simulation hypothesis

TechRepublic

Account information.

Share with Your Friends

Simulation hypothesis: The smart person’s guide

Your email has been sent

The simulation hypothesis is the idea that reality is a digital simulation. Technological advances will inevitably produce automated artificial superintelligence that will, in turn, create simulations to better understand the universe. This opens the door for the idea that superintelligence already exists and created simulations now occupied by humans. At first blush the notion that reality is pure simulacra seems preposterous, but the hypothesis springs from decades of scientific research and is taken seriously by academics, scientists, and entrepreneurs like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.

From Plato’s allegory of the cave to The Matrix ideas about simulated reality can be found scattered through history and literature. The modern manifestation of the simulation argument is postulates that, like Moore’s Law , over time computing power becomes exponentially more robust. Barring a disaster that resets technological progression, experts speculate that it is inevitable computing capacity will one day be powerful enough to generate realistic simulations.

TechRepublic’s smart person’s guide is a routinely updated “living” precis loaded with up-to-date information about about how the simulation hypothesis works, who it affects, and why it’s important.

SEE: Check out all of TechRepublic’s smart person’s guides

Executive summary

• What it is: Often mislabeled as the “simulation theory” (a hypothesis is a suggested explanation, whereas a theory is a scientifically vetted model), the simulation hypothesis advances the idea that realistic simulations and models of the universe will be the inevitable product of perpetual technological evolution.
• Why it matters: The march towards artificial superintelligence and simulations will create automated technologies that fundamentally change and disrupt the global economy. Additionally, a runaway “intelligence explosion” could result in uncontrollable technologies that produce an existential threat on par with nuclear annihilation.
• Who it affects: In the short term, anticipate disruptions and rapid change propelled by machine learning and big data in every industry that relies heavily on automated algorithms, like the financial services sector.
• When it’s happening: Now. While ideas about simulated reality have been tied to human culture for at least 4,000 years, Alan Turing proposed machines with human-equivalent intelligence in 1950. Ideas Turing developed during the Second World War paved the way for modern computing.
• How to access simulated realities: Though whole brain emulation and realistic simulations are potentially decades away, from advertising systems to video games to the stock market, artificial intelligence research has and will continue to produced dozens of automated tools used by thousands of companies and millions of consumers every day.

SEE: Quick glossary: Artificial intelligence (Tech Pro Research)

What is the simulation hypothesis?

The simulation hypothesis advances the idea that simulations might be the inevitable outcome of technological evolution. Though ideas about simulated reality are far from new and novel, the contemporary hypothesis springs from research conducted by Oxford University professor of philosophy Nick Bostrom .

In 2003 Bostrom presented a paper that proposed a trilemma, a decision between three challenging options, related to the potential of future superintelligence to develop simulations. Bostrom argues this likelihood is nonzero, meaning the odds of a simulated reality are astronomically small, but because percentage likelihood is not zero we must consider rational possibilities that include a simulated reality. Bostrom does not propose that humans occupy a simulation. Rather, he argues that massive computational ability developed by posthuman superintelligence will likely develop simulations to better understand that nature of reality.

In his book Superintelligence using anthropic rhetoric Bostrom argues that the odds of a population with human-like population advancing to superintelligence is “very close to zero,” or (with an emphasis on the word or) the odds that a superintelligence would desire to create simulations is also “very close to zero,” or the odds that people with human-like experiences actually live in a simulation is “very close to one.” He concludes by arguing that if the claim “very close to one” is the correct answer and most people do live in simulations, then the odds are good that we too exist in a simulation.

Simulation hypothesis has many critics, namely those in academic communities who question an overreliance on anthropic reasoning and scientific detractors who point out simulations need not be conscious to be studied by future superintelligence. But as artificial intelligence and machine learning emerge as powerful business and cultural trends, many of Bostrom’s ideas are going mainstream.

Additional resources

• Educate yourself on AI: Seven books to get you started (TechRepublic)
• 10 things you need to know about artificial intelligence (TechRepublic)
• Prepare for the Singularity (ZDNet)
• Are we in the Matrix? Science looks for signs we’re not real (CNET)
• Evolution to AI will be more radical than ape-to-human, says Nick Bostrom (TechRepublic)

SEE: Research: 63% say business will benefit from AI (Tech Pro Research)

Why the simulation hypothesis matters

It’s natural to wonder if the simulation hypothesis has real-world applications, or if it’s a fun but purely abstract consideration. For business and culture, the answer is unambiguous: It doesn’t matter if we live in a simulation or not. The accelerating pace of automated technology will have a significant impact on business, politics, and culture in the near future.

The simulation hypothesis is coupled inherently with technological evolution and the development of superintelligence. While superintelligence remains speculative, investments in narrow and artificial general intelligence are significant. Using the space race as an analogue, advances in artificial intelligence create technological innovations that build, destroy, and augment industry. IBM is betting big with Watson and anticipates a rapidly emerging $2 trillion market for cognitive products. Cybersecurity experts are investing heavily in AI and automation to fend off malware and hackers . In a 2016 interview with TechRepublic, United Nations chief technology diplomat, Atefeh Riazi, anticipated the economic impact of AI to be profound and referred to the technology as “humanity’s final innovation.”

• Why AI could destroy more jobs than it creates, and how to save them (TechRepublic)
• United Nations CITO: Artificial intelligence will be humanity’s final innovation (TechRepublic)
• IBM Watson: What are companies using it for? (ZDNet)
• Artificial intelligence positioned to be a game-changer (CBS News)
• Free ebook: Executive’s guide to AI in business (ZDNet)

SEE: Artificial Intelligence and IT: The good, the bad and the scary (Tech Pro Research)

Who the simulation hypothesis affects

Though long-term prognostication about the impact of automated technology is ill-advised, in the short term advances in machine learning, automation, and artificial intelligence represent a paradigm shift akin to the development of the internet or the modern mobile phone. In other words, the economy post-automation will be dramatically different . AI will hammer manufacturing industries, and logistics distribution will lean heavily on self-driving cars, ships, drones, and aircraft, and financial services jobs that require pattern recognition will evaporate.

Conversely, automation could create demand for inherently interpersonal skills like HR, sales, manual labor, retail, and creative work. “Digital technologies are in many ways complements, not substitutes for, creativity,” Erik Brynjolfsson said, in an interview with TechRepublic. “If somebody comes up with a new song, a video, or piece of software there’s no better time in history to be a creative person who wants to reach not just hundreds or thousands, but millions and billions of potential customers.”

• How to prepare your business to benefit from AI (TechRepublic)
• Smart machines are about to run the world: Here’s how to prepare (TechRepublic)
• Artificial intelligence: The 3 big trends to watch in 2017 (TechRepublic)
• The first 10 jobs that will be automated by AI and robots (ZDNet)
• AI, Automation, and Tech Jobs (ZDNet/TechRepublic special feature)

SEE: IT leader’s guide to the future of artificial intelligence (Tech Pro Research)

When the simulation hypothesis is happening

The golden age of artificial intelligence began in 1956 at the Ivy League research institution Dartmouth College with the now-infamous proclamation, “every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.” The conference established AI and computational protocols that defined a generation of research. The conference was preceded and inspired by developments at Manchester College in 1951 that produced a program that could play checkers, and another program that could play chess.

Though excited researchers anticipated the speedy emergence of human-level machine intelligence, programming intelligence unironically proved to be a steep challenge. By the mid-1970s the field entered the so-called “first AI winter.” The era was marked by the development of strong theories limited by insufficient computing power.

Spring follows winter, and by the 1980s AI and automation technology grew from the sunshine of faster hardware and the boom of consumer technology markets. By the end of the century parallel processing–the ability to perform multiple computations at one time–emerged. In 1997 IBM’s Deep Blue defeated human chess player Gary Kasparov. Last year Google’s DeepMind defeated a human at Go, and this year the same technology easily beat four of the best human poker players.

Driven and funded by research and academic institutions, governments, and the private sector these benchmarks indicate a rapidly accelerating automation and machine learning market. Major industries like financial services, healthcare, sports, travel, and transportation are all deeply invested in artificial intelligence. Facebook, Google, and Amazon are using AI innovation for consumer applications, and a number of companies are in a race to build and deploy artificial general intelligence.

Some AI forecasters like Ray Kurzweil predict a future with the human brain cheerly connected to the cloud. Other AI researchers aren’t so optimistic. Bostrom and his colleagues in particular warn that creating artificial general intelligence could produce an existential threat.

Among the many terrifying dangers of superintelligence–ranging from out-of-control killer robots to economic collapse–the primary threat of AI is the coupling of of anthropomorphism with the misalignment of AI goals. Meaning, humans are likely to imbue intelligent machines with human characteristics like empathy. An intelligent machine, however, might be programed to prioritize goal accomplishment over human needs. In a terrifying scenario known as instrumental convergence , or the “paper clip maximizer,” a superintelligent narrowly focused AI designed to produce paper clips would turn humans into gray goo in pursuit of resources.

• Facebook’s machine learning director shares tips for building a successful AI platform (TechRepublic)
• AI helpers aren’t just for Facebook’s Zuckerberg: Here’s how to build your own (TechRepublic)
• How developers can take advantage of machine learning on Google Cloud Platform (TechRepublic)
• Google engineer’s swarm of mini robots could be the future of exploring Mars, and much more (TechRepublic)
• SAP aims to step up its artificial intelligence, machine learning game as S/4HANA hits public cloud (ZDNet)

SEE: Research: Companies lack skills to implement and support AI and machine learning (Tech Pro Research)

How to access simulated realities

It may be impossible to test or experience the simulation hypothesis, but it’s easy to learn more about the hypothesis. TechRepublic’s Hope Reese enumerated the best books on artificial intelligence, including Bostrom’s essential tome Superintelligence , Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology , and Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat.

Make sure to read TechRepublic’s smart person’s guides on machine learning , Google’s DeepMind , and IBM’s Watson . Tech Pro Research provides a quick glossary on AI and research on how companies are using machine learning and big data .

Finally, to have some fun with hands-on simulations, grab a copy of Cities: Skylines , Sim City , Elite:Dangerous , or Planet Coaster on game platform Steam. These small-scale environments will let you experiment with game AI while you build your own simulated reality.

• Kurzweil: Your brain will connect directly to the cloud within 30 years (TechRepublic)
• Why AI is the ‘agent of the economy’: EmTechDIGITAL leaders show global impact of AI (TechRepublic)
• How Google’s DeepMind beat the game of Go, which is even more complex than chess (TechRepublic)
• Turning pings into packets: Why the future of computers looks a lot like your brain (ZDNet)
• Researchers uncover algorithm which may solve human intelligence (ZDNet)
• Why robots still need us: David A. Mindell debunks theory of complete autonomy (TechRepublic)
• Artificial Intelligence and life beyond the algorithm: Alan Turing and the future of computing (TechRepublic)
• Britain’s World War II codebreakers tell their story (TechRepublic)
• Photos: The life of Alan Turing (TechRepublic)
• Why you should watch The Imitation Game and why you might want to skip it (TechRepublic)
• The 10 most interesting portrayals of AI in movies (TechRepublic)
• Rebuilding the brain: Using AI, electrodes, and machine learning to bridge gaps in the human nervous system (ZDNet)
• Researchers awarded $16m to develop brain tech to reanimate paralyzed limbs (ZDNet)
• Hiring kit: Data architect (Tech Pro Research)

Subscribe to the Innovation Insider Newsletter

Catch up on the latest tech innovations that are changing the world, including IoT, 5G, the latest about phones, security, smart cities, AI, robotics, and more. Delivered Tuesdays and Fridays

Create a TechRepublic Account

Get the web's best business technology news, tutorials, reviews, trends, and analysis—in your inbox. Let's start with the basics.

* - indicates required fields

Sign in to TechRepublic

Lost your password? Request a new password

Reset Password

Please enter your email adress. You will receive an email message with instructions on how to reset your password.

Check your email for a password reset link. If you didn't receive an email don't forgot to check your spam folder, otherwise contact support .

Welcome. Tell us a little bit about you.

This will help us provide you with customized content.

Want to receive more TechRepublic news?

You're all set.

Thanks for signing up! Keep an eye out for a confirmation email from our team. To ensure any newsletters you subscribed to hit your inbox, make sure to add [email protected] to your contacts list.

Are we living in a simulated universe? Here's what scientists say.

What if everything around us — the people, the stars overhead, the ground beneath our feet, even our bodies and minds — were an elaborate illusion? What if our world were simply a hyper-realistic simulation, with all of us merely characters in some kind of sophisticated video game?

This, of course, is a familiar concept from science fiction books and films, including the 1999 blockbuster movie "The Matrix." But some physicists and philosophers say it’s possible that we really do live in a simulation — even if that means casting aside what we know (or think we know) about the universe and our place in it.

“If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence,” Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom said in a 2003 paper that jump-started the conversation about what has come to be known as the simulation hypothesis . “While the world we see is in some sense ‘real,’ it is not located at the fundamental level of reality.”

Simulating worlds and beings

Rizwan Virk, founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s PlayLabs program and author of "The Simulation Hypothesis," is among those who take the simulation hypothesis seriously. He recalls playing a virtual reality game so realistic that he forgot that he was in an empty room with a headset on. That led him to wonder: Are we sure we aren’t embedded within a world created by beings more technologically savvy than ourselves?

That question makes sense to Rich Terrile, a computer scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Detailed as they are, today’s best simulations don’t involve artificial minds, but Terrile thinks the ability to model sentient beings could soon be within our grasp. “We are within a generation of being those gods who create those universes,” he says.

Not everyone is convinced. During a 2016 debate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall said the odds that the simulation hypothesis is correct are “effectively zero.” For starters, there’s no evidence that our world isn’t the array of stars and galaxies that it appears to be. And she wonders why advanced beings would bother to simulate Homo sapiens. “Why simulate us? I mean, there are so many things to be simulating,” she said. “I don’t know why this higher species would want to bother with us.”

Echoes of Genesis

Yet, there’s a familiar ring to the idea that there’s a simulator, or creator, who does care about us. Similarly, the idea of a superior being forging a simulated universe parallels the notion of a deity creating the world — for example, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Some thinkers, including Terrile, welcome the analogy to religion. If the simulation hypothesis is correct, he says, then “there’s a creator, an architect — someone who designed the world.” It’s an ancient idea recast in terms of “mathematics and science rather than just faith.”

But for other scholars, including University of Maryland physicist Sylvester James Gates, the similarity between the simulation hypothesis and religious belief should be taken as a warning that we’re off track. Science, as he said in a recent radio interview, has taken us “away from this idea that we are puppets” controlled by an unseen entity. The simulation hypothesis, he said, “starts to look like a religion,” with a programmer substituting for god.

Who, or what, is the godlike entity that may have created a simulated universe? One possibility, supporters of the simulation hypothesis say, is that it’s a race of advanced beings — space aliens . Even more mind-bending is the possibility is that it’s our own descendants — “our future selves,” as Terrile puts it. That is, humans living hundreds or thousands of years in the future might develop the ability to simulate not only a world like ours but the bodies and minds of the beings within it.

Science Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails

“Just as you can simulate anything else, you can simulate brains,” Bostrom says. True, we don’t yet have the technology to pull it off, but he says there’s no conceptual barrier to it. And once we create brain simulations “sufficiently detailed and accurate,” he says, “it is possible that those simulations would generate conscious experiences.”

The search for evidence

Will we ever learn whether the simulation hypothesis is correct? Bostrum says there’s a remote chance that one day we might encounter a telltale glitch in the simulation. “You could certainly imagine a scenario where a window pops up in front of you, saying, ‘You are in a simulation; click here for more information,’” he says. “That would be a knock-down proof.”

More realistically, physicists have proposed experiments that could yield evidence that our world is simulated . For example, some have wondered if the world is inherently “smooth,” or if, at the smallest scales, it might be made up of discrete “chunks” a bit like the pixels in a digital image. If we determine that the world is “pixelated” in this way, it could be evidence that it was created artificially. A team of American and German physicists have argued that careful measurements of cosmic rays could provide an answer .

What if we did confirm that we were living in a simulation? How would people react upon learning that our world and thoughts and emotions are nothing more than a programmer’s zeroes and ones? Some imagine such knowledge would disrupt our lives by upending our sense of purpose and squashing our initiative. Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb says the knowledge could even trigger social unrest. Knowing that our thoughts and deeds aren’t our own could “relieve us from being accountable for our actions,” he says. “There is nothing more damaging to our social order than this notion.”

Others imagine evidence in support of the simulation hypothesis could engender a new fear — that the creators might grow tired of the simulation and switch it off. But not Bostrum. “You could similarly ask, ‘shouldn’t we be in perpetual fear of dying?’ You could have a heart attack or a stroke at any given point in time, or the roof might fall down,” he says.

Whatever we might think of the simulation hypothesis, Bostrom thinks the mere act of pondering it provides a welcome dose of humility. He cites Hamlet’s cautionary remark to a friend in Shakespeare’s "Hamlet": “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

And Bostrom insists that he takes the simulation hypothesis seriously. “For me, it’s not just an intellectual game,” he says. “It’s an attempt to orient myself in the world, as best I can understand it.”

Want more stories about science?

• The eclipse that proved Einstein right and changed our understanding of the universe
• Hypersonic air travel just took a step closer to reality
• 14 visions of the future: Life on Mars and a rural skyscraper

SIGN UP FOR THE MACH NEWSLETTER AND FOLLOW NBC NEWS MACH ON TWITTER , FACEBOOK , AND INSTAGRAM .

Dan Falk is a science journalist based in Toronto. His books include "The Science of Shakespeare" and "In Search of Time."

October 13, 2020

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

By Anil Ananthaswamy

Getty Images

It is not often that a comedian gives an astrophysicist goose bumps when discussing the laws of physics. But comic Chuck Nice managed to do just that in a recent episode of the podcast StarTalk . The show’s host Neil deGrasse Tyson had just explained the simulation argument—the idea that we could be virtual beings living in a computer simulation. If so, the simulation would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time—much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player. “Maybe that’s why we can’t travel faster than the speed of light, because if we could, we’d be able to get to another galaxy,” said Nice, the show’s co-host, prompting Tyson to gleefully interrupt. “Before they can program it,” the astrophysicist said, delighting at the thought. “ So the programmer put in that limit .”

Such conversations may seem flippant. But ever since Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford wrote a seminal paper about the simulation argument in 2003 , philosophers, physicists, technologists and, yes, comedians have been grappling with the idea of our reality being a simulacrum. Some have tried to identify ways in which we can discern if we are simulated beings. Others have attempted to calculate the chance of us being virtual entities. Now a new analysis shows that the odds that we are living in base reality—meaning an existence that is not simulated—are pretty much even. But the study also demonstrates that if humans were to ever develop the ability to simulate conscious beings, the chances would overwhelmingly tilt in favor of us, too, being virtual denizens inside someone else’s computer. (A caveat to that conclusion is that there is little agreement about what the term “consciousness” means, let alone how one might go about simulating it.)

In 2003 Bostrom imagined a technologically adept civilization that possesses immense computing power and needs a fraction of that power to simulate new realities with conscious beings in them. Given this scenario, his simulation argument showed that at least one proposition in the following trilemma must be true: First, humans almost always go extinct before reaching the simulation-savvy stage. Second, even if humans make it to that stage, they are unlikely to be interested in simulating their own ancestral past. And third, the probability that we are living in a simulation is close to one.