Could our Universe be a simulation? How would we even tell?

[Judi Lynn]

Simulations all the way down—the philosophical debate on the nature of our Universe.
PAUL SUTTER - 1/31/2024, 5:30 AM



Ever since Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed his simulation argument in 2001, the nerdiverse has attempted to assess the possibility that reality is not really real, that what we experience as our Universe is instead the product of a computer simulation. Popular figures such as Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson have offered their own conclusions, but taking a firm stance was not the point of Bostrom’s argument. Instead, Bostrom’s position is nuanced and careful, and it doesn’t arrive at fixed answers.

I’ll take it for granted that the Ars readership is more sophisticated than the average geek, so let's take some time to dissect Bostrom’s simulation argument, exploring its construction, its implications, its strengths, and its weaknesses.

But I have to warn you: If you’re hoping for relief, one way or the other, from the existential crisis brought about by the possibility that we live in a simulation, you won’t find any comfort here. The firmest conclusion anyone can reach, after examining and re-examining the arguments for and against the simulation thesis, is a profound yet resigned "maybe."

The Universe in a box

Bostrom’s argument relies on a simple observation. We continue to develop ever more powerful and capable computers, and our abilities to simulate the Universe, from cosmic to microscopic scales, are becoming more comprehensive with time. As a theoretical cosmologist who specializes in computation, I’ve witnessed this firsthand in my own field. Decades ago, we could only simulate small portions of the Universe, representing individual galaxies as tiny dots of gravitational attraction. Now, our most sophisticated universes-in-a-box include star formation, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, radiation, and more, and they trace the evolution of millions of galaxies simultaneously through billions of years of cosmic evolution.

More:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/could-our-universe-be-a-simulation-how-would-we-even-tell/

[viva la]

1. What would it matter?

We are what we are living our lives. Whatever we're living in, it's our universe.

I've thought this "simulation" notion was kind of the tech "intellectual's" substitute for God.

After all, someone/thing created and runs the simulation, presumably.

[V850i]

2. Major Evolution of the Simulation Theory

Check out some of Rizwan Virk's YouTube videos, books or podcasts. He is nicely pulling in a very holistic view of the simulation theory that encompasses quantum science, game theory, religion and even the Mandela effect.

[keithbvadu2]

3. Maybe we are the beta version 1.0

Gonna need a lot of patches.

[WheelWalker]

4. We might conclude...

We might conclude that the universe is a stranger place than we have sometimes been led to suspect and that the amount and type of strangeness each of us can tolerate depends, to some extent, on prior commitments. But the universe is what it is anyway.

[Progressive dog]

5. "cogito ergo sum"

Paul Sutter should find something that could be proved or disproved to philosophize about.
Descartes dismissed this in three words over three centuries ago. It's the same thing with a different name. We are not a simulation, the universe is exactly what we see and no one will ever prove differently.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. i keep saying," computer, end program" , when i see posts like this .

[Javaman]

7. we are an AI and when we become sentient, we will know. nt

[hunter]

8. It's just another flavor of creationism

Even the big bang theory is tainted with that.