Are we the creators of the universe or the creat2ures of a simulation?

We discuss the possibility that humans are simulating the universe, and explore the possibility that we are actually living in a simulation through five hypotheses.

 

We can’t experience the universe as it really is, unfiltered and real. Science has been constantly advancing to answer many philosophical questions, such as ‘what is a human being and what is the world we live in’, which has expanded our understanding of the universe. In the future, it may be possible to simulate the entire universe. We might be able to create life like a creator and simulate the entire world they live in. But what if we are not the creator, but the creation? What if we assume that this world is not real, and that we can’t even know it?
With our current state of technology, we can’t simulate everything in the universe. But we don’t have to. We just need enough of the world to believe that the simulated creations are real, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. Who needs trillions of galaxies? You just need a space that your creatures are allowed to explore. The vastness of the universe can be just a flat projection, like painting the sky on the ceiling to mimic it. Nevertheless, the people living in it would have no way of knowing that. What about smaller things like cells or bacteria? They don’t need to be represented either. The things we see through a microscope may be created simultaneously with our observations. Similarly, the chair you’re sitting in doesn’t need to be simulated down to the last atom. All it needs is a shell. It may be empty inside until you open it up and look inside. The minimum requirement for a simulation is the consciousness of the creatures. They just need to think of it as real.
To answer this question, we can consider five hypotheses based on Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom’s “simulation hypothesis”: if all of them are true, then we are living in a simulation. If all of them are true, then we are living in a simulation. The first hypothesis is the premise that it is possible to simulate consciousness. No one knows what conditions must be met to create “consciousness,” but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we can simulate the brain to create consciousness. If we consider each interaction between synapses to be an operation, the brain performs about 10¹⁶ operations per second. Simulating one person is not enough. Imagine simulating 200 billion people with an average age of 50. If we approximate a year to be about 30 million seconds, and multiply 50 years, 200 billion people, and 10¹⁶ operations by 10¹⁶ operations, we realize that we need a computer that can perform at least 3×10³⁶ operations per second. That’s more than the number of all observable stars in the universe combined. The existence of a computer capable of such computations seems impossible, but it may not be.
The second hypothesis is that technological progress never stops. Assuming that technological progress continues at a similar pace and in a similar way as it has been, at some point technology will become so advanced that it will reach a godlike level. At that point, it would be very easy to simulate another civilization at that level.
The third hypothesis is that highly advanced civilizations do not destroy themselves. If all civilizations are doomed to self-destruct, then this discussion ends here. No simulation would be possible if life could not self-destruct and survive for a long time.
The fourth hypothesis is that civilizations that have the ability to simulate actually want to do so for some reason. When creatures speak of their creator’s civilization, they most likely do not know what the creators are dealing with. When humans look at the world solely through the lens of “man-made standards,” they may be grossly mistaken. Imagine the smartest ant on the planet. No matter how hard you try to explain to it what it is doing, it doesn’t understand human concepts. The concepts of amusement park roller coasters, waiting in line, holidays, and fun would make no sense to an ant living the life of an ant. The same is true when comparing humans as creatures to their creators. To them, we are just another ant. It might be foolish to think that creators would run simulations just for fun or for science. But if they want to run a simulation for any reason, and if the first three hypotheses are true, it’s not very unlikely that we are living in a simulation.
Finally, the fifth and final hypothesis is that if many simulations already exist, there is a high probability that humans are included in them. If simulated worlds, or virtual civilizations, exist, there must be many of them. A civilization that is capable of creating a single virtual civilization can be thought of as a level of computing power that is virtually unparalleled. And if they’re running simulations, they’re probably running millions or billions of them. If there are billions of simulated universes, then there are probably more conscious beings than that number multiplied by that number. This means that the vast majority of all conscious beings are simulations. So what we feel is real may not be real at all. We may be simulations.
All of these hypotheses are based on a lot of assumptions that we can’t really test with our current technology. They only present one possibility of what humans and the world we live in are. We could be real, living on a small planet headed toward eternal nothingness, or we could be virtual beings in a computer simulation that aliens are watching with interest. But whether we’re living a simulated life or not, nothing much changes. However, this kind of thinking does give us the opportunity to question the “absolutes” we’ve come to take for granted about humans and our civilization. The hypothesis that we may be simulated beings is an opportunity for reflection, an opportunity to abandon complacency, and a springboard for further qualitative development.