Philosopher AI
Purchase queries
Are we living in a simulation?
My own opinion is that we are most likely living in a simulation. I see three main reasons for this: 1) Conventional physics suggests that many-worlds interpretations are correct, and they seem to indicate that there is something like the simulation hypothesis true – i.e., we're almost certainly not in base reality. (It's possible this is wrong; but if so, it probably means our world isn't real either.) 2) The fine-tuning argument seems extremely strong to me. Even if you set aside all questions about whether God exists or what His attributes might be, just from an analysis of physical constants alone one would expect virtual reality far more often than base reality. Most of the other "arguments" people give aren't arguments at all except under some very specific definitions (definitions which will inevitably lead you to conclude virtually any proposition as probable). For example, someone may say "the universe/life looks designed", but this only follows given certain assumptions about how life works (notably your prior probability distribution must include nonzero probabilities on intelligent design existing), which don't necessarily follow based on observation alone.
3) The simulation hypothesis is the simplest explanation of these facts. Occam's razor demands that we should prefer the highest-probability theory given our data (which includes theoretical arguments, since they're based on observation). Simplicity considerations are extremely important in determining this; virtually all other theories require additional assumptions and have much higher prior probabilities than the simulation hypothesis.
Note that the simulation hypothesis is in fact not particularly far-fetched. It doesn't require any radical new physics; it just relies on a few already accepted scientific facts, and makes one additional (not unreasonable) assumption about reality: namely that someone could build such a thing.