Are we living in a simulated world?

Introduction

The Simulation Hypothesis posits that the entirety of our perceived existence—from the grand cosmic tapestry to the most intimate subjective experiences—is not a base physical reality but rather an artificial, computer-generated simulation.¹ Once relegated to the realms of speculative fiction and philosophical thought experiments, this proposition has entered mainstream scientific and academic discourse, fueled by rapid advancements in computing and a deeper understanding of the enigmatic laws of physics.² This report provides an exhaustive, interdisciplinary analysis of the Simulation Hypothesis, tracing its intellectual lineage from ancient philosophy to its modern articulation in computational terms. It will critically examine the probabilistic arguments that give the hypothesis its contemporary force, scrutinize the physical evidence both for and against its validity, and explore its profound implications for human consciousness, free will, and the search for meaning.

The central thesis of this analysis is that the Simulation Hypothesis represents more than a mere curiosity; it is a serious metaphysical proposition that crystallizes long-standing skepticism about the nature of reality. By reframing perennial philosophical questions through the lens of information theory, computational science, and quantum mechanics, the hypothesis forces a confrontation with the fundamental limits of our knowledge. In doing so, its study reveals as much about our technological aspirations, anxieties, and the very structure of our reasoning as it does about the ultimate composition of the cosmos.

Section 1: The Intellectual Lineage of Simulated Realities

The notion that our reality might be an illusion or construct is not a product of the digital age. It is a recurring theme in human thought, a philosophical inquiry that has evolved over millennia. The modern Simulation Hypothesis is the latest iteration of this ancient question, distinguished from its predecessors primarily by the technological mechanism it proposes for the creation of our world.

1.1 Ancient Echoes: From Plato’s Cave to the Veil of Maya

The earliest and most influential precursor to the simulation hypothesis is Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” presented in his work Republic.⁴ In this allegory, prisoners have been chained their entire lives inside a cave, facing a blank wall. Their only reality consists of shadows cast upon this wall by objects passing in front of a fire behind them.⁵ To these prisoners, the shadows are not representations of reality; they

are reality.⁶ Should a prisoner be freed and forced into the light, they would initially be blinded and confused, finding the true objects that cast the shadows less real than the illusions they have always known.⁵ This allegory serves as a powerful metaphor for a simulated existence, where inhabitants perceive a carefully curated projection rather than a more fundamental, “truer” reality—what Plato called the world of Forms.⁴

This skepticism about sensory reality is not unique to Western philosophy. Ancient Chinese thought, particularly in the writings of Zhuangzi, explores similar themes through the parable of the “Butterfly Dream.” Zhuangzi dreams he is a butterfly, and upon waking, he is unsure if he is a man who dreamt of being a butterfly or a butterfly now dreaming he is a man.¹ This story elegantly captures the epistemological uncertainty at the heart of the simulation debate. Similarly, the concept of

Maya in Hindu and Buddhist traditions posits that the phenomenal world is a form of cosmic illusion or veil that obscures the ultimate reality (Brahman).¹

A more ominous parallel can be found in Gnosticism, a collection of early religious movements. Gnostic cosmology often held that the material world was not a divine creation but a flawed or malevolent prison crafted by a lesser, ignorant deity known as the Demiurge.¹ In this view, humanity’s goal is to achieve

gnosis (knowledge) to escape this material trap and return to a higher spiritual realm.¹ This introduces the enduring theme of a non-benevolent or imperfect creator, an idea that echoes in modern concerns about the potential motives of our simulators.

1.2 The Cartesian Doubt: Descartes’ Evil Demon

In the 17th century, French philosopher René Descartes provided the most direct philosophical antecedent to the modern hypothesis with his “evil demon” thought experiment.⁴ In his

Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes engages in a process of radical doubt, questioning the certainty of all his beliefs.¹⁰ To push this doubt to its absolute limit, he imagines the existence of an all-powerful, malicious demon who “has employed all his energies in order to deceive me”.¹⁰ This demon could be creating a complete and seamless illusion of an external world, manipulating all sensory input to be utterly convincing.¹¹

The evil demon is a direct forerunner of the simulation concept, with the demon’s supernatural deception replaced by the technological power of a supercomputer or an advanced programmer.¹² Descartes’ ultimate goal was to find a single, indubitable truth that could withstand even this radical skepticism. He found it in the act of his own thinking: “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”).¹⁰ Even if a demon is deceiving him, “he” must exist to be deceived. This foundational quest for certainty in the face of a potentially fabricated reality remains a central tension in the contemporary debate.

1.3 The Computational Turn: From Idealism to Information

While ancient and early modern philosophy laid the conceptual groundwork, the modern hypothesis is uniquely defined by its proposed mechanism: computation. This “computational turn” was foreshadowed by philosophical idealism, notably that of George Berkeley, who argued that reality is fundamentally mental. In Berkeley’s view, objects are merely collections of ideas, and their existence is contingent on being perceived by a mind (“esse est percipi”).³ This aligns closely with simulation scenarios where the “physical” world is a construct of information rendered for an observer.

The true paradigm shift came with the rise of information theory and physics in the 20th century. Physicist John Archibald Wheeler famously coined the phrase “it from bit,” suggesting that the physical universe emerges from information itself.¹⁶ This perspective, known as information physics, posits that at the most fundamental level, reality is not composed of matter or energy but of bits of information, from which the laws of physics and the fabric of spacetime arise.² This reframed the age-old philosophical problem into a potentially scientific one, providing a plausible physical mechanism for how a reality could be computed into existence.

The intellectual journey from Plato’s shadows to Descartes’ demon and finally to Wheeler’s “it from bit” reveals a critical evolution in how the potential deception is framed. Plato’s prisoners are deceived by their limited perspective and lack of philosophical education; the path to truth is through reason and enlightenment.⁶ Descartes’ demon is a metaphysical entity whose power is absolute, a thought experiment designed to be overcome by pure logical deduction.¹⁰ The modern hypothesis, however, posits a physical, computational system.¹ A computer, unlike an omnipotent demon, must operate according to physical laws (even if they are the laws of a “higher” reality) and is subject to constraints such as finite processing power and memory. This mechanistic nature suggests that a simulation might contain artifacts, bugs, or “glitches”—detectable traces of its artificiality.⁴ This crucial shift moves the hypothesis from the realm of the purely unfalsifiable towards the potentially testable, marking the fundamental innovation of the modern argument.

Table 1: Philosophical Precursors to the Simulation Hypothesis

Concept	Nature of Perceived Reality	Creating/Deceiving Agent	Path to ‘Truth’
Plato’s Cave	Shadows on a wall; an imperfect copy of a higher reality of Forms.	The structure of the cave and the puppeteers behind the prisoners.	Philosophical education and rational ascent to the intellectual world.
Gnosticism	A flawed or malevolent material prison.	The Demiurge, a lesser, ignorant creator deity.	Gnosis (secret knowledge) and spiritual escape from the material world.
Descartes’ Demon	A complete sensory illusion created by a powerful, malicious being.	An “evil demon” or “evil genius” with supreme power to deceive.	Radical doubt and the logical certainty of the Cogito (“I think, therefore I am”).
Simulation Hypothesis	A computational construct; a digital simulation running on a computer.	Advanced “posthuman” or alien civilizations (the “simulators”).	Empirical detection of computational constraints, glitches, or statistical inference.

Section 2: The Bostrom Trilemma: A Probabilistic Framework for Reality

The modern debate surrounding the Simulation Hypothesis was galvanized by philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”.³ Bostrom’s contribution was not to claim definitively that we live in a simulation, but to construct a powerful probabilistic argument that forces a choice among three startling possibilities. This argument, known as the Simulation Argument or the Bostrom Trilemma, has become the cornerstone of contemporary discussions.¹⁵

2.1 Deconstructing the Simulation Argument

The argument’s logic is rooted in a simple application of probability theory, specifically the Principle of Indifference. This principle suggests that, in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary, one should assign equal probability to all possible outcomes.²¹ In this context, it means we should consider ourselves to be random observers from the set of all observers with our kind of experiences.²² If future, technologically mature (“posthuman”) civilizations are capable of running vast numbers of high-fidelity simulations of their ancestors (“ancestor simulations”), then the number of simulated conscious beings could become astronomically larger than the number of “real” biological beings in the history of the universe.¹ If this is the case, then a randomly selected observer (such as any one of us) is statistically far more likely to be one of the many simulated minds than one of the few original biological ones.⁴

2.2 The Three Propositions: Extinction, Disinterest, or Simulation

Based on this probabilistic reasoning, Bostrom argues that at least one of the following three propositions must be true ¹:

1. Proposition 1: The Great Filter. “The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a ‘posthuman’ stage is very close to zero”.¹ This proposition implies that there is a “Great Filter”—a barrier that is exceedingly difficult for intelligent life to overcome. Civilizations almost invariably self-destruct (e.g., through nuclear war or ecological collapse) or are destroyed by natural cataclysms before they can develop the technological capacity to run ancestor simulations.¹⁵ If this is true, such simulations are never created, and we are almost certainly in the base reality, albeit one with a grim future.
2. Proposition 2: Convergent Disinterest. “The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero”.¹ This proposition suggests that virtually all advanced civilizations, upon reaching a posthuman stage, lose interest in creating such simulations.²⁰ This could be due to a strong convergence of ethics (e.g., believing it immoral to create conscious beings in a simulation that might involve suffering), practical reasons (e.g., the computational resources are better used elsewhere), or legal restrictions.¹ If this is true, simulations are possible but are simply not created in significant numbers.
3. Proposition 3: We Are Almost Certainly in a Simulation. “The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one”.¹ If the first two propositions are false, it means that advanced civilizations
   do arise and they do run a great many ancestor simulations. In this scenario, the number of simulated realities would vastly outnumber the single “base reality”.¹⁵ By the Principle of Indifference, it is therefore overwhelmingly probable that we are inhabitants of one of these numerous simulations rather than the original, non-simulated world.²⁷

This leads to Bostrom’s stark corollary: “Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation”.¹ This is because if we believe our descendants

will run many such simulations, we are implicitly rejecting propositions 1 and 2, which logically forces us to accept proposition 3.

Table 2: Analysis of Bostrom’s Trilemma

Proposition	Core Claim	Key Assumptions & Implications
1. Extinction	Intelligent species almost always go extinct before becoming technologically mature enough to run ancestor simulations.	Assumes a “Great Filter” is highly effective. Implies that humanity’s long-term future is likely bleak.
2. Disinterest	Technologically mature civilizations are overwhelmingly not interested in running ancestor simulations.	Assumes a strong convergence of ethics, motivations, or resource allocation across all advanced civilizations. Implies posthuman values may be radically different from ours.
3. Simulation	We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.	Assumes that propositions 1 and 2 are false, and that substrate independence and vast computing power are achievable. Implies our reality is not fundamental.

2.3 Foundational Assumptions

The entire Simulation Argument rests on two critical, and highly debatable, assumptions:

• Substrate Independence: This is the philosophical position, rooted in functionalism, that consciousness is not intrinsically tied to its physical medium.¹ It posits that mental states and conscious experience can arise from any system—be it a biological brain made of carbon-based neurons or a computer made of silicon chips—as long as that system implements the correct computational structures and processes.¹⁵ If consciousness is uniquely biological, then simulating a conscious mind is impossible, and the argument collapses.²⁸
• The Exponential Growth of Computing Power: The argument assumes that technological progress, particularly in computing, will continue its exponential trajectory.²² This is an extrapolation of historical trends like Moore’s Law, which observed that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years, leading to exponential increases in processing power and decreases in cost.³² While Moore’s Law itself is now facing fundamental physical limits as transistors approach atomic sizes, the broader trend of exponential growth in computation is expected by many to continue through new paradigms like quantum computing or 3D chip architecture.³⁶ This assumption underpins the idea that a posthuman civilization would have access to computational resources so vast that running billions of high-fidelity simulations would be trivial.¹

The power of Bostrom’s argument is not purely logical but also rhetorical. By framing the issue as a trilemma, it forces a choice between three unsettling possibilities, sidestepping the need for direct proof of a simulation. The argument pits one unknown (the nature of our reality) against two even larger and more speculative unknowns (the ultimate fate and motivation of all intelligent life in the cosmos). This structure makes the simulation conclusion appear more plausible in comparison, especially for those optimistic about technological progress and disinclined to believe in either universal extinction or a universal convergence of ethics.

Furthermore, the argument is fundamentally a reflection of our current technological moment. Our own rapid development of virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and massive online simulations makes the concept of “ancestor simulations” intuitively understandable.²⁰ The argument is, in essence, a projection of our own nascent capabilities and potential future desires onto a cosmic scale. This creates a self-referential quality: the very fact that we can now conceive of the Simulation Argument is taken as evidence for its plausibility. This reliance on extrapolating from our own limited experience is both the source of the argument’s intuitive appeal and its greatest vulnerability.

Section 3: The Physics of a Simulated Universe: Clues and Constraints

Moving from philosophical probability to empirical science, researchers have begun to scrutinize the fabric of our universe for potential signatures of its artificiality. This inquiry examines whether the fundamental laws and phenomena of physics are better explained as the natural properties of a base reality or as the algorithmic rules and computational shortcuts of a simulated one.

3.1 Signatures in the Code: Is Physics an Algorithm?

Several fundamental features of our universe bear a striking resemblance to the properties of a digital system, leading some to suggest that the laws of physics are, in essence, an algorithm being executed.

• Quantization and Pixelation: One of the cornerstones of modern physics is quantum mechanics, which reveals that at the smallest scales, physical properties like energy and matter are not continuous but exist in discrete packets, or “quanta”.¹⁶ This inherent granularity of reality is analogous to the pixelation of a digital image or the discrete bits of information in a computer. The Planck length (
  1.616×10−35 m) and Planck time (5.39×10−44 s) are often cited as the potential minimum resolution of the simulation’s grid, the fundamental “pixels” of spacetime, though direct evidence for such a structure is currently lacking.³⁹
• The Universal Speed Limit: Einstein’s theory of relativity establishes the speed of light in a vacuum (c) as the absolute maximum speed at which information or matter can travel. In the context of a simulation, this universal speed limit can be interpreted as the processing speed of the underlying computer hardware.¹⁶ Just as a CPU has a maximum clock speed that limits how fast it can perform calculations, the “processor” of the universe may have a finite speed at which it can update the state of the simulation. The phenomenon of time dilation near massive objects like black holes, where time itself slows down, could be seen as the system lagging under an immense computational load.¹⁶
• Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants: The universe is governed by a set of fundamental physical constants, such as the gravitational constant (G) and the strength of the electromagnetic force. The values of these constants appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned within an incredibly narrow range that permits the formation of stable atoms, stars, and ultimately, life.⁴⁰ If the strong nuclear force were just 2% stronger, for example, all hydrogen would have likely fused into helium shortly after the Big Bang, leaving no fuel for long-lived stars like our sun.⁴¹ This “fine-tuning problem” has three primary explanations: it is a brute fact of our universe (the anthropic principle); we exist in a multiverse where all possible values for these constants are realized in different universes, and we naturally find ourselves in one that can support us ⁴⁰; or these values were deliberately programmed by the creators of a simulation to ensure an interesting outcome.⁴⁰

3.2 The Quantum Enigma: Reality Rendered on Demand?

The bizarre and counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics provides the most fertile ground for speculation about a simulated reality. The behavior of particles at the quantum level challenges our classical notions of an objective, independent reality.

• The Observer Effect: The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates that a particle like an electron can behave as both a particle and a wave. Its behavior fundamentally changes depending on whether it is being observed. When not observed, it acts like a wave, passing through both slits simultaneously to create an interference pattern. When a detector is placed to see which slit it goes through, the wave behavior vanishes, and it acts like a particle, passing through only one slit.⁴⁴ This “observer effect” has been likened to a computational shortcut in a video game.² To save processing power, a game engine only renders the detailed graphics of an environment when the player’s character is looking at it.⁴⁷ Similarly, the universe might only “render” the definite properties of a particle when a measurement forces it to, leaving it in a state of probabilistic potential otherwise.
• Quantum Entanglement: This phenomenon, which Einstein famously called “spooky action at a distance,” involves two or more particles linked in such a way that their fates are intertwined, regardless of the distance separating them. Measuring a property of one particle instantaneously influences the corresponding property of the other, seemingly violating the speed of light limit.⁴⁸ Within a simulation, however, the concept of physical distance might be an illusion. The two entangled particles may be adjacent in the underlying code, their “true” distance being zero, thus explaining the instantaneous correlation without violating locality within the simulation’s rendered space.⁴⁸

3.3 Probing the Matrix: Proposed Experimental Tests

While much of the evidence is interpretive, several concrete experimental proposals have been put forth to test the hypothesis.

• Cosmic Ray Signatures: Physicists Silas Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin Savage proposed that if our universe is a simulation running on a discrete spacetime lattice, this underlying grid should have observable consequences.⁵⁰ Specifically, the lattice would impose a maximum energy limit on particles, which should manifest as a sharp cutoff in the spectrum of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Furthermore, the grid structure would not be perfectly symmetrical from all angles, potentially breaking rotational symmetry. This could be detected as a non-uniform, or anisotropic, distribution of these cosmic rays arriving from different directions in the sky.⁵¹
• Quantum Duality Experiments: A team of physicists, including Thomas Campbell, has proposed a series of novel experiments based on the delayed-choice quantum eraser.⁴⁵ These experiments are designed to test the idea of “on-demand rendering” by manipulating when the “which-way” information in a double-slit experiment becomes available to an observer. In one proposed setup, the which-way data and the final particle pattern data are stored on separate, unobserved USB drives. A random selection of the which-way drives is then destroyed. The hypothesis predicts that if reality is only rendered when an observer accesses the information, then the pattern data on the drives whose corresponding which-way data was destroyed should retroactively show a wave-like interference pattern, while the others show a particle-like pattern.⁴⁴
• Searching for “Glitches”: While not a formal scientific method, a popular approach involves looking for “glitches in the Matrix”—anomalies, inconsistencies, or events that defy the known laws of physics.⁴ Online communities are replete with anecdotal accounts of such events, from objects teleporting to strange coincidences and temporal loops.⁵³ However, such stories lack the rigor and reproducibility required for scientific evidence.
• Monitoring Physical Constants: Building on an idea from physicist John Barrow, another potential test involves the long-term, high-precision monitoring of fundamental constants of nature. If the simulation accumulates computational errors over time, the simulators might need to intervene to “patch” the code. Such a fix could manifest as a sudden, inexplicable change in the value of a constant like the fine-structure constant.¹⁶

The debate over physical evidence is overwhelmingly centered on quantum mechanics. The very phenomena that make the quantum world so strange are what make it a battleground for the simulation hypothesis. Proponents interpret features like the observer effect as clever computational shortcuts, evidence of a reality optimized for efficiency. Opponents, however, point to the immense, perhaps infinite, computational complexity required to simulate quantum phenomena like entanglement, arguing that such systems are fundamentally non-simulable by classical means.⁵⁵ Ultimately, one’s stance on the physical evidence often depends on which aspect of quantum mechanics is emphasized: its apparent efficiency or its staggering complexity. This suggests that the simulation hypothesis is not just a claim about reality, but also a novel interpretive framework for quantum physics itself.

Section 4: The Great Counterarguments: Challenges to the Hypothesis

Despite its intriguing possibilities, the Simulation Hypothesis faces a formidable array of counterarguments that challenge its logical consistency, physical feasibility, and foundational assumptions. These objections range from calculations of computational intractability to deep philosophical critiques of its core premises.

4.1 The Computational Wall: The Physics of Information and Energy Limits

The most direct and quantitative challenge to the hypothesis comes from the sheer scale of the proposed task.

• Astronomical Resource Requirements: To simulate our entire observable universe with high fidelity—down to the level of individual subatomic particles—would require computational resources that defy comprehension. The computer would need to track the state (position, momentum, spin, etc.) of every one of the estimated 1080 atoms, along with all their quantum interactions.²⁰ The number of floating-point operations per second (FLOPS) needed to calculate the gravitational interactions alone would be on the order of
  10161, a number that dwarfs the estimated computational capacity of the entire universe itself.⁵⁶
• Energy and Information Equivalence: A rigorous 2025 study by astrophysicist F. Vazza grounds this objection in fundamental physics, leveraging the principle that information is physical and thus has energy and mass equivalents.⁵⁰ The analysis concludes that the energy required merely to
  store the information needed to describe our visible universe at the Planck scale resolution is greater than the total mass-energy contained within the entire visible universe.⁵⁰ Even a drastically scaled-down simulation of just planet Earth at a resolution compatible with high-energy neutrino experiments would require a computer the size of a planet and would run millions of times slower than real-time unless powered by the energy equivalent of converting all the stars in the Milky Way into fuel every second.⁵⁰
• The “Cheating” Counter-Argument: Proponents often counter this by arguing that the simulators would not need to simulate the entire universe in full detail, but only the parts being observed, as discussed in Section 3.2.⁵⁷ Critics respond that this “on-demand rendering” is not a simple fix. It would necessitate a vastly complex monitoring system to track the state and intentions of every conscious observer in the universe to know what to render and when, while also ensuring perfect consistency between the observations of different observers and across time.⁵⁷ Simulating the complexities of quantum mechanics, even locally, is also believed to be a task that is intractable for any classical computer, a problem that has spurred the development of quantum computing.¹⁹

This computational objection creates a significant dilemma. The argument relies on the assumption that the simulators’ universe operates under physical laws similar to our own. A proponent can always evade this by positing that the “base reality” has entirely different laws of physics that permit such hyper-computation.⁵⁰ While this move saves the hypothesis from being falsified by our physics, it does so at the cost of making it completely speculative and untestable, transforming it from a scientific hypothesis into a metaphysical or religious claim.

4.2 Turtles All the Way Down: The Infinite Regress Problem

A classic philosophical objection to the hypothesis is that it leads to an infinite regress.²⁶

• The Unexplained Simulator: The hypothesis purports to explain the origin of our universe by positing a creator—the simulator. However, it offers no explanation for the origin of the simulator’s universe.¹³ If it is probable that we are in a simulation because advanced civilizations create them, then it is equally probable that our simulators are themselves in a simulation created by an even more advanced civilization, and so on, ad infinitum.⁴ This is the “turtles all the way down” problem.
• Is the Regress Vicious?: An infinite regress is considered a fatal logical flaw if it is “vicious”—that is, if it fails to provide a genuine explanation for the phenomenon in question.⁶² Critics argue the simulation hypothesis is vicious because it does not solve the fundamental cosmological question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” but merely displaces it to the next level of reality.⁶⁶ Some proponents might embrace this, adopting a philosophical position known as “infinitism,” which accepts the infinite chain and posits that there is no ultimate “base reality”.¹³
• Degrading Complexity: Cosmologist Sean Carroll has proposed a potential solution that limits the regress. He argues that each nested level of simulation would likely have less computational power available than the level that created it. This would lead to a hierarchy of simulations with decreasing complexity, eventually reaching a point where the simulations are too simple to host conscious beings. This would cap the regress and also imply that if we are in a simulation, we are likely in one of the higher, more complex levels.⁶⁷

4.3 The Ghost in the Machine: The Consciousness Objection

The argument’s linchpin—substrate independence—is a major point of contention.

• The Hard Problem of Consciousness: We currently have no scientific theory explaining how subjective, qualitative experience (consciousness) arises from physical processