Contra Simulation Theory
Sven Gelbhaar
22.07.2019
Since the release of the movie /The Matrix/, and especially over the last couple
of years, the idea has been floating around that we live in a simulation. What
we consider to be Objective Reality has been likened to a video game, and this
idea has gained a lot of traction. But just how likely is it?
The argument, as I’ve ‘heard’ it, is that we create simulations, and that given
enough time our simulations would create simulations, and so on down the line
indefinitely. Now, with an infinite series of simulations, the odds are
immensely in favor of us being in a simulation ourselves. This is of course
paraphrased, but I hope not a strawman (argument).
This argument can be attacked on (at least) two fronts. One of them being that
it depends on what sort of simulation it is. If it’s the game of /Life/,
wherein simple rules are effected on an arbitrary starting condition, then the
chances that this simulation will create simulations is a LOT less (likely) than
if it were a game such as /The Sims/. Considering the sheer depth — both macro
and micro — the odds are that it would be more along the lines of /Life/.
The second counter-argument is that: simulations, the deeper into the
nest(((()))) you go, the more resources are required by/for the base reality’s
simulator. The simulator would require, if the same thing is being simulated
throughout, exponentially more and more resources in terms of time, effort
(CPU-cycles, etc), and so on the more nested simulators that exist. This world
appears to be unbounded in terms of spatial and temporal dimensions, with an
unbelievable amount of objects and events pertaining to these objects occuring
for an incomprehensibly long time. This world, being infinite, would be more
than infinitely resource-intensive.
With these two points in mind, it is much likelier that we are not, in fact,
part of a simulation.