What is the Probability that we are Living in a Simulation?

 by Daisy Watson-Rumbold

When one door closes, another opens. Or does someone open that door for us? 

I recently read Nick Bostrom's 2003 paper, 'Are you living in a computer simulation?'. People often jokingly throw around the suggestion we are all computerised beings, living in a video game-esque world shirking the idea of accountability and responsibility. But, instead, we hand those things over to a simulation overlord, who could, in reality, be a teenager in their bedroom, soon to get bored and turn the game off. 

If one day, the system broke, and our meagre existences were thrown into an actual state of falsehood where everything around us - the people we know, the ground, the sky, the interactions, our bodies and minds - were found to have all be crafted to create a picture-perfect illusion, what would we do? 

This is where Bostrom’s paper comes in handy. Having been written in 2003, reading it retrospectively is more chilling. The technology then was capable of estimating computational power and process, let alone now, in the age of Apple selling us £30 chargers with the newest high-tech MacBook because we need it. So even though the paper itself does not aim to reflect on our reliance on technology, it manages to lure you into a vortex of considerations, extracting a lot of what we thought to be accurate and making it insufficient. 

There is an entire academic community of technologists, futurologists and philosophers trying to figure out precisely what the hell is going in that big, unknown universe of ours. Some claim that extraterrestrial lifeforms could create enough technological power to mimic the human conscience, setting up millions of mini studiable civilisations. Others set their vision ahead, navigating the possibilities that future generations will and maybe already have formed simulations of themselves. Bostrom, a futurologist and philosopher, takes a speculative approach to our existence in light of this. In this paper, he and his fellows estimated that the rough approximation of the computation power needed for a planetary-mass computer is 10 to the power of 42 operations per second. Suppose this same computer understood nanotechnological (atomic, molecular and supramolecular) designs. In that case, it could simulate the entire known, factual history of humankind by using one millionth of its processing power for one second. Bostrom labels this ‘ancestor-simulation’, a phrase dedicated to replicating past existences instead of evolving humanity through technology. In a posthuman society, a society with the “maximum attainable capacities by any current human being without recourse to new technological means” - not to be confused with transhumanism (‘cyborg type’) - millions of these computers could be engineered. In this case, the vast majority of minds existing in this singular universe would not belong to the original human race but rather to a race simulated by advanced technology, a copy of what was.  

The theory of computer simulation relies heavily upon the ideology of substrate-independence rooted in the philosophy of the mind. Meaning that, in order for this to be possible, the mind must exist as a dynamic process, not an objective organ. A computational system could easily, with the proper structural design, associate binary code with the processes of consciousness. There is no denying that the first generations of this technology would experience a simulation lacking all possible emotional or physical responses; for example, it is unlikely that these simulations would pass the Turing test. However, over time, the processes would strengthen emotionally and consciously. Scientists have already technologically created a piece of nervous tissue in silico (digitally) with exact features and structures to survive. So there is no reason why we could not, with the correct procedures, recreate the entirety of civilisation. Consider the hyper realistic graphics that make up the majority of video games played today - Grand Theft Auto, the Sims, and Detroit: Become Human (an ironic exploration of androids becoming human) - they are proof of our control over false lives. We opt into navigating the lives of characters we have created, customised and committed. 

If we can reach a stage where ancestor-simulations are possible, regulation will pose issues. Just as with any computational or technological process, there needs to be a sense of order that can be consistently resolved if interrupted. In any simulation, the computer would have to formulate enough power to track the belief-states of a human and calculate the human observation of the microscopic world. Therefore, if any of the processes or equations driving this recognition were to glitch, the entire system would collapse. The ‘directors’ of these worlds would have to monitor and resolve errors or relapse the time in simulation, wiping errors from the system. There is definitely a teleological link to Bostrom’s argument - emulating a technological perspective on design in the universe, just as Aquinas and Paley had done centuries before. Regardless of your religious affiliation, the simulation theory would evidence a designer, divine or not. 

Although, I did wonder. If reality contains multiple computational levels, surely there is a hierarchy of character existence. A small group or even an individual could be the ‘centre’ of the simulated universe. Whether this is due to them being ‘made’ or custom characters, or because they follow a set timeline, it would make the remainder of humanity ‘shadow humans’. The TikTok trend of the ‘main character’ could actually be pretty accurate; in all its humour, some of us, in this simulation, are essentially the focus of a falsehood. Surely this would be a more effective means of handling hundreds of billions of miniature simulations existing simultaneously. Just as in most video games, the graphics and characters in front of you, benefitting your experience are being rendered at 100%, whilst things peripheral to you are rendered at 50%, things behind you are rendered at 10% and the rest of the existing elements are waiting to be loaded in. In a simulation, beneficial items would be presented to you as and when you need. There’s no way for us to tell if the people we love or know go on to exist outside the realms of your interactions. There could be a ‘loading screen’ of sorts that renders our experiences as we see them, explaining eye-witness differences and discrepancies throughout history. This would biologically match with eye-focus and the need for slow movements and processes when transitioning into differing environments. However, character livelihood relies upon (a) physicality, (b) emotional regulation and (c) ethical and logical reasoning - the genuine ability to carry these three factors out is minimally necessary. If every simulated being had to decide upon ethical choices, a simple example being the trolley experiment, scientists could track the ethical make-up of human existence. Arguably, you could create millions of ethical and philosophical labs containing civilisations shaped to follow specific theories. We could view what a world without religious input looks like and whether humanity forms a naturalistic theogony (an origin of God’s). Outside the realms of narcissistic and personal exploration - these simulations would significantly enhance our understanding of human behaviour and belief. 

The principle of indifference or insufficient reason comes into play here. Suppose we were to place our bets on simulation possibility. In that case, there is no way for us to evidence a ruling out of computerised existence, just as there is no way for us to evidence a reality of computerised indifference. It is arguably only the Doomsday theorists among us that can truly decide their fate. To them, we will never reach a state of posthuman existence. We will either (a) become incompatible with our own societal and technological developments, (b) technological revolution will cause our formally pastoral and rural existence to collapse, or (c) both (a) and (b) will combine to extinct the human race. Essentially, if our present existence is not a computerised simulation, we will never reach a time when we can say we are.

There is no decision that can be empirically or factually made, so just as faith is a choice, belief in a simulation is a personal choice. It could all be a fun and overly speculative theory that has kept the futurists of our society entertained. Who knows, maybe our character creators are getting worried we are figuring it all out.

The paper is phenomenal and manages to encompass a fantastic idea in a brief few pages - I would really recommend people read it before or after reading this article. 

The paper: (https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf)