The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of reality (including human society, the Earth and all the goings-on in the rest of the universe) is, in fact, an artificial simulation – that everything is part of an unimaginably complex computer programme created by an external agent.
This, of course, calls to mind Hollywood movies like ‘The Matrix’, ‘Lawnmower Man’, and ‘The Thirteenth Floor’. In fact, ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’, is also a documentary in which “the filmmakers parallel very heavily against the hit sci-fi movie ‘The Matrix.’ The documentary argues that matter and ideas are the results of a complex digital simulation, something akin to a video game. Theoretical physicists make their case for a programmable universe, positing that there is evidence of computer code to be found in nature and we are, put simply, expressions of a code.”
There are those such as Elon Musk who have a lot of truck with this theory. However, not everyone agrees with him. In a 2016 article on the subject, The Guardian quotes scientist Max Tegmark: “Is it logically possible that we are in a simulation? Yes. Are we probably in a simulation? I would say no. In order to make the argument in the first place, we need to know what the fundamental laws of physics are where the simulations are being made. And if we are in a simulation then we have no clue what the laws of physics are. What I teach at MIT would be the simulated laws of physics.”
Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall, is even more skeptical. “I don’t see that there’s really an argument for it. There’s no real evidence.”
And there lies the crux of the problem with this hypothesis – it cannot really be tested. Any test we use will itself be part of the simulation. In a way, it’s like saying Pac Man has the ability to figure out it’s in a computer simulation. In other words, if there were a programmer that created this universe, then it/they would be FAR beyond our abysmal comprehension. We’d be like ants trying to figure out the purpose of a space station or like catfish trying to understand the function of a super-conductor.
Outside of personal conviction and probability theory, there is no evidence for a simulation universe. However, I’ve briefly jotted down a summary of my thoughts on what we might mean when we ask for evidence of a simulated universe. (It’s all crude and circumstantial evidence – but still, it’s the best we’ve got so far).
1. Pixelated Universe: A computer
screen is pixelated. You can zoom in to an image but when you reach the scale
of a pixel, zooming in makes no more sense. Our universe is pixelated, in that
you can keep zooming into the fabric of space, but once you reach Plank’s
length, then zooming in makes no sense.
2. Absolute Zero: There are claims
that at absolute zero all motion ceases. Why should this be? You could argue
that that’s analogous to a computer programme “freezing.”
3. Universal constants: There are at
least 26 physical constants that define the parameters of our universe (speed
of light, proton mass, Bohr radius etc.). Who put them there and why? These
would be analogous to the parameters of a computer game coded by a programmer.
4. Observer Effect: In reality, the
probability that an individual electron could exist anywhere in the universe at
any given time is non-zero. It is only when we have an observer that its wave
function collapses and we can identify an electron (or any other subatomic
particle) in a particular place. In a computer simulation, all of the simulated
reality is not rendered all the time. What is rendered is only what the player
(observer) sees.
5. Code: Computer characters are in
binary code. DNA-based life is not binary – but close: quaternary.
6. Information: Theoretical physicist, John Wheeler, averred that the most fundamental aspect of the Universe and, indeed, reality is not matter or energy. It is information. If that’s the case, then there is nothing to stop us assuming this universe is a simulation.
7. Probability: Given enough time and advances in computer technology and artificial intelligence we will eventually be able to create a simulated universe like ours (given let’s say billions of years of progress). Maybe this has already happened. In that case, advanced entities could be running trillions of simulations. The likelihood that we’re in a simulation is far greater than that we are not in a simulation.
***
The simulation hypothesis sounds suspiciously like the computer geek’s version of the creationist story: simply substitute “God” with a capital G with “Programmer” with a capital P. And the search for a supposed Source Code (the fundamental component of a computer program that is created by a programmer) to escape this simulated universe is not too different from the religious adherent’s search for heaven and an afterlife.
Every epoch has its own limited metaphors to make sense of reality. We had the ceramic model of the universe (the creator as a cosmic potter). Then we had the steam industrial model (the creator pulling levers and shifting gears.) Today, our dominant metaphors are computing-based (source codes, simulations etc.). This is what we do as humans – we try to make sense of reality with the limited senses that we have. To think we can have an ABSOLUTE understanding of such a grand and possibly infinite universe is an example of human hubris. We might instead prefer David Deutsch’s perspective – that instead of searching for absolute truths, and ultimate realities, we ought to focus on creating conditions that will allow us to discover and generate infinite knowledge.
Star Trek: Next Generation has two excellent episodes (“Elementary, Dear Data” and “Ship in a Bottle”) in which Data plays Sherlock Holmes in the holodeck and his nemesis, the virtual Dr Moriarty, becomes self-aware. They’re both exquisite episodes and superb examples of science fiction at its best.
Who knows what the future holds. Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google and one of the best predictors of future technologies in the world today, avers that in the next 100 years we will see the equivalent of 20,000 years’ worth of progress. Ultimately, super-A.I. will supersede human intelligence – it’s simply a matter of time: it could be 45 years or 45 centuries – but it will happen. (That is if we don’t destroy ourselves before). Greater-than-human intelligence is inevitable and those super-A.I.s will not only think faster and better than us, but they will also think what we can’t think. Who knows what we will discover then.
In the meanwhile, though, we must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
At the same time, however, we would do well to keep in mind that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That said, if this universe were, indeed, created by a programmer, we’d still be left with the question, “who programmed the Programmer?”
