The simulated universe theory implies that our universe, with all its galaxies, planets and life forms, is a meticulously programmed computer simulation. In this scenario, the physical laws governing our reality are simply algorithms. The experiences we have are generated by the computational processes of an immensely advanced system.

While inherently speculative, the simulated universe theory has gained attention from scientists and philosophers due to its intriguing implications. The idea has made its mark in popular culture, across movies, TV shows and books—including the 1999 film “The Matrix.”

The earliest records of the concept that reality is an illusion are from ancient Greece. There, the question “What is the nature of our reality?” posed by Plato (427 BC) and others, gave birth to idealism. Idealist ancient thinkers such as Plato considered mind and spirit as the abiding reality. Matter, they argued, was just a manifestation or illusion.

Fast forward to modern times, and idealism has morphed into a new philosophy. This is the idea that both the material world and consciousness are part of a simulated reality. This is simply a modern extension of idealism, driven by recent technological advancements in computing and digital technologies. In both cases, the true nature of reality transcends the physical.

Within the scientific community, the concept of a simulated universe has sparked both fascination and skepticism. Some scientists suggest that if our reality is a simulation, there may be glitches or patterns within the fabric of the universe that betray its simulated nature.

However, the search for such anomalies remains a challenge. Our understanding of the laws of physics is still evolving. Ultimately, we lack a definitive framework to distinguish between simulated and non-simulated reality.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    9 months ago

    i think this is a solution in search if a problem. at no point does anyone try and start from our physics and end up over there in magical simulation land. theres no ‘weve noticed a pattern that can only be explained by simulation’… its all, lets see if we can find evidence for this crazy unobserved, radical notion with no actual reasoning to back it up but wishful philosophical nonsense.

    /laymanrant

    • ConstableJelly@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      I thought I’d heard one defense that goes if it’s theoretically possible to simulate an entire universe, which I understand it is, then it’s just statistically waaaaaay more likely that we’re in a simulated universe. There’s only one real one (excepting multiverse stuff), and potentially infinite simulated ones.

      I don’t remember where I heard this though, and I am a self-admitted idiot, so it’s extremely possible I’m extremely wrong.

      • fuzzywolf23@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        That is how the line of thinking goes. However, most arguments are wrong, so statistically speaking, that argument about simulation theory is probably wrong

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’d be curious to see evidence that it’s possible to simulate an entire universe. Considering a universe is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of memory to store the state of everything in the universe, let alone an infinite amount of compute to calculate steps in the simulation. I guess if you don’t simulate things that aren’t being observed (which I believe there is support for), there’s still a theoretically infinite number of observers.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The way I understand the potential for infinite simulated universes starts with the idea that once a species is cable of doing one, it makes sense to make more of them. If those simulations had their own simulations We also would not be able to tell where we where at the chain from our single point of reference.

      • stifle867@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Possibly true, but as much as that’s bandied around it’s rarely balanced against the fact that if it’s not possible then there’s a 0% chance of it happening (somewhat obviously). And it’s not like the possibility exists on a continuum where you could say it’s 50/50. It’s either one or the other.

    • neptune@dmv.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I felt the same way, until I read Reality Plus. This book basically reconstructs philosophy with the assumption that life is a simulation and it’s a good read (if you ever enjoyed a philosophy class).