Thinking about whether the world might actually be a computer simulation isn’t anything new. We all went through that particular existential crisis after we saw the first Matrix. I have a secret hypothesis that this is why the second and third Matrix films were so lackluster; it was an effort to get everybody to stop thinking about whether or not we’re actually all just brains hooked up to a computer.
To be fair, this is something we’ve been wondering about probably as long as we’ve had the ability to wonder about much of anything. Plato wondered about it. Anybody who has vivid dreams wonders about it. It’s ingrained in the human condition.
Interestingly, there is real scientific research that’s being done on this stuff. I’m not sure if it’s possible to prove a simulation hypothesis, but we certainly have a lot of reasons to infer one, just by the fact that we’re getting better and better at creating simulations ourselves. Considering the fact that consciousness is one of those things we don’t really understand, is it possible that consciousness will arise out of a computer game character? I certainly think it’s possible, albeit unlikely for a long while. But some day? Certainly.
What if we do end up proving that reality is a simulation in a computer?
I’m trying to imagine how that makes me feel. On the one hand, it doesn’t really change anything: all my experiences are going to be the same. Reality as I know it is already so many electrical impulses being transferred between the neurons in my brain. The revelation of a simulation would just mean I wasn’t interacting with those electrical signals in quite the same fashion.
On the one hand, it might even be encouraging to realize that our world is a simulation. Simulations, after all, are built for a reason and while fiction likes to say this reason is to enslave its occupants, that seems like a very expensive way to do what chains and metal bars do already. It seems more likely to me that the reason for the simulation’s existence would be benevolent or at least indifferent to us; certainly not malevolent.
Would that be an improvement, to find out that there really is a power and intelligence behind the reality that we perceive?
There are other benefits to a simulated world. It might mean never having to experience the heat death of the universe and the realization that everything in reality is doomed. It might be a strong reason to believe our consciousness goes somewhere after death.
On the other hand, to find out that everything, absolutely everything, was a simulation would remove a lot of the mystery and wonder out there. Certainly, we’d be able to wonder about the simulation itself, who built it and why, but we’d no longer be drawn to the most distant stars and dream of being the first ones to visit them. The world would become a much smaller place.
There’d probably also be a lot of suicides if it turns out we’re all in a computer simulation. Maybe. I’m not really sure; one thing I try to never underestimate is the resilience of the human spirit.
It’s something that is very interesting to think about, whether or not this is ever proven to be true.
Cynical Idealism 
” to find out that everything, absolutely everything, was a simulation would remove a lot of the mystery and wonder out there.”
Oh, I don’t know. Knowing that I’m omniscient isn’t so bad. In fact, once I got the hang of being God, it was actually, well, enlightening.
But what do you do after achieving omniscience? I base my thoughts on my subjective experience when I was a game master for a small, free to play mmo. When I was just a player character, the world was mysterious and I wanted to explore as much as I could. As a GM, suddenly I could see all the scripts that ran the world, all the parts of the map, all the secrets revealed. It made the world feel very tiny and diminished the enjoyment of the simulation.
What do I do? I sit here and blog. I walk my dog. I go for runs like I did every other day before I knew.
And, oh, yes, I play video games offline and MMOs. Now, knowing that I am player of the MMO and the MMO itself, I understand much better how I work, where I am, and what I am.
Peace
Are you implying that you’ve achieved omniscience? My assumption was that your language in the first comment was rhetorical.
Well, before I made myself into a theory, I considered myself to be limited to this corpus of matter. Of course, we both know that’s true. But it’s an incomplete truth. Not absolute, that is.
Now, though theory, I know that I’m Matthew Ciarvella and everyone else on this planet right now. That’s not omniscience, but an approximation. Just roll in everyone else who’s ever existed and will ever exist and that inches a littler closer. Then, throw in the Unvierse and everything in it. And, rhetorical or not, that’s what it means for there to be that thing that you call “Me.”
Except that you’re not able to prove any of these claims and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see any evidence here. A theory that cannot generate falsifiable predictions is not a very good theory.
Oh, I’ve proven that I am Matthew.
And I’ve also proven that, as Matthew, I am the asbolute truth. Being Truth, I, Matthew, am, well, Unfalsifiable. Ain’t nothin’ I can do to falsify the absolute truth. That’s how Truth works.
I’ve also proven that, as Matthew, I am the Theory and Theoretician in One.
Here’s the proof that I am Matthew and Erik at the same time:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/107521682/Complete-and-Consistent-Theory-of-the-Universe
Please point out the error in the proof. Or, alternatively, please explain how Truth can be falsified.
Your proof seems rather incomprehensible. I think a more effective proof would be something concise and practical. It seems like it would be easy enough to prove omniscience or an understanding of universal truth simply by telling me what’s on my desk next to my mouse pad. Or what I had for breakfast yesterday. Or any number of other practical, easily verifiable statements, instead of quasi-religious ranting.
While difficult to understand, You are not incomprehensible. I understand You quite effectively, actually, now that I’ve modeled You.
I suspect that rather than take the necessary time and energy to consider that I proven that I am You, the response is quite, oh, what’s the word? Predictable.
SInce I’m Matthew, I know precisely what’s on my desk. Don’t play. I like to play games with Myself and say, “Tell Me what’s on My Mind” or other silly parlor tricks.
That’s woo.
I deal with facts, I deal with science, I deal with Truth.
No religiousness involved. Frankly, I think that all the religion that I am is one of the main hurdles I’ve set up to understand and know myself. Still, though, if you think I’m “ranting,” well, that’s fine. I thought I was just having a conversation with myself.
Oh, and by the way, one more “rant” before I help my 5 yo son learn to ride his bike: give me a “practical, easily verifiable” approach, statement, or experiment that will permit me to falsify You, that is, the Truth, that is, God.
Peace, bro.
I think your evasions prove my point quite well.
Ok. You’re Correct.