<< Are we in a simulation?

 Let’s embark for a moment on philosophical journey, and for a moment consider that reality as we know it is fundamentally false, or at least a pale mirror of some other reality that we still cannot comprehend.

This is the argument of Nick Bostrom in “Are you in a computer simulation?”.

His main argument lying roughly on the fact that we our current technology allows us rough estimations of the required computational power to simulate a human mind. The thought of simulating a human brain (and therefore allow for the complexity of a mind) has been around at least since Asimov’s Robot Dreams, but in real scientific consideration for at least a decade.

All of these facts open to the possibility that we ourselves are a simulation, it is after all something we are doing limited as we are, and in a field with constant improving (think of AI for example).

Bostrom’s most interesting argument however and a speculation of my own come at the end of his article. Let’s entertain for a moment the idea that we indeed living on a simulation. Let’s take a step further, let’s assign this simulation a purpose and define it as a “a preparation phase”.

We do this with utmost care for a prerequisite of our experiment is that we lack a proper reference to understand the motivation of whoever (or whatever is running the simulation), this by simple virtue of it belonging to a different plane of existence.

Let’s move one step further and imagine that from that perspective this simulation of ours, which goes as far as to allow free will and conscience to a degree of knowledge; exists as a filter, in order to determine our possible degree of integration outside the simulation.

On simple terms, we exist to demonstrate that we are competent enough to take part in these hypothetical higher being’s society.

By this logic, our life in itself would be a “test”, a preparation arena for “the real reality”.

If this was somewhat true, it might be in the best interest of these higher beings to stablish a set of rules while codifying it in a way that it becomes accessible to an inferior level of development. Not unlike how we relate tales to children in order for them to understand the world.

The higher being would then recur to images in order to make this appealing or downright scary and hence propagate a behaviour in accordance with its purpose. We would call this, religion.

And the ultimate reward, our true existence at the end of this simulation.

We cannot of course prove nor deny this, as our existence is bound to our current perception of reality. And this is not to say that there’s not an objective reality for us.

Let me clarify: a dream for example is real in the context of a dream. In dreams objects, threats and rewards are still real for our corporeal representation. In the same way, even if all of our reality was a simulation, it’s very much real for us. This saving us from a nihilistic perspective.

This doesn’t mean of course that we could set our own rules, since the parameters of our simulation are already decided by it who runs the simulation. The point being that even if we are in a simulation, we are not in charge of it, and are ultimately limited by its parameters.

Still, simulated or not; we are in this reality, for now…

return 0;