Cedar Schumacher

Mr. Smith

Junior ELA

21 January 2023

The Simulation Theory: Settled or Science Fiction?

The nature of existence is a question that has plagued philosophers and scientists alike for

thousands of years. Plato, the famous ancient Greek philosopher, once told a story of a group of

prisoners in a cave; chained so that they could not move, they only were able to see a blank wall

in front of them. On the wall, shadows of other people walking behind the prisoners were

displayed. For all intents and purposes, the prisoners would perceive the shadows to be

completely real: the shadows were their very reality. Therefore, the prisoners were in essence

living in a simulated world; they perceived their surroundings to be ‘real’, but they were in

actuality experiencing a lesser version of actual reality. The Simulation Theory is the idea that

our individual existence and reality as we know it are simply the product of some ‘godlike’

higher form of life, in the form of a computer simulation; perhaps, “...our world [is] simply a

hyper-realistic simulation, with all of us merely characters in some kind of sophisticated video

game….” (Falk) This idea has become something of a hot topic in recent years, as scientists,

physicists, and philosophers all tackle the question of whether we are living in a simulation or

the one true “base” reality. Although many are skeptical due to logistical challenges or possible

ulterior motives, the consistent trend of advancements in computing power, as well as the

compelling parallel between the speed of light and computing limitations confirm that the

Simulation Theory is true.

 Today’s computers are ever-advancing, and the relentless pattern of new advancements

related to simulation, such as virtual and augmented reality devices and more powerful video

game graphics, being introduced promises big things for the future of our simulation technology,

and indicates that the simulation theory must be true. A key example of such technology is the

rising popularity of virtual reality, or VR devices. These devices possess more powerful abilities

than ever, as their immense potential is tapped, allowing people to, “...learn how to perform heart

surgery or improve the quality of sports training to maximise performance” (Iberdrola). The

Spanish global energy leader Iberdrola also states that, “VR allows us to immerse ourselves in

video games as if we were one of the characters” (Iberdrola). VR devices today are extremely

advanced - developed to allow for incredibly highly nuanced operations like heart surgery to be

accurately and practically simulated for the user. The ability to perform sports training through

VR devices also demonstrates that this technology is accurate and consistent enough to simulate

objects moving at high speeds, and resolve the positions of simulated objects with little error–

imagine trying to hit a baseball in VR: the slightest change in the velocity, spin, or location of the

bat or ball could have drastic impacts on the ball’s motion, so great accuracy must be maintained

by the VR device. Although current technologies are not practically indistinguishable from real

life yet, they are indicative of a trend towards truly convincing simulations. Additionally, it is

significant to note that the first device to be considered ‘virtual reality’ was introduced in the

1950’s. It was a primitive device that consisted of a “theater cabinet” that used vibrations, fans,

“smell generators”, and a 3d screen to “fully immerse the individual in the film” (Virtual Reality

Society). It is self-evident that the current state of virtual reality technology is almost

unrecognizable from its origins. If there has been such considerable developments over just 70

years–a mere snapshot of time when compared to human development as a whole–it is easy to
imagine that virtual reality technology could become so advanced that it becomes almost

indistinguishable from reality in only a few decades or centuries. This is a similar concept to the

infamous Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors on an integrated chip will

double every two years (Intel). Although Moore’s Law has been subject to some skepticism, it

also reinforces the idea that the technological abilities of humanity are growing incredibly

quickly. If this were to happen, we would possess the technological methodology, if not the raw

computing power, to create simulations of reality that could not be distinguished from reality. If

humans can eventually produce convincing simulations, then clearly such an endeavor is

technically possible. By taking into account that there are almost certainly trillions of other

examples of life in our universe (Oluseyi), it becomes clear that the possibility of millions of

other civilizations developing this technology is very likely. In this vein, if there are millions of

simulated realities existing in our universe, and only one “real” reality, then it becomes

statistically certain that we are in one of the simulated realities. The tremendous rate of current

technological progress on Earth proves that the Simulation must be true, since it is statistically

almost certain.

Another important factor in the likelihood of existing in a simulation is the impending

development of quantum computers. These promise a new method of computing that will be

very well suited to running simulations and other intensive tasks. Accordingly, “technology

vendor” CB Insights reports that, “Quantum computers will be able to tackle certain types of

problems — especially those involving a daunting number of variables and potential outcomes,

like simulations…much faster than any classical computer” (CB Insights). Whereas a classical

computer uses binary bits, which can only represent either a ‘1’ or ‘0’, a quantum computer uses

qubits, which can represent any value in between or including 0 and 1. This allows it to make
certain computations involved in running simulations significantly more quickly and efficiently

than a normal computer. Once quantum computers are fully developed and integrated into new

computing infrastructure, they would almost certainly propel humanity into an age of

unprecedented computing ability, including the ability to compute simulations of reality.

In addition to the inevitable logistical potential for simulations, there are also some very

peculiar quirks of the universe that strongly imply a simulated existence. Perhaps the most

(in)famous of these is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is constant in all

reference frames, and does not change is suspicious, some argue. For example, all computers

leave artifacts within their programs: “The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an

upper limit. The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws….The effect of the

artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions” (Scientific American). Interestingly, the speed

of light meets all of these criteria. As an unyielding upper bound on the speed of the universe, it

is analogous to the maximum computing speed of a computer. Imagine loading too many tabs

onto a laptop - it slows down, then eventually freezes. The speed of light behaves the same way.

As the observer speeds up, time passes ever slower for them relative to the outside world. This is

akin to the laptop slowing down as more and more things are opened - as the observer’s speed

increases, they are ‘experiencing’ more and more of the universe per second, effectively opening

more tabs on the universal browser. Eventually, at the speed of light, time stops for the observer,

which is comparable to the laptop finally freezing as its computing limit is reached - no more

data can be processed within the given time interval. This striking similarity is one of the most

convincing pieces of evidence supporting the Simulation Theory. How else could such a

remarkably artificial phenomenon occur?

 Another key example of physical qualities betraying the simulated nature of the universe

is found in quantum mechanics, which “...suggest[s] nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined

states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure

them” (University of Portsmouth). This is very similar to how a video game operates: to

conserve resources, objects and values are only resolved and displayed when they are necessary

to maintain the illusion of a cohesive world for the player. Quantum particles behave in much the

same way: until they are directly observed, their qualities cannot be determined. They could be

in an infinite number of configurations, and by observing, the observer forces the particle to

‘choose’ a configuration to settle into. The particles literally are completely ambiguous until they

are forced to reveal their information by being directly observed. This is perfectly analogous to

how a video game would not bother computing or rendering the scene or characters outside the

player’s field of view; they are unnecessary and so are ignored until needed. This is another

coincidence, like the speed of light, that could be discounted, but is undoubtedly illogical. The

Simulation Theory perfectly ties up these loose ends.

Despite this nearly insurmountable evidence, many still remain convinced of the

universe’s authenticity. One common argument is that there simply isn't enough energy in the

universe to fully simulate a convincing reality. This is an excellent point, and takes a stand based

on the physical practicality of validating the Simulation Theory. However, this viewpoint makes

several assumptions that invalidate it when they are taken into account. Firstly and foremost, this

argument assumes that the universe doing the simulating is similar in size and construction to

ours. While certainly possible, it is not a guarantee, and it could easily be immeasurably large

and energy-rich - there is no way to know. Additionally, the qubits used in quantum computers

are significantly more efficient at storing information than classical bits - while computing power
increases linearly with bit count in classical computers, it increases exponentially per qubit count

in quantum computers (Microsoft). This means that the computing devices used to run the

simulation could easily be so much more energy-efficient than current technologies that they are

unrecognizable; clearly, if such a difference in computing ability exists between ‘our’ humanity

and ‘The Simulators’, than any assumptions about the logistical impossibility of computing such

a simulation are inherently vague and unreliable.

Another unusual but very interesting disagreement taken up with the Simulation Theory

is that it is only proposed by rich men who have jobs within the computing and technology

industries, and would stand to gain personal benefits from promoting the Simulation Theory.

However thought-provoking this perspective may be, it is simply untrue. Nick Bostrom, the

modern father of the Simulation Theory and its most influential proponent, works primarily as an

educator and professor at Harvard and Oxford Universities (Nick Bostrom). As such, he stands in

a position that relies on the Simulation Theory not being widely accepted. Think about it - if

everybody, or at least the vast majority of people, all realized that the world was a simulation,

would they bother going to school? No of course not! More likely than not, there would be

widespread rioting, since the Simulation Theory being true also removes any hope of free will,

and people would be eager to prove their autonomy. As he works almost entirely through

educational institutions, and very privileged ones at that, he would likely lose his job at the very

least if his theory was proven. What’s more, he might even be targeted; it's hard to imagine the

general public would be thrilled with this new realization. All in all, very little good could come

to Professor Bostrom if the Simulation Theory was proven to be true. As it was his seminal 2003

paper that brought the Simulation Theory into the public eye, the Simulation Theory clearly does
not have some hidden ulterior motive - in reality, the creator stands to lose everything should it

be proven.

Many people are skeptical of the Simulation Theory, and rightfully so. It is undoubtedly a

radical proposition that would change the fundamental nature of human life if proven true.

However, there is more than sufficient evidence to prove its validity once and for all - consistent

trends in computing power as well as significant physical quirks of the universe are telling signs

that this is indeed all a simulation. Although many may claim that there are too many logistical

difficulties with simulation such a convincing reality, there is simply too little information

available to make such statements without unreasonable amounts of guesswork. And, the

proponents of the theory stand nothing to gain and everything to lose should it be proven true, so

there cannot be some corrupt reason for supporting it. However, some question the reasoning

behind simply asking such questions. Does it really matter whether the universe is simulated? If

people perceive the simulation to be fully ‘real’, does it even make a difference - are people’s

perceptions more important than their knowledge?

 Works Cited

Bostrom, Nick. "Nick Bostrom’s Home Page." Nick Bostrom’s Home Page, Nov. 2023,

nickbostrom.com.

Falk, Dan. “Are We Living in a Simulated Universe? Here’s What Scientists Say.”

NBCNews.Com, NBC Universal News Group, 6 July 2019,

www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/are-we-living-simulated-universe-here-s-what-scientists-

say-ncna1026916.

"History Of Virtual Reality - Virtual Reality Society." Virtual Reality Society, 2017,

www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/history.html#:~:text=In%201968%20Ivan%20Sutherland%2

0and,ceiling%20(hence%20its%20name).

Khan, Fouad. "Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation." Scientific American, 4 Apr. 2021,

www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation.

“Moore’s Law.” Intel, Intel Corporation,

www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/resources/moores-law.html. Accessed 21

Jan. 2024.

Oluseyi, Hakeem. “Intelligent Life Probably Exists on Distant Planets — Even If We Can’t ...”

The Washington Post, The Washington Post, 19 June 2021,

www.washingtonpost.com/science/intelligent-life-probably-exists-on-distant-planets--even-

if-we-cant-make-contact-astrophysicist-says/2021/06/18/ee6a5316-cd2d-11eb-8cd2-4e9523

0cfac2_story.html.
“Virtual Reality: Another World within Sight.” Iberdrola, 2023,

www.iberdrola.com/innovation/virtual-reality.

Vopson, Melvin. "How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation." University of

Portsmouth, 21 Nov. 2022,

www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/future-and-emerging-technologies/how-to-te

st-if-were-living-in-a-computer-simulation#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20most%20supportiv

e%20evidence,actually%20observe%20or%20measure%20them.

"What is a qubit?" Microsoft Azure, 2023,

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-a-qubit.

"What Is Quantum Computing? Definition, Industry Trends & Benefits Explained." CB Insights

Research, 7 Jan. 2021, www.cbinsights.com/research/report/quantum-computing.

 H Argument Essay Rubric

Skill Not Yet Foundational Proficient Advanced

Identifies a basic claim Appears in first Thesis establishes a

Thesis paragraph complex claim

Thesis establishes a Establishes

topic and a claim counter-argument in
claim

Topic sentences Topic sentences have Topic sentences have

Claims/Reasons contain basic claims clear and distinct clear and distinct
claims that relate to claims that relate to
the thesis the thesis and make
nuanced points that
consider alternate
perspectives or
counterarguments

Uses some brief Uses multiple pieces Uses a variety of

Evidence examples, or one of evidence (personal evidence (see
example, to support experience, anecdotes, previous column) that
each claim; may all be survey, research etc.) supports each claim;
personal experience to support each claim different types of
evidence in each body
paragraph

Use of reliable outside

sources

Brief explanation of Explains how Provides strong

Analysis how evidence evidence supports explanations of how
supports topic topic sentence/claim evidence supports
sentence of individual of individual topic sentence and the
paragraphs paragraphs and the thesis while also
thesis considering
counterarguments
Includes at least 2
concessions in body Seamlessly mentions
paragraphs concession, and offers
response/rebuttal

Counter- Makes some mention Structure Well-structured and

Argument of opposing argument counter-argument effective
which: counter-argument
Mentions the which:
opposing argument, Establishes an aspect
some mention of how of the opposing
 opposing argument argument, clearly and
may be disproven logically disproves the
argument
Some elements missing Heading is correctly No errors in MLA
MLA Format or some errors in MLA formatted format
format
Pages are numbered

In-text citations are

correctly formatted (if
sources are used)

Works Cited format:

hanging indent,
double-spaced,
alphabetized, starts on
a new page (if sources
are used)

Works Cited: each

source entry is in
correct MLA format (if
sources are used)
Shows evidence of Quotes are correctly Quotes are correctly
Conventions basic proofreading integrated most of the integrated
time (if sources are
used) Shows evidence of
careful proofreading
Follows essay
organization (claims in Includes fluid
topic sentence; transitions between
evidence; analysis; ideas
concluding sentences)
Eliminates wordiness
Shows evidence of
proofreading

Utilizes mostly simple Some varied sentence Consistently varied

Fluency sentence structures structures sentence structures

Some use of advanced Advanced use of

vocabulary vocabulary; including
use of active verbs