're simply outside of the creator's scope. She's probably interested in other things like gravity and the ratio's of elements as time progresses.
Also, you say that we're the only advanced intelligence in the universe/simulation with way too much certainty. We've only been outside of our atmosphere for a little more than half a century, which is to say three things:
"advanced" is relative, if not subjective.
Give it time, we could find life in the next few millennia.
Even if we never find life, Occam's razor. Is it wise to assume that the universe was created for homo-sapiens, when it's possible that life is simply rare and we aren't as advanced as we think we are?
This sounds a lot like the flat-earth ice wall idea. Most thought on simulation philosophy posits that our fixed rate of causation is due to the limits of the media that the universe "runs" on, and we see parallels in our own "simulations". So there's no right or wrong here but again, Occam's razor.
I believe that my first paragraph addresses your last, but I do want to take the anthropological angle. When we thought the earth was flat, many civilizations assumed that theirs was the center. When it became clear that the earth was a globe, we assumed that the sun, planets, and stars orbited the earth, and that the earth was the center of the universe. When we learned that actually the earth orbits the sun, we still thought that the sun was the center of the universe which was just the solar system + the stars before we realized that the sun is just one star, and the sun itself had an orbit in in the galaxy, which we again falsy assumed was the whole universe.
We tend to see ourselves as the center of the universe because that's our perspective, it's natural and intuitive. That assumption has been wrong every step of the way so far though. So what makes you so sure that this time is so different? What makes you so sure that homosapiens, the apes living on one rock on the edge of some random, average galaxy, who only just escaped their planet's orbit just now on a cosmic scale, are the focal point of the entire theoretically observable universe, which they've only just scratched the surface of being able to observe? The fact that they have a few million year evolutionary head start on their chimpanzee cousins? Or a few more million on their dolphin cousins? Or a couple billion on their rock cousins?
A lot of the simulation theory proponents propose that we're the creators of the simulation. That an advanced human society spins up simulations to test theories on whatever... evolution, progress, history, you name it. In that case we're actually nothing. We're lines of code. But we're lines of code created by our future society. Or present society really, but that reality is outside our knowledge.
I just finished a sci-fi fiction series called The World Walker and it gets pretty deep into simulation theory. It was a very interesting and thought provoking read. You have to wade through 2 whole books before they get to that part though, so don't expect to pick it up and jump right in. It's definitely worth a read IMO though, if you're interested.
Anyways, the point is that if we're truly in a simulation, then we're nothing. We don't exist. You could propose that all consciousness is existence, AI or otherwise, but we don't exist in the physical realm. If it is humanity, or some unknown culture that created the simulation is irrelevant as far as we're concerned.
If we're in a simulation then we're meaningful to whoever is running it, assuming we're being observed. I would assume all life is meaningful to them as well though. I guess it depends on their objectives. If we're not in a simulation then we're meaningful to ourselves, being the only advanced society we're aware of. Either way, humanity means something, it's just a shame that none of us can agree on what that is.
Edit: I just read a theory last week that our entire universe may exist inside of a black hole. If that's true then we've indirectly observed multiple universes already. It makes me think of the closing scene to Men In Black where the aliens are playing marbles with our entire universe. That's an interesting theory too.
We're the creators? As in the human race? Okay, I actually think that I understand your point now. If we start with the assumption that the universe was run by beings like us, and they based it on their own universe, then I'd have to agree with your position that those beings would probably be interested in our life.
Whenever I said that the universe could be a simulation, carried out by a creator, I meant those terms in only the most abstract sense. I didn't assume a human or human-like creator, or that our universe has any resemblance to theirs.
Semantics man, that's what it always comes down to. Good conversation
Yup! That's the most common proposition I've read for simulation theory. Good chat indeed.
Actually, it mostly just means our detection methods probably still suck. We are still just trying to identify biomarkers by light refraction, which not only requires that the orbital body transit a star in our line of sight, but that it be large and close enough to register refraction through the atmosphere. And that's pretty new. The old methods were trying to intercept radio and other em signals.
"Decades" ago we had identified 1 or 2 potential planets in the "Goldilocks Zone", and people declared that it was in fact exceedingly rare for a solar system to even have planets, much less planets in the habitable zone. Now we have identified a LOT more potentials, nevermind planets.
You're looking through heavily dirtied goggles at a room that could be full of people and saying, "I don't see anyone, so I must be alone. I must be special."
This is very much a situation in which the "lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack" rule applies.
We only just noticed that Europa is probably a good candidate for life and it's been in our back yard forever. Saying we have no evidence for life in the universe is like saying that someone with vision too blurry to read signs sees no evidence of life across the street. Like, okay, but that doesn't really tell us much of anything.
Our sky scanning is also looking for radio waves, which is probably not a great candidate for finding advanced life outside of our own neighborhood.