Considering the implications of simulation theory

An Introduction to Bostrom's Simulation Theory

In 2003, Nick Bostrom released a paper outlining his theory that the possibility that we are currently living in a simulation is close to one. Bostrom argues that there are 3 options for the future of the human race:

1. Humans will go extinct before evolving into a “posthuman” state

2. Humans will evolve into a “posthuman” state, yet the likelihood that they are interested in running simulations of their fore-bearers is close to zero.

3. Humans will evolve into a “posthuman” state, and the likelihood that they are interested in running simulations of their fore-bearers is close to one.

A large assumption Bostrom makes is that it is physically and computationally a possibility to create a machine that has enough power to simulate the entirety of the universe down to the level of individual molecules. He attempted to calculate how much computing power this would take, using the human brain as a building block for his estimates. These estimates are based on models of nervous tissue in the brain and models of the number of synapses in the brain. It is important to note that these estimates reference the lower bound; they only include the processes and mechanisms that currently exist. In the future, there will be so many more people and processes on earth that likely will exist which the technology needs to accommodate. Bostrom acknowledges this limitation of his estimations, but essentially concludes that this technology will eventually be available to the posthuman beings.

One of the ways Bostrom refutes the counterclaim that such a technology is impossible to create is he explains how the simulation does not need to construct the world down to the atomic level at all times. Though we know that everything in the world is made up of atoms because we have discovered this in the field of chemistry, this fact is not apparent upon first glance in our day-to-day lives. We only need to be able to see individual atoms when we are looking at them under a microscope. For all we know, they aren't actually there until the simulators catch us looking for them. In this case, the simulation would not require the computing power to include all of these atomic aspects of the universe.

Implications of Proving the Simulation Theory

Upon first glance, this theory seems to completely overturn nearly everything we as humans hold to be true. It is extremely jarring to imagine that we might not actually exist in the way that we thought we do. In our world, we tend to refer to computational worlds as not "real" environments and avatars in those environments as not "real" people. So, it is understandable why this would be a pretty big deal. However, upon further research, it became apparent that the low-level details of our world are in fact not essential to our everyday lives. Furthermore, they do not impact our lives in a meaningful way at all, thus proving Bostrom's theory would not have a large effect on the human existence.

Bostrom’s argument is robust yet purely hypothetical; it would be extremely difficult to prove his argument or disprove it with conviction. It is productive, however, to consider how proving or disproving his theory would affect our society and human experience. I operationalize the human experience as consciousness, the fact that we share experiences and a version of reality, and that we think we have free will and control over our actions. The source of our existence is not an important factor in our sense of being, thus it should not make a difference whether our world was constructed by natural or computational forces. Thus, if we were to be able to prove Bostrom’s theory and discover we are living in a simulation, our human experience would largely remain the same.

The Human Experience Operationalized as Consciousness, Shared Reality, and Illusion of Free Will

This operationalization of the human experience is not the only one, and yet it encapsulates a large part of what differentiates us from other species on this Earth. The existence of consciousness, the ability to collaborate and learn from others, and the idea that we have control over our destinies is what has allowed us to create advanced society and develop into the civilization we have today.

Consciousness

Being conscious refers to the fact that we are capable of interpreting and responding to the outside world, that we are aware of the fact that we are doing so, that we are aware of this awareness and have a sense of self-awareness, and that we all have unique and subjective ways of experiencing the world. We can think about consciousness as being able to describe "what something is like" as oppossed to just experiencing that something.

This image exemplifies the subjective and unique experience of being conscious. This concept is often described through “qualia,” which refers to the inaccessible combination of different mental states that compose consciousness. Saying the sentence “I am wearing yellow today” might evoke a memory of sunshine and happiness in one person, while causing another person to feel angry due to a memory of their boss wearing yellow while firing them. These two people could have had entirely different experiences while completing the task, and yet they may have an inability to pinpoint exactly what it felt like to say the sentence or why it felt that way. On the other hand, given the same input, the 2 computers will perform the same algorithm and produce the same output every time they do it. There is no “qualia” because they are not conscious, and the computers can not describe what the experience of running the algorithm was like.

This exploration into consciousness is essential because it proves how convinced we are that we are conscious beings and that we experience the world differently from computers and other unconscious beings. This component of our biology is is essential to our species. However, the fact that we currently believe it is a biological process is not essential to our experience as humans. If Bostrom’s simulation theory were in fact proven to be true, we would still be conscious beings, and we would still experience the world in the same way. The only distinction is that our consciousness would arise from computational forces instead of natural ones.

