Are we living in a virtual simulation? Maybe.

Steven S. Gouveia1 & Raquel Pereira2

The question entitling this abstract can be interpreted as a contemporary version of Descartes’ Evil Genius: how can we have knowledge of the external world? The contemporary version of that question is: how do we know we are not living in a simulation? The question seems a bit vague. We can understand its value by referring an important movie that was actually inspired by Descartes’ idea: . In this movie, the all world is a simulation of a supercomputer, and a computer hacker called Neo discovers that all life on Earth may be nothing more than an elaborate simulation created by a malevolent superintelligence (cf. Chalmers, 2003). Now, if we were Neo, how would we know that the world we see and interact is real, and not a simulation occurring in our brains? Of course, one can think that The Matrix is an extreme case: we don’t have a kind of technology, in the current state of the world, to recreate such scenario. However, we can already do it in a lower scale.

A main idea to think in regards to this hypothesis is as follows: people are already delving into virtual with games such as “ The Sims” and “Second Life”, in which you can create a person’s entire life with all the things that we have in real life (like a family, work and necessity of eating). So, if we can already do it, there's a possibility we are living in it: it’s only a matter of having the technology to do it on a larger scale.

This question was formally asserted by the philosopher in his paper “Are we living in a computer simulation?”. The simulation argument states three

1 Ph.D. Student at the University of Minho, under the supervision of Professor Manuel Curado (University of Minho) and Professor Georg Northoff (University of Ottawa). His primary focus is on the relationship between Neuroscience and . He is also working on the relationship between technology and society, broadly understood.

2 Philosophy B.A. and Cultural and Literary Mediation M.A. (prospective studies) at University of Minho. Main interest is the artistic status of pornography and erotic art. Besides that, the implications brought about by technological advances, both in regards to the individual's relationship with reality and to a possible ever expanding realm of arts and thought. possibilities about the world: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. (cf. Bostrom, 2003)

One of this three proposition is true: suppose that it was the case that (1) is false - some civilization in the reaches technological maturity; then suppose that (2) is also false - some civilization uses the resources to run ancestors simulations; you can then show that because these mature civilizations can do astronomical numbers of simulations, you can show that if the first two possibilities are false there might exist more simulated people like us that non simulated people. Most of the people with our kind of experiences would be living inside simulations rather than outside them. The structure of the argument is that, if you reject the first two hypotheses, then you have to accept that the third one follows. For each real world we would have millions of simulated worlds, so the probability that we’re already in a simulation is genuine.

For the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, the simulation argument is, however, different from the traditional arguments of about the external world because it doesn’t start from a position of power or of a challenge to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the external world really exist. Rather the simulation argument starts by assuming that things are as they seem, that science tells us things about the world. We have no evidence to know which of the three propositions are true; so we should divide the probability for each as evenly as possible.

The biggest mistake is to conflate the simulation hypothesis with the simulation argument. The first one is the statement that we are living in a computer simulation (Bostrom thinks that it is less than 50 percent likely to be the case). However, he believes, the simulation argument which shows that one of the three propositions is true (one of them is the simulation hypothesis).

To run a simulation at all would requires extremely advanced technology. Presumably those doing it would be some kind of superintelligent post human life forms (not thinkers like us), and if they had the ability to create a simulation like that they would also have the ability to fill any cracks and glitches that we may be able to detect. Even if we assume that they could make a mistake (like someone having access to the real, non simulated, world), they would be in a position to hide such mistake from the people in the simulation (e.g. erasing their memories). The probability of the simulation hypothesis cannot have any direct evidence (because the simulation would be a perfect one). Nevertheless, its probability can grow up if we have direct evidence that the other two propositions are true or false. The case is: if we can reach technological maturity and if we are interested on running ancestors simulations, the third option is incredibly strong.

This conference will debate his argument in detail, and analyze its main critics. The critics can be summed by the following ideas: (4) if we apply Ockham's Razor to the issue raised by the Simulation Argument, it seems we are forced to conclude that it is simpler to assert that we leave in a “real” reality, and not in a simulation (which implies more ontological compromises); (5) it isn’t obvious why a civilization in the future would consider simulating , as it could create too many dangers to the civilization that considering these sorts of technology; (6) there could be some biological constraints limiting the evolution of the technology, thus, undermining the project at stake; and finally (7), the formal validity of the conclusion of the simulation argument seems controversial in the light of a probabilistic analysis. (cf. Besnard, 2004).

We will also analyze some reasons that are given to defend this hypothesis. The first one is that we are already doing, in a lower scale, complex simulations (for example, use this kind of technology to simulate the beginning and evolution of the universe, in order to test their theories; this kind of approach has the advantage of testing a lot of different initial conditions with different variables with the same laws of nature). The second reason has to do with the Fermi Paradox: the simulation hypothesis can help to explain why it seems that we are alone in our universe. Finally, some scientists found computer code in Superstring Theory equations. Professor James Gates found that computer code seems to be embedded into the universe (a particular code called “block linear self dual error correction code”). This can be a signal that the all universe is, he thinks, a gigantic computer code, a necessary requirement to the simulation hypothesis. We will conclude that, however we cannot say with certainty that we are living in ta simulated universe, there are sufficient reasons to debate these idea and to analyze it’s consequence for the future of Humanity.

These consequences are quite important: for example, if one accepts that we are living in a simulation, then we open the door to eternal life, resurrection and things that were, formerly, discussed within the realm of Religion. The reason is actually quite simple: if you think about a computer – if we are a simulation, then we’re like programs in a computer, as long as I’m a computer that’s not damaged, I can always rerun the program. So, if one does believe us to be in a simulation, and there’s some structure that runs said simulation, unless something damages that structure, then we can be repurposed. An extreme reading of these would be a nieztchean one: the universe can be an Eternal Return, with all the things happening over and over again. The consequences of this idea are huge: if we are eternal, does it make sense to vote for a government in a democratic election? Does it sense to work and to have a family, or even to cure our diseases?

Another consequence of the simulation idea is that it seems to imply a Creator (the programmer) that knows everything and is all powerful. This can raise some interesting questions, from a naturalistic point of view, about the existence of a God and, consequently, about the role of Religion in today’s society.

Note: Our proposal can be inscribed in the lines I, II and IV, as it raises important issues that involves those three main topics.

References:

- BOSTROM, Nick (2003), “Are we living in a computer simulation?”, in Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.

- CHALMERS, David (2010), “The Singularity: a Philosophical Analysis” in Journal of Consciousness Studies 17:7-65. - CHALMERS, David (2005), “The matrix as ” in (C. Grau, ed) Philosophers Explore the Matrix, Oxford: Oxford University Press. - KURWEIL, Ray (2006), The Singularity is Near, New York: Viking Penguin. - SANDBERG, A. & BOSTROM, N. (2008), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.

Websites: - CHALMERS, David (2016, 15 July), The Virutal and the Real, Retrieved from http://consc.net/papers/virtual.pdf - BESNARD, Fabien (2004, 5 September), Refutations of the Simulation Argument, Retrived from http://fabien.besnard.pagesperso-orange.fr/pdfrefut.pdf.

Movie:

- WACHOWSKI, Lana (1999), The Matrix, USA: Warner Brothers / Silver Pictures.

Youtube: - American Museum of Natural History (2016, April 08), 2016 Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?, Retrived from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs.