Introduction:
Simulation theory, popularized by philosophers like Nick Bostrom, suggests that future civilizations will create numerous simulations of their ancestors. The core argument is that these simulations will eventually outnumber base reality, making it highly probable that we are living in a simulation. However, this belief often rests on what I call the "Copy-Paste Universe Fallacy": the assumption that it is easier to program the entire universe's complexities exactly as they are at any given moment. This approach ignores the immense complexity and improbability of recreating a universe with intelligent life.
Definitions:
Totalist View: "Totalists" like Bostrom believe that we will program every single person, place, or thing. Even with the help of supercomputing, this approach remains highly complex and resource-intensive.
Copy-Paste Universe Fallacy: The assumption that it is easier to program the entire universe's complexities exactly as they are at any given moment.
Base Reality: Base reality refers to a reality that is NOT running on a human computer. This definition allows for the possibility that we could be simulated by advanced beings, such as aliens or even mythical entities like Thor, using technology we wouldn't recognize as a computer. These beings could exist in a reality closer to the base. However, if we are not inside a future human's CPU, we are considered to be in base reality for the sake of this argument against the "Copy-Paste Fallacy".
Simulation Theory Basics:
Nick Bostrom's Argument: In his 2003 paper, Bostrom posits that at least one of the following is true:
Human civilization is unlikely to reach a posthuman stage.
Posthuman civilizations are unlikely to run a significant number of ancestor simulations.
We are almost certainly living in a simulation (Wikipedia).
The Overlooked Factor:
Complexity of Simulating Human Life: Programming the detailed intricacies of every human, plant, animal, and environmental interaction is exponentially more complex than simulating the basic laws of physics (PhysSciTech) (MIT Physics).
Self-Programming Universe: Instead of manually programming complex processes like photosynthesis, simulators could set up the universe's initial conditions and physical laws, allowing complexity to emerge naturally. This concept, known as self-programming or self-organizing systems, relies on the universe's ability to evolve on its own. Initially, the universe only had physics: physics created matter, matter interacted with gravity, gravity formed planets, and over time, life emerged, evolving into complex forms like wings and eyes.
Programming the laws of physics and hitting "fast forward" might be much easier than programming every person, place, and thing. This hypothesis, though not widely discussed, suggests that self-organizing simulations could be a more feasible approach. Historical examples, such as the adoption of VHS over Betamax, show that simpler, more practical technologies often prevail. Therefore, if we develop the ability to run simulations by programming physics well before we can program every detail, we may lose interest in the latter and focus on the former. This perspective challenges the common assumption that future simulations will involve programming every single aspect of the universe.
Statistical Improbability of Intelligent Life:
Rare Earth Hypothesis: Intelligent life requires a highly specific set of conditions. Key factors include:
Planetary Stability: Planets like Jupiter protecting Earth from frequent asteroid impacts.
Galactic Habitable Zone: Regions with low supernova frequency.
Stellar Conditions: Stable, long-lived stars like the Sun.
Biological Evolution: Complex life forms evolved from simple organisms over billions of years, with several mass extinction events influencing evolution.
Numerical Context:
Programming Physics: The Standard Model of particle physics involves around 26 fundamental constants.
Human Brain Complexity: Approximately 86 billion neurons with 100 trillion synaptic connections illustrate the complexity of simulating a single human brain (MIT Physics) (Simulation Argument).
Addressing Counterarguments:
Advances in AI and Computational Power:
Argument: As artificial intelligence (AI) and computational power continue to advance, the complexity of programming detailed simulations, including processes like photosynthesis, may become more manageable.
Response: While AI and computational power are advancing rapidly, the level of detail required to accurately simulate every aspect of the universe, including the emergence of intelligent life, remains exponentially complex. Even with significant advances, the probability of recreating a universe exactly like ours with intelligent beings through simulations is still low.
Quantum Computing Capabilities:
Argument: Quantum computing could potentially overcome the computational limitations, making it feasible to simulate complex systems like human consciousness and biological processes.
Response: Quantum computing does hold promise for handling complex calculations, but the practical implementation and scalability of such simulations are still theoretical. Moreover, even if quantum computers could simulate complex systems, the initial setup, ethical considerations, and computational resources required would still pose significant challenges.
Ethical Considerations and Simulation Purposes:
Argument: Future civilizations might have ethical reasons for creating simulations that prioritize detailed simulations of conscious beings for research or educational purposes.
Response: While ethical considerations could influence the creation of simulations, the sheer number of resources and effort required to simulate entire civilizations in detail makes it more plausible that simpler, self-organizing simulations would be preferred. Additionally, ethical considerations might lead future civilizations to avoid creating simulations that involve suffering or manipulation of conscious beings.
Observational Limitations:
Argument: Our understanding of the universe is limited by our observational capabilities. What we perceive as complex might be simpler when viewed with more advanced technology.
Response: While future advancements could provide new insights, the fundamental complexity of simulating a universe with intelligent life remains a substantial barrier. The rare and contingent nature of intelligent life, as supported by the Rare Earth Hypothesis, reinforces the argument that the emergence of such life in simulations is improbable.
Philosophical and Epistemological Arguments:
Argument: Philosophically, the idea of living in a simulation does not require the simulation to be perfect or even highly detailed. Simulations could rely on shortcuts and approximations that make them less resource-intensive than assumed.
Response: Even with shortcuts and approximations, the level of detail required to convincingly simulate conscious beings and their interactions within a complex universe is immense. The probability of achieving such detail through approximations while maintaining the fidelity of conscious experiences is still low.
The Argument of Indifference:
Argument: If we cannot distinguish between base reality and a simulation, the argument may be moot. Whether we are in a simulation or not might not affect our experiences or decisions.
Response: While the practical implications of being in a simulation versus base reality might be limited, the philosophical and existential questions remain significant. Understanding the nature of our reality can impact our worldview, ethics, and approach to scientific inquiry.
Conclusion:
Simulation theory advocates like Nick Bostrom assume that future civilizations will run numerous detailed simulations. However, considering the immense complexity and rarity of intelligent life, it is more plausible that we are in base reality. The argument hinges on the fact that creating a full, detailed simulation of a universe, including intelligent life, is far more complex and less likely than simply programming the basic laws of physics and letting a universe evolve naturally. Thus, the likelihood of our reality being base reality is higher than often proposed by simulation theory.
TL;DR:
For those too lazy to read the whole thing: Many think we’re in a simulation because copying a universe seems easy. But actually, programming all that complexity is way harder than just letting a universe evolve naturally. So yeah, we’re probably in base reality. This TL;DR is here because the full article is packed with jargon.
References:
Bostrom, Nick. "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" 2003.
Rare Earth Hypothesis (Ward and Brownlee)
Standard Model of particle physics
Comments