Introduction: Simulation theory has fascinated philosophers, scientists, and futurists alike. The idea that we live in a highly advanced simulation created by hyper-intelligent beings is captivating. But what if our simulators aren't as enlightened as we imagine? One key theory I propose, the Copy-Paste Fallacy, suggests that it’s far easier to simulate a self-organizing system than to manually program every detail of a universe, such as photosynthesis or human consciousness. You can read the full argument in my original paper, "The Copy-Paste Universe Fallacy: Why We’re Probably in Base Reality".
Physicist Eric Weinstein adds another layer to this: instead of waiting for artificial general intelligence (AGI), we might actually be waiting for human general intelligence. Humans, like large language models, may simply be “filling in the blanks.” This opens up the possibility that the simulators behind our reality are doing the same—running processes that are efficient but not necessarily all-knowing. You can learn more about his ideas by following him on X (Twitter). If this hypothesis is true, the consequences of the Copy-Paste Fallacy could radically shift our understanding of simulation theory and our place in the universe.
1. The Illusion of Enlightened Creators:
Traditionally, simulation theory paints our simulators as god-like beings, endowed with high intelligence, capable of designing and controlling every intricate detail of a simulated universe. But if Weinstein's idea—that intelligence is just filling in the blanks—holds true, then our simulators might only need to create basic self-organizing systems, letting complexity naturally evolve over time.
This means that instead of a meticulously designed system, our universe could be the result of a much simpler, automated process. Our simulators might not even be aware of us, just as we aren’t fully aware of every detail in the simulations we create. This makes our simulators less impressive—not gods, but engineers working with the basic principles of complexity, setting things in motion and stepping back.
2. Complexity as the "Magical Spark":
Human intelligence is often romanticized as something unique—a product of consciousness, free will, or a “magical spark.” However, as AI advances, it’s becoming clearer that intelligence might just be an added layer of complexity. Weinstein suggests that we’re not waiting for AGI; instead, we might be waiting for human general intelligence.
If intelligence is merely the result of layering more complexity into a system, then it’s possible that our simulators didn’t need to be particularly enlightened. They simply needed to set up the conditions, and complexity—including intelligence—emerged naturally. In this view, the "magical spark" is just complexity reaching a certain threshold, and our simulators may have been able to achieve that without much effort or higher understanding.
3. Ethical Implications:
If our simulators are not enlightened beings but instead practical engineers, the ethical landscape changes. A simulator who creates a self-organizing system might not be fully aware of the suffering experienced by conscious life within it. This detachment raises questions: Do the simulators owe us anything? Are they responsible for our suffering, or is it simply an unintended consequence of their setup?
This presents a chilling reality where we may just be byproducts of a process with no greater purpose or design. The simulators' lack of involvement could absolve them of ethical responsibility, but it could also point to a universe where meaning and purpose are human constructs rather than divine intentions.
4. The End of the "Grand Design" Narrative:
The Copy-Paste Fallacy challenges the idea of a "grand design" often assumed in simulation theory. If simulators merely set the laws of physics in motion and let the universe evolve naturally, then humanity's existence is incidental, not intentional. This undermines the romanticized notion that we are the center of a grand experiment.
Instead of seeking a higher purpose from enlightened creators, we might turn our attention to understanding the natural laws that allowed life to emerge. This shift in focus could reshape our philosophical and existential frameworks, leading us to view our existence as part of a broader self-organizing process rather than a divine plan.
5. Implications for Science and AI:
As AI development progresses, we are learning that simulating human-like intelligence may be more about layering complexity than about creating consciousness from scratch. This mirrors the theory that our simulators didn’t need to create every detail—they just set the initial parameters and let the system run its course.
This insight has practical implications. The next major breakthrough in AI might not be waiting for some elusive spark but rather continuing to refine and layer complexity into existing systems. We could be closer to simulating human-like intelligence than we think, just as our simulators may have done.
Conclusion:
In The Entropy Code, the “Gods” are not omnipotent deities but overworked interns, scrambling to create the next big hit song by manipulating simulations of intelligent life. Their actions aren't driven by a higher purpose—they’re simply doing their job. This ties directly into the Copy-Paste Fallacy: simulators don’t need to program every detail from scratch. They only need to create the basic self-organizing principles that allow complexity to emerge.
This is the heart of the argument: if our simulators are just workers driven by mundane motivations, the intelligence behind our universe may not be as grand as we imagine. It’s a system driven by utility, not enlightenment. The "magical spark" we associate with intelligence could simply be added complexity—something our AI systems are already starting to replicate.
Just as the employees of Enter-Tek exploit the alien songs for profit, our simulators might only be manipulating self-organizing systems for their own small goals. They are not gods, but workers in a larger system. Their intelligence is no more magical than the AI systems we’re building today.
By portraying the simulators in The Entropy Code as interns rather than enlightened beings, we underscore the idea that intelligence—whether human or artificial—is not some mystical force, but the result of complex systems running their course. In the end, our simulators, like us, might just be filling in the blanks.
Interesting!