In this blog post, we will explore the possibility that the world we live in is not real, but rather a simulation, from a philosophical and scientific perspective.
Humans cannot experience the true nature of the universe, that is, its unfiltered reality. Science has constantly advanced in order to answer many philosophical questions, such as “What are humans?” and “What is the world we live in?” This has broadened our understanding of the universe. In the future, it may be possible to simulate the entire universe. We will be able to create life forms, just like a creator, and simulate the entire world in which they live. But what if we are not creators, but creations? The situation changes if we assume that this world is not real and that we cannot even know this fact.
With current technology, it is impossible to simulate everything in the universe. But that is not necessary. All we need is a world that is realistic enough to believe that the creations in the simulation are real, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Who needs trillions of galaxies? All we need is a space where our creations are allowed to explore. Just like painting the sky on the ceiling, the vast universe may be nothing more than a flat projection. Nevertheless, the people living in it would have no way of knowing that. What about small things like cells and bacteria? In fact, these things do not need to be implemented individually. What we see through a microscope may be created at the same time as our observation. Similarly, the chair you are sitting on right now does not need to be simulated down to the atomic level. All that is needed is the shell. Until you open it, the inside may be empty. The minimum requirement for simulation is the consciousness of the creatures. They only need to believe that the simulation is real.
So, are humans currently living in a simulation? To answer this question, we can consider five hypotheses based on Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom’s “simulation hypothesis.” If all of these hypotheses are true, then we are living in a simulation. The first hypothesis is the premise that it is possible to simulate consciousness. No one knows what conditions must be met for consciousness to arise. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that consciousness can be created by simulating the brain. If we consider each interaction between synapses as a single operation, the brain performs approximately 10¹⁶ operations per second. Simulating one person is not enough. Let’s say we simulate 200 billion people with an average age of 50. Approximating one year as 30 million seconds, and multiplying 50 years by 200 billion people and 10¹⁶ operations, we can see that we need a computer capable of processing at least 3×10³⁶ operations per second. This is more than the total number of observable stars in the universe. It seems impossible that a computer capable of such calculations could exist, but that may not be the case.
The second hypothesis is that technological progress will not stop. Assuming that technological progress continues at the same pace and in the same manner as it has until now, at some point, technology will become so advanced that it will reach a god-like level. Under such a highly advanced civilization, simulating other civilizations would be very easy.
The third hypothesis is that highly advanced civilizations do not destroy themselves. If all civilizations are doomed to self-destruction, then this discussion ends here. If life forms cannot survive for long periods of time due to self-destruction, then no simulation would be possible.
The fourth hypothesis is that civilizations capable of simulation want to actually do so for some reason. When creations talk about the civilization that created them, it is highly likely that they do not know what their creators are dealing with. It may be a big mistake for humans to view the world only through the lens of “human-made standards.” Imagine the smartest ant on Earth. No matter how hard the ant tries to explain what humans are doing, it cannot understand human concepts. The concepts of enjoying a roller coaster at an amusement park, waiting in line, holidays, and fun are incomprehensible to an ant living its life as an ant. The same is true when comparing humans as creations to their creators. To them, we may be nothing more than ants. It may be foolish to think that creators would run simulations just for fun or for science. However, if they want to run simulations for whatever reason, and if the three hypotheses mentioned above are true, then it is not entirely impossible that we are living in a simulation.
The fifth and final hypothesis is that if many simulations already exist, then there is a high probability that humans are also included in those simulations. If simulated worlds, or virtual civilizations, exist, then there are likely to be quite a few of them. A civilization capable of creating a single virtual civilization can be thought of as having enormous computing power. And if they run simulations, they will run millions or billions of them. If there are billions of simulated universes, there will probably be more conscious beings than the number of universes multiplied by that number. This means that the majority of all conscious beings are simulations. Therefore, what we perceive as reality may not be real at all. We may be simulations.
All of these hypotheses are based on many assumptions that cannot be tested with current technology. They are merely possibilities of what humans and the world we live in could be. We may be real beings living on a small planet heading toward eternal nothingness, or we may be virtual beings in a computer simulation that aliens are observing with interest. However, whether we are living a simulated life or not, nothing much changes. Nevertheless, this way of thinking will provide an opportunity to question the “absolute nature” of humanity and the civilization we have built, which we have taken for granted until now. The hypothesis that humans may be simulated beings will be an opportunity to abandon our arrogance and reflect on ourselves, and thus serve as a stepping stone for better qualitative development.