Shared Experience/Agreement of Reality

Though we all have subjective and unique ways of experiencing the world, we understand and agree that there exists an objective version of the world that we are all experiencing. Further, we understand that we all have different experiences and can empathize with and validate others’ differing emotions and experiences. Since we were primal beings as hunters and gatherers, through the industrial revolution, and into the technological revolution, bonding over shared experiences and joining forces to create creative solutions to our problems have been essential aspects of the human experience.

If Bostrom’s theory were to be proven true, the most likely scenario would be that we would prove that we are all currently in a simulation. If so, we would instead share and agree upon this version of reality. Just as other theories have changed the way we view the world in the past, such as the transition from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe, proving the simulation theory would simply further our understanding of our origins. In contrast, if the simulation theory were to be proven true but only for one person, that one person's life would likely drastically change. They would feel betrayed and disillusioned and question their reality. However, Bostrom's claims to not point to a scenario in which this would occur.

Free Will

Free will, or control over one’s actions, is an essential component of the human experience. I argue this because almost everyone in their day-to-day lives feels as though they have autonomy over their actions and can make decisions resulting from their own brain processes. Thus, there is a clear objection to the argument I am proposing: proving the simulation theory would reveal that we are in fact pre-programmed by the higher beings that created our simulation, and thus we do not have control over our actions since they are determined by these programmers. Even if the programmers created an algorithm that was able to learn as it went along, shifting and getting smarter as time went on, the programmers would still be the ones who originally created such an algorithm and thus anything it did could be attributed to the programmers. If it were proven that we were in a simulation, it would prove that the algorithm running our simulation would decide our every action, which is an external source. Thus, this objection pretty clearly provides a threat to our human existence since it might threaten free will. However, I will push back against this objection and argue that the actuality of free will is less important than the illusion that we have free will.

In Harry Frankfurt's thought experiment outlined above, a neurosurgeon plants a chip in their patient’s brain which can make the patient decide to vote for a particular presidential candidate. If the patient wants to vote for Bush, then the chip will create a change in his reasoning so that he instead votes for Clinton. Based on the definition of free will defined earlier, the patient in Frankfurt’s thought experiment would not be the source of his decision, instead the chip placed in the patient by his neurosurgeon would determine his action, thus in this case he would not have free will to choose otherwise.

Following along with Frankfurt’s experiment and this version of free will, we would be able to assert that if we were in a simulation, we would not have free will because the source of our actions/decisions would have been implanted in us and created by the controllers of our simulation.

To refute this, I will argue that the aspect of free will that is central to human existence is the illusion that we have free will and are in control of our existence. And, even if we were able to prove simulation theory, we would still have this illusion because finding out we are in a simulation would not actually change anything other than this added knowledge of our creation. The illusion would remain the same, thus this aspect of human experience would also remain the same.

The Predictor Thought Experiment

In his futuristic short story "What's Expected of Us," Chiang describes a hypothetical futuristic world in which a small device exists called a Predictor, which flashes a light a second before you press its button using a mechanism with a negative time delay. The experience of using this device is confusing and frustrating for nearly all of its users, because of how convinced most people are that they have free will. Chiang even goes so far to say “the experience of having free will is too powerful for an argument to overrule,” referring to the experience of using the Predictor as an “argument.” By saying this, he essentially is arguing that no matter how robust arguments constructed from physics, philosophy, or logic are, it will always feel as though we have free will, something which this Predictor device threatens but doesn’t take away).

Being able to prove that we are in a simulation would be similar to the creation of the Predictor device in that we would still believe we have free will and feel like we should have free will. As a piece of advice, the narrator of the story says “It’s essential that you behave as if your decisions matter, even though you know that they don’t.” The fact that Chiang believes it’s essential that we preserve this feeling of free will shows that it is central to human existence, even if we don’t actually have free will. So, even if proving the simulation theory would mean proving that we don’t have free will, we would still believe that we do, thus it would not have an effect on human existence.

Conclusion

Bostrom’s theory is one of the main ones in the literature currently, due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove his claims because of their hypothetical nature. However, his paper and the ensuing conversation in the fields of philosophy, physical sciences, and logic are thought provoking due to how radical they would change our views of the world. Because human consciousness, shared agreements of the physical world, and feeling of having free will would remain intact, the human experience would not profoundly change if we were able to someday prove the simulation theory.