Is Our Reality Just a High-Fidelity Digital Illusion?

Welcome back to “Coordinated with Fredrik.” This week, we’re tackling an idea that forces us to question everything: the simulation hypothesis. It’s the mind-bending concept that our entire perceived world—the sky, our friends, and our existence—is not ultimate reality but an elaborate digital illusion, akin to a sophisticated computer program.This idea is far from new. It has deep philosophical roots, stretching back to Plato’s allegory of the cave, where prisoners mistook shadow projections for reality. Later, René Descartes refined this skepticism with the thought experiment of an evil demon manipulating every experience we have. The modern simulation hypothesis, however, represents a fundamental pivot from metaphysical doubt to a technological and probabilistic argument.The Statistical Modesty of Bostrom’s TrilemmaThe modern debate was formalized in 2003 by philosopher Nick Bostrom, who put forward a rigorous simulation argument framed as a trilemma. He argues that if technological progress continues, one of three “unlikely-seeming” propositions must be true:* The Great Filter: Almost no civilization will reach a posthuman stage capable of creating realistic simulations of conscious minds (perhaps because they destroy themselves).* The Great Disinterest: Advanced civilizations reach this technological stage but choose not to run “ancestor simulations” of people like us, possibly due to ethical scruples or lack of interest.* The Simulation: If the first two propositions are false (meaning advanced civilizations survive and run many simulations), then the number of simulated conscious beings would statistically far outnumber those in “base reality.” Therefore, we ourselves would almost certainly be among the simulated minds.Bostrom’s logic rests on two key assumptions: first, that consciousness can arise from computation (known as substrate-independence); and second, that future “posthuman” civilizations will command enormous amounts of computing power. If these premises hold, Bostrom claims that believing we are the special, original race among trillions of simulated ones is an act of statistical hubris.The Case for Code: Glitches and Digital PhysicsWhy do serious thinkers—like entrepreneur Elon Musk, who famously stated it’s “most likely that we’re in a simulation”, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who puts the odds around “50-50”—find this plausible?Part of the momentum comes from the realization that physical reality behaves mathematically, suggesting the universe might fundamentally be information. This is the core of “digital physics”.Some peculiar observations resonate with the simulation notion:* Quantum Strangeness: Quantum mechanics features an “observer effect” where measurement affects a particle’s behavior. This is reminiscent of a video game that only “renders” an object in detail when a player is looking at it, potentially to save on resources. The simulation might use randomness and indeterminacy as a resource-saving shortcut.* Error-Correcting Codes: Theoretical physicist James Gates found unexpected mathematical structures within the equations of supersymmetry that were akin to error-correcting codes—the same kind that fix data errors in browsers. This bizarre finding suggests the fabric of reality might have computational aspects, as if the universe’s “software” has a built-in debugging feature.* A Discrete Universe: In a simulation, everything must ultimately be represented in finite bits on a grid. This aligns with the speculative idea that spacetime might be “pixelated” at the incredibly tiny Planck scale.The Refutation: Thermodynamics Defeats Ancestor SimsWhile the idea is intriguing, rigorous scientific analysis, particularly recent quantitative research, provides mounting evidence against the physical feasibility of a universe simulation operating under our known laws.Physicists and information theorists have applied fundamental physical principles (like the Bekenstein bound and Landauer’s principle) to calculate the resources required. The gap is staggering:* Computational Impossibility: Simulating quantum-level reality demands $10^{62}$ times more computing power than currently exists globally. Exact simulation of the universe’s $10^{80}$ particles requires tracking $2^{(10^{80})}$ states—a number larger than the information storage capacity of the universe itself.* Energy Requirements: Simulating the entire visible universe requires encoding $~10^{123}$ bits, demanding approximately $10^{94}$ joules—an amount that exceeds the total energy content of the observable universe.* Time Constraints: Even a dramatically reduced, low-resolution simulation of Earth would consume $10^{35}$ to $10^{65}$ years of computing time per simulated second, vastly exceeding the universe’s age.In short, these calculations show that simulating our universe using physics like ours is fundamentally prohibited by energy conservation and entropy constraints; it is not merely a technological challenge.Furthermore, attempts to detect “glitches” have so far yielded nothing. The most rigorous experimental proposal suggested searching for a computational lattice by looking for rotational symmetry breaking in the arrival direction of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. After years of monitoring, no predicted anisotropy has been detected, constraining this specific model of a simulation.This has led prominent theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder to label the simulation hypothesis “unscientific” and even pseudoscience, arguing that mixing science with metaphysical speculation about omnipotent simulators is a mistake.Life and Meaning in a Digital RealityIf we were to discover the truth—that we are simulated—what would it mean for our lives?Philosopher David Chalmers argues against the notion that life would become meaningless. He contends that a simulated world is not an “illusion” but a “digital reality”. Our struggles, relationships, and joys are authentic to us. As he states, even if we’re in a perfect simulation, this is not an illusion; “Everything is just as meaningful as it was before”.The hypothesis also transforms theological concepts. An intentional creation by intelligent “outsiders” is analogous to a Creator, though the architects of our reality might be fallible, perhaps even immature, beings—not omniscient deities. Physicist James Gates even mused that the simulation idea “opens the door to eternal life or resurrection,” as our consciousness, being digital code, might be backed up or run again.Finally, the simulation hypothesis creates a profound conundrum regarding free will. Are our choices mere algorithms, making us “puppets” predetermined by code? Or, is our consciousness a “player” existing in a higher reality, making autonomous choices that influence the simulation—perhaps even instructing the simulation to “render” reality, thus elevating free will to a causal agent in physics?The Unanswered QuestionThe simulation hypothesis remains one of the most compelling and unresolvable intellectual debates of the modern era. While science has proven that simulating our universe under our physics is physically impossible, the hypothesis can always retreat to the unfalsifiable loophole that the simulators operate under physics we cannot conceive.However, the value of the idea isn’t in providing an answer we can confirm, but in the questions it forces us to ask. It spurs scientific creativity, pushing researchers to devise experiments at the boundary of physics and information. Whether our cosmos is base reality or one of infinitely nested simulations, we still face the same fundamental task: to live our lives as authentically and fully as we can. For us, as Chalmers suggests, the virtual reality we inhabit is real enough.The simulation hypothesis is like looking at a highly complex clockwork mechanism and wondering if the clockmaker used a pre-built computer program to design the gears, only to realize the sheer size and complexity of the resulting clock requires the program itself to be bigger than the finished clock—leaving us to marvel at the ingenuity (or impossibility) of the original design. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit frahlg.substack.com

There are no comments yet.

Please log in to write the first comment.