The Simulation Hypothesis

The simulation hypothesis posits that our perceived reality is not genuine but rather a complex, likely computer-generated simulation. This concept suggests that everything we experience—the physical world, our sensory perceptions, and even our thoughts—are artificially generated by advanced computational systems, potentially orchestrated by beings far more technologically advanced than we can imagine. The idea isn't merely a modern construct; it has deep philosophical roots, echoing questions about the nature of existence posed by ancient thinkers.

In popular culture, this hypothesis has long been a captivating narrative device. From the mind-bending works of science fiction authors like Stanisław Lem and Philip K. Dick, who explored the blurred lines between reality and illusion, to contemporary media like "The Matrix" and episodes of "Black Mirror," the concept has fascinated audiences with its profound implications and unsettling possibilities. These stories often delve into themes of control, consciousness, and the nature of reality, prompting viewers to question the authenticity of their own experiences.

In recent years, the simulation hypothesis has transcended fiction and gained a foothold in academic and technological discussions. Influential figures in the tech industry, particularly in Silicon Valley, have shown a growing interest in the idea. Prominent voices like Elon Musk have brought the hypothesis into mainstream conversation, with Musk famously asserting that there is a high probability—about 99.9% in his view—that we are living in a simulated universe. This endorsement has sparked widespread debate and curiosity, further embedding the hypothesis in the public imagination.

However, despite its intriguing nature and cultural resonance, we believe this hypothesis is foolish, useless, and harmful.

Foolishness in Banality

The simulation hypothesis, at its core, is foolish due to its inherent banality. Advocates of this hypothesis often present themselves as harbingers of some hidden, paradoxical knowledge. However, the tendency to construct a worldview based on the most contemporary technology is nothing new. Throughout history, people have consistently used the technological paradigms of their times to interpret the universe. When the wheel was invented, the cosmos was seen as a giant wheel of rebirths and cycles, with living beings reincarnating, and the forces of yin and yang in dynamic equilibrium. The advent of writing saw the gods endowed with Books of the Living and Books of the Dead, and the origin of the universe was described as, "In the beginning was the Word." The discovery of fundamental mechanical laws led to the depiction of the universe as a precisely tuned mechanism, akin to a clock.

Continuing this tradition of naïve extrapolation, contemporary pseudo-intellectuals, upon encountering the computer, construct a worldview of a simulated universe.

Interestingly, this flawed logic also extends to our understanding of the human body and brain. Since the dawn of the Modern Age, we've cycled through various analogies: from viewing humans as complex mechanisms, to industrial factories consuming diverse resources, to the brain as a church organ, a plumbing system, and a complex electrical circuit. All these seemingly obvious analogies were eventually discarded as inadequate. The reason they continually resurface in new forms is simple: monkey see, monkey do (in our case, mindlessly generalize).

Practical Uselessness

The simulation hypothesis is practically useless because it offers no viable method for experimental or observational verification. We lack any means to distinguish between the intrinsic properties of nature and those that might arise from technical limitations within a simulation.

Probabilistic arguments in favor of the simulation hypothesis are also unconvincing. These arguments often rely on assumptions about the nature of the "base" reality in which the simulation is supposedly running, which is inherently problematic. The base reality could have completely different physical laws, dimensions of space-time, fundamental interactions, and mathematical frameworks, including different logic systems. Even the principle of causality, which underpins our natural sciences, might not apply in such a universe.

This absence of potential experimental verification reduces the simulation hypothesis to a status similar to other philosophical or religious beliefs. It is more accurately described as a form of speculative metaphysics or even a cult, rather than a scientific hypothesis.

Furthermore, even if we somehow obtained irrefutable evidence supporting the simulation hypothesis, it wouldn't yield any novel insights about life that aren't already accessible through existing philosophical systems. From a societal and moral standpoint, questions about the nature of reality, whether it is simulated or not, overlap significantly with age-old theological and metaphysical questions about the existence of a god or an afterlife. Each individual has already addressed these questions in their own way. For science and technology, whether our reality is "real" or simulated is irrelevant. Their domain is the investigation and utilization of the reality we experience through our senses. The practical applications of scientific discoveries and technological innovations remain unaffected by the metaphysical nature of the universe.

In general, the simulation hypothesis follows a centuries-old skeptical philosophical tradition that questions the reality of the surrounding world. This includes ideas that reality is a dream, that it is the product of a malicious demon's influence on our minds, or that all of reality was fabricated five minutes ago, including all evidence of earlier history, and so on. These concepts are good for honing critical thinking but are completely useless for productive interaction with reality, even though they cannot be definitively refuted.

Social Harm

Finally, the simulation hypothesis is harmful because it carries significant potential social risks.

Nick Bostrom, one of the prominent advocates of the simulation hypothesis, suggested in Lex Fridman's podcast #83 that in a simulation, beings from the base reality and self-aware bots might coexist. In this scenario, the most "interesting," outstanding, and distinguished individuals might be the "real" ones among all people. Thus, the real reason for the interest of the wealthiest individuals in the simulation hypothesis lies in simple vanity.

The social danger here is that if we accept this absurd chain of reasoning, people will be divided into groups based on principles beyond their control, which, in turn, creates grounds for discrimination and, ultimately, genocide. In this sense, the simulation hypothesis serves as an ideological cover for the existing imperialist system of exploitation, legitimizing and justifying it while removing ethical constraints on its further development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the simulation hypothesis masquerades as a philosophical revelation while merely repeating ideas that are over 2000 years old. It pretends to advance scientific understanding of the world while rejecting the scientific method and, like other such doctrines, presents a danger in the hands of the ruling class.