Imagine for a moment that the reality you know, the world around you, everything you've ever experienced is nothing but a highly sophisticated video game; a simulation designed by an intelligent creator. Intriguing, right? The concept of living in a simulated universe has captured the imagination of many. It has even giving rise to a series of highly praised movies. But could this theory be compared to a form of a modern religion?
Both simulation and religious beliefs are theories of meta-narratives, ones that share fundamental concepts and principles:
They both can encourage us to consider the existence of an intelligent creator/s. These creator/s in the context of simulation theory, serve as the architects or coders of our reality, purposed with shaping our world.
The question of faith therefore arises in both scenarios. Faith often involves believing in something without tangible evidence. Much like a theistic belief, a leap of faith is required to accept the idea that what we perceive is a either a simulation, or even reality. As there is currently no definitive proof to confirm or refute this hypothesis, many will see it useless persuing.
In many religious traditions, we occasionally look forward to a life beyond the physical realm, often characterised by concepts of some kind of a "heaven". Similarly, this theory introduces the idea of transcending the apparant reality, as well as living other lives entirely inside of it.
While it might not promise a heavenly realm or a definitive eternal salvation, it introduces the possibility of existing in a different, potentially more "real" reality once we transcend through death. In this sense, simulation theory offers speculation of a more "scientific" afterlife, and even reincarnation.
While there are many similarities between this theory and ones of religion, there are important distinctions between the two. Religion often involves organised practices and moral truths, while belief in a simulated universe is a more abstract concept. People can maintain their faith in the simulation theory without adhering to a particular set of practices or moral guidelines. However, many individuals identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so may have personal beliefs without adhering to any rituals or religious institutions. Regardless, both fall into the category of spiritual metaphysics, and so are arguably connected.
A God in the Machine?
In many religious narratives, we find references to divine entities that descend into the physical world to interact with and influence it. For instance, the incarnations found in religious legends; such as Jesus in Christianity, and the many avatars in Hinduism. These beings are seen as representations of the divines place in our physical world.
Instead of residing in a separate, metaphysical realm; the divine could choose to place themselves within the construct of their universe. In essence, it would be as the coders themselves placed elements of themselves into the game they've designed.
However, this then raises the same issues of theism: if our reality is indeed a simulation, this would mean that our creator is only but a mere resident of another universe. This doesn’t solve the debate for an ultimate creator, instead it could only explain the confines of our apparent reality. After all, who or what created that universe?
Coding and Laws
Could it be that the fundamental code underlying our universe is proof to a design; one that can define the rules by which our reality operates? Universal constants such as c, G, ħ, and kB, may be nothing more than a limitation in this cosmic program. ie; a programming speed.
If such laws govern our reality, it raises questions about the meanings of them in the first place.
From our perspective, these limitations may indeed seem technologically impossible to overcome. We're bound by the rules that define our reality, and they shape our understanding of what is achievable and what isn't. However, there's a crucial point to consider: the reality that generated our simulation, if we are indeed living in one, could be vastly more complex and capable than our own universe.
Just as a video game or a computer simulation operates within the rules and limitations set by its programming, our universe might operate within the constraints dictated by its code. Yet, the creators of this simulation, if they exist, might possess an understanding of physics, computing, and reality that goes far beyond what we can comprehend. They could be operating on a level of complexity and capability that is currently beyond our reach.
This raises the possibility that the limitations we observe within our universe are not inherent to the creators of the cosmic program, but are rather a simplified version of a more sophisticated reality. In this more advanced reality, the concept of computational limits as we perceive them might be entirely different or even nonexistent. The creators might possess the tools and knowledge to manipulate the parameters of our universe, adjusting resolution, changing the speed, and exploring aspects of existence that are currently beyond our grasp.
The Beginning
When a server is powered on, a simulated world would spring into existence, complete with its own set of physical laws and rules. In this perspective, the creation of the universe becomes an act of simply pressing the 'on' switch. The laws of what binds our reality would be what the creator/s set as the initial conditions, and its computing limitations would define our 'laws'. It's as if the universe is brought into existence through the execution of a program, and the laws of physics emerge from fundamental rules written into the code beforehand.
Could it be that the creation myths that surround us, are simply describing this process?
Spectrum of Existence: The Fading Line Between Reality and Simulation
Real or Simulation?
Consider a reality that is so intricately simulated, that its simulations are, in essence, authentic experiences to the participants. In this scenario, even the concept of a "real universe" takes on a somewhat abstract hue. If the experiences within a simulation are as vivid and impactful as those in the real world, what purpose does the distinction actually serve? Is it merely a matter of perspective, where one can be just as genuine as the other? After all, it sure feels like reality.
As time progresses, we will find ourselves on a transition where the boundaries between the "real" and the simulated will only become more elusive. It's a paradigm shift that challenges our conventional thoughts about existence. Again, if a simulation can be so sophisticated that its inhabitants genuinely perceive it as the "real world," what really distinguishes it from reality as we understand it?
The intricate complexities of our existence, the grand cosmic questions, the experiences that shape our lives; they all unfold within this complex system regardless.
In essence, we could argue that referring to our reality as the "real universe", all becomes a matter of perspective.
At the end of the day, when we contemplate the intricacies of reality and simulation, it becomes apparent that the distinction between the two is profoundly fogged for our human perspective. This blurring occurs for a simple reason. Both our perceived "real universe" and the notion of a simulated one share an essential trait; they would be both house our sense of awareness.
One could argue that whatever our consciousness is experiencing, is a form of reality:
Such as a vivid dream where you find yourself in a world just as real as your waking life; where you have no awareness of being in a simulated reality. While science may classify this experience as a form of hallucination during sleep; to the dreamer, it is a world as vivid, real, and meaningful as their waking reality (or only until they wake up). This could be due to a type of selective amnesia.
In a sense, "reality" can be argued to simply be defined as what is contained within the confines of a selected consciousness at that particular moment in time.
The same can be argued for hallucinations, altered states induced by meditation, or even the experiences of individuals with conditions like schizophrenia, where sensory perceptions are blended in unusual ways. This argument challenges the traditional boundaries of what we consider "real", and can be very controversial. However, can reality, simply be defined as a corresponding truth that most of us hold? It might not be this simple.
If everything we experience, whether through sensory input or the products of our own minds can be considerably a form of reality, then reality is not a fixed environment, but a dynamic construct influenced by an ever shifting amalgamation of experiences. In this view, the self becomes a joint part of a subjective reality, with both being intrinsically linked.
Reality vs the Rest
In recent times, we have witnessed the development of basic simulations that strive to replicate our world with astonishing precision. With their ability to engage our senses, these offer a glimpse into the future possibilities of experiencing a virtual reality that's remarkably close to what we perceive as real.
The incorporation of haptic feedback and other sensory inputs further enhances the immersiveness of these environments.
Imagine that we reach a stage where simulations offer experiences that are not only visually and sensually indistinguishable from the real world, but can also be experienced in an instant. Imagine the ability to compress the entirety of a human experience; from birth to death, into a fleeting moment.
Future breakthroughs in neuroscience might enable the manipulation of perception of time. By altering brain processes, scientists could create experiences that subjectively last a lifetime while only a fraction of a second passes in the real world.
This is pure speculation, and it does indeed sound far fetched and impossible by today's standards. However, history has shown us that many ideas, once deemed unattainable, eventually became a reality. Just as human flight and space travel were once thought to be unachievable dreams, we can understand why the seemingly impossible can, over time, become possible.
Eternal Fun?
At first, these simulated experiences could be remarkably enticing; an almost eternal "heavenly" existence. However, much like any other experience, they will eventually become monotonous, and lose their appeal.
In response to this, we might consider introducing challenges within these simulations to maintain interest; just as in a video game, players might seek greater excitement and complexity in their experiences.
In the quest for meaning, many seek opportunities to test their capabilities, adapt to adversity, and evolve as individuals. Within the realm of simulated experiences, this desire for purpose takes center stage. To keep our existence engaging, we might craft intricate scenarios filled with puzzles, problems to solve, and hurdles to conquer to further our minds evolution. Or maybe we even use it as a purely academic experience.
Using this argument, our reality may simply be a grand experiment of self evolution. It's a captivating concept that presents a stark departure from the idea of a static, meaningless existence. Instead, we find ourselves in a dynamic digital construct, where the pursuit of knowledge, growth, and self improvement becomes an integral part of our reality.
So why can't we remember anything?
Is this a deliberate choice, or have we developed a type of amnesia?
How many times have we, as players, chosen to dive into the intricate worlds of video games, immersing ourselves so deeply that we forget our real surroundings? Could this concept of selective amnesia during gameplay be a dull reflection of a larger truth in our existence?
Or maybe we have opted into a mode of game whereby we can choose to forget the outside world when we enter the simulation.
Another theory would again be similar to the 'Matrix', whereby we have been forced into a simulation by another external force, and have been forced to forget.
Whichever way, if we were to be living in a simulation, we can all agree that we are not aware that we are in one.
The Digital Ancestral Archive
In the era of rapidly advancing technology, we find ourselves standing on the brink of a questionable transformation in how we record, preserve, and potentially access our collective lives. This transition has the potential to reshape our perception of identity and the boundaries of privacy.
Consider the recent developments in technology, such as the Oculus Quest 3 and its capacity to scan our faces and different aspects of our personalities. These strides in data capture raise a fascinating possibility; a future where we can document most moments of our lives (consensual or not). Such an archive could not only capture visual representations, but also the subtleties of our emotions, thoughts, and interactions. In essence, it would be a comprehensive digital library of our existence.
This collection could be called a "lifestream", capturing every facet of our existence in vivid detail. Fun right? Maybe.
The interesting part of this scenario lies in the possibilities it opens for not just us, but for our descendants. If we manage to record enough data, our ancestors might gain the ability to access our lives. In a sense, they can become their oldest ancestors that would be possible to observe in this program.
Imagine if you could live the life of your ancestors, you would go back as far as possible. Maybe we are the limit to how far back they could have gone as no one before us has recorded the correct data.
This idea leads to an interesting question; are we the original recording of this data, or is our consciousness merely one of a distant ancestor, or obsessive fan with amnesia accessing our "lifestream"?
We're now confronted with a theoretical choice.
On the one hand, we can embrace the opportunity to record our data, scan our faces, and archive our lives in meticulous detail. However, this choice comes with a theoretical, yet maybe a potential consequence; the ambiguity of our reality:
The premise underpinning this idea is rooted in the stance that we do exist within a fully immersive simulation.
In such a constructed world, the creators or controllers of the simulation would possess complete access to every facet of these lives, including their thoughts, emotions, and actions.
Here's where the thought gets interesting. The choice to withhold one's data and abstain from sharing personal details could be seen as a test for the authenticity of the reality we reside in.
By choosing to protect your own privacy, you could essentially challenge the idea that you exist within a construct where external creators maintain an all powerful voyeristic relationship to you.
The preservation of privacy thus becomes a significant marker in theoretically disproving this hypothesis. If we choose to withhold our personal data, it could suggest that our ancestors will never have access to our "lifestream", and thus never be able to simulate our lives.
So, we may be less likely to inhabit certain types of created simulations, and instead reside in a realm where the boundaries between reality and simulation are arguably more distinct.
However, this implies that our experiences were once actually real. Instead, the person who you inhabit could have been an original design by someone, and still have complete free will. Let's talk more about the free will involved in this scenario:
Free Will in the Ancestral Simulation
Here, we encounter a conundrum. One that centers around the concept of free will, or the potential lack thereof, for the descendants accessing their ancestors' past. If you’ve ever played the video game 'Assassins Creed', you’ll know what I mean when I say “desynchronisation”.
This revolves around the idea that if we find ourselves as descendants in an ancestral simulation, the actions, choices, and decisions of our ancestors would have already been meticulously recorded. Therefore, in such a scenario, our simulation would have been predetermined, with their every move scripted within the parameters of the code; rendering the concept of free will non existent.
However, we must first consider the nature of the consciousness that resides within the simulation. Are we merely passive observers, delving into our ancestors' past as robotic entities with no apparent free will? Or do we become active participants, capable of influencing and altering the course of our ancestors' memories in certain ways?
If we are passive observers, our role could be like that of a historian; learning from the experiences of our ancestors, yet unable to affect the events from times passed. This would mean that free will is entirely absent for us.
On the other hand, if we are active participants, the nature of the simulation transforms. We become agents of change; capable of making choices that influence the trajectory of our ancestors' lives. This suggests that free will is a fundamental aspect of our own consciousness, even within the context of the simulation.
It goes into the idea of “what would I have done, if I were in their shoes”. However, with the butterfly effect, just one simple change in a choice could make the experience very different than your ancestors original life. For a retrospective learning experience, this could still prove to be extremely useful.
Again, this is implying that we would be in a simulation of our actual ancestors, and not experiencing an original "created" life.
This argument of a simulation revolves around the notion that, despite living within a simulation, we are not entirely severed from our reality and universe. Instead, in this hypothetical construct, we remain bound to our universe; to our ancestors, and to our descendants to come.
Solipsism and MMO
At the heart of the solipsistic perspective lies the idea that an individual, in this case, you, are the sole conscious entity in existence. Every other apparent consciousness in the universe, is not. Thus, reality becomes an entirely subjective experience, and exists solely for you. Solipsism is a radical philosophical position, and as we consider its relevance in the context of a simulation, we are forced to confront some questions.
If you exist within a solipsistic simulation, what does this say about the nature of your relationships with others? Are the people you interact with merely projections of your consciousness, designed to provide a false sense of social engagement? Or are they there to teach you something?
As you cannot definitively prove whether you are alone in this reality or not, one can only acknowledge and accept the profound subjective nature of reality, and the questions it carries.
In opposition, simulation theory offers the possibility that our reality is much like a MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) video game.
In this scenario, there need be no NPCs (non player characters). However, there still might be. Every being in the universe could be another conscious entity navigating their digital existence, just like you.
Imagine the idea that, upon exiting the simulation, we could engage in conversations with individuals who once played the roles of our significant others, our friends, our enemies, and our mentors.
So what are the chances we are in a simulation?
We can explore three possibilities regarding the chances of our existence within a simulated reality. The Simulation Argument, famously put forward by philosopher Nick Bostrom, posits that at least one of the following propositions must be true:
Possibility 1: Self Annihilation.
One of the most pessimistic possibilities of the three; that the civilisation will die out before it reaches the technological capability to create a simulated reality.
It is an entirely sad possibility to realise that our species may go extinct. This pushes us to reach new technological advancements that could slow this process down, and maybe even halt it. However, the possibility that our species may not survive long enough to advance to a stage where we can create and run these complex projects is very real. Given the existential risks we face, such as climate change; nuclear weapons; and ironically, the potential misuse of these advanced technologies, this bleak prospect is not entirely improbable. Given that every species that has gone extinct falls under this same possibility, it is very likely to happen to with the many species that exist today. In fact, eventually every species living today in this universe will one day be no more.
However, this possibility does not entirely dismiss the concept of us living in a simulation. It raises the question of whether advanced civilisations elsewhere in the universe might create simulations after we are gone. If another intelligent species manages to land on possibility 3, their simulations could potentially include our own local reality in time and space; much like we create documentaries about the ancient fossils we find.
Possibility 2: Choice Not to Create
In this scenario, humanity develops the technological capability to create highly realistic simulations but chooses not to do so. This choice might stem from ethical concerns, a desire to preserve the authenticity of reality, or a complete lack of interest in the idea. There may be a philosophical perspective that values the authenticity and purity of the human experience in an unsimulated reality. The idea that we consciously decide not to create simulations would speak to our respect for the sanctity of our reality. Essentially preserving our purity.
Possibility 3: Willing Creation of Simulated Realities
The third and perhaps most fascinating possibility is that we will attain the technology to create simulations and actively choose to do so. This concept leads to an exploration of the motivations behind such a decision.
First and foremost, the creation of simulated realities could serve as a form of entertainment and escapism. In an increasingly complex and stressful world, people may turn to simulated realms as a way to escape the pressures of daily life. These virtual worlds could offer limitless possibilities, allowing individuals to immerse themselves in fantastical adventures, explore new frontiers, or simply experience an idealized version of reality. Much like the virtual reality experiences of today, but on an entirely different scale, these simulations could become a haven for those seeking distraction from the challenges of the real world.
Another motivation for choosing this option could be preservation, but not a preservation of reality. As we face ongoing challenges and the fear of real catastrophes, we might see simulated realities as a way to safeguard aspects of ourselves, or maybe even to hide away inside of.
Simulated realities could also act as digital museums, preserving our knowledge, achievements, and failures for future generations. This would be a Library of Alexandria that could never perish.
Turtles all the way down
If we consider these possibilities, it becomes highly probable that if possibility 3 is achieved, they would create numerous simulations inside one another.
This second, constructed reality would inherit the same three possibilities as its parent. If they land in possibility one or two, then there are no more simulations created inside. You would think this means they would have a 50/50 chance of being inside the base or second reality? However, this is assuming that only one simulation was created in the base universe. There are of course possibilities that the base reality choose to make more.
Alternatively, if simulations within the secondary reality are created, the inhabitants of those simulations again also face the same three possibilities, leading to a possibility of further nested realities. This branching structure continues, like a fractal, with each layer adding its complexity. As a result, the notion of being in the "base" reality becomes increasingly elusive, and the search for the original reality becomes an unending journey.
Consequently, the number of simulated universes could absolutely dwarf the singular base reality. This forms the basis of the probability argument, stating that any civilisation to reach possibility 3 is much more likely to exist in one of these simulations than in the base reality.
The notion of an infinite regress introduces an immense level of complexity to our understanding of reality. Each layer of simulation would require an enormous amount of computational power to maintain, and as such, the implications of such complexity are challenging to fully grasp.
However, as was mentioned earlier, it's essential to remember that our universe could be just one instance of a potentially vast multiverse. As such, the laws and limits of our universe may be significantly less complex and capable than that of our parent reality.
We can, with all certainty state that we are in one of the possible lowest levels of simulations. We may also be in the base reality, but we can all agree that there are no accurate simulations inside ours as of now. This doesn't necessarily imply that there are a countable amount of simulations; there could be no apparent end to them. But if we are in the lowest simulations as of now, and there is a base reality, then how can there be an apparent infinite amount of simulations in between?
To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical scenario where an advanced civilization creates a simulation (Simulation A). Within Simulation A, a simulated civilization emerges and attains a sufficient level of technological advancement to create its own simulation (Simulation B). Inside Simulation B, yet another simulated civilization arises and proceeds to create Simulation C, and so on, forming an unbroken chain of nested simulations. This could theoretically go on ad nauseum; To us, it might indeed appear as an endless progression, even if it doesn't truly continue infinitely. This perception comes from our finite comprehension of the scale and capabilities of advanced civilisations that might orchestrate such simulations.
The number of simulations could be growing at an exponential rate, meaning each simulated reality spawns a multitude of new simulations, and so on. Within each of these simulations, sentient beings reach a point where they themselves develop the capability to create simulations. This creates an exponential growth of simulations, with each level spawning an ever increasing tree of lower level simulations.
Awareness
One of the most intriguing aspects of an apparent infinite regress is whether, at some point in these simulations, the inhabitants would become aware of their simulated nature. If beings in a lower level simulation could discover that they are not in a base reality, what actions would they take? Would they attempt to escape their "reality"?
Imagine knowing this, and as one might die in one simulated world only to find themselves in another, this process would repeat almost ad infinitum. This scenario has intriguing parallels with the Buddhist concept of samsara, the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, which is often seen as an undesirable state leading to suffering. In a similar vein, one might wonder if an apparent infinite regress of simulated realities would become tedious.
The idea of an almost ceaseless repetition, an endless succession of simulated experiences prompts questions about the purpose and meaning of such a journey. If each layer of reality exists solely to introduce the next, where does the quest for understanding, knowledge, and self awareness ultimately lead?
It's conceivable that the notion of a base reality, a true origin, might dissolve, and each layer in the sequence would be as authentic as the next. We are left with the enigma of whether there is, indeed, an ultimate reality or whether the search for such a reality is a seemingly never ending, existential quest.
The Endless Journey
If this infinite chain of simulations exists, individuals would be on an "endless" journey of exploration and self discovery. The concept of a final, ultimate reality or a genuine afterlife becomes almost a heavenly idea. One of peace, perfection, and rest, but seemingly never obtainable.
The very essence of existence becomes a neverending exploration, where individuals continuously seek to understand themselves, and the world around them. This journey is not a quest with a fixed destination but an ongoing odyssey of the self.
In such a framework, the very idea of searching for an ultimate truth or origin loses its conventional meaning after a while. The quest for understanding, enlightenment, or transcendence becomes an almost eternal process, rather than a journey with a clear endpoint.
Total Recall of Simulations:
Individuals wouldn't just transition from one simulated reality to another; they would carry with them the cumulative memories of each previous life. This memory retention could encompass not only facts and experiences but also emotions, relationships, and personal growth from each simulated existence.
Compare this to reincarnation in religions.
The Strain on the Human Mind:
The human mind is not designed to accommodate an infinite chain of memories from different lives, each with its unique set of experiences, emotions, and knowledge. The sheer weight of this collective memory would likely pose significant challenges to an individual's mental and emotional well-being. If our simulations are ones that aren't thought through properly, then it could become an eternal torture to essentially live forever.
Identity and Self Continuity:
The concept of retaining memories from countless simulated lives challenges the traditional notion of personal identity. Individuals would grapple with a complex web of selves, each distinct yet connected through this continuous memory. It raises the question: who are you when you remember being countless different people?
They might struggle to find a stable sense of self, as each simulation could have provided vastly different life paths and opportunities.
The emotional toll of such a scenario cannot be understated. Individuals could carry the pain of countless losses and failures alongside the joy of various successes and achievements. Coping with this emotional baggage may become a lifelong challenge. Again, this is why we must consider this with vast importance.
Quantum immortality:
Prison planet theory
These thoughts underline that simulation theory can be one of extreme spirituality, and has many links to religious beliefs. Therefore, in some aspects could be considered a religion. As always, reality is subjective.
Namastē
Comments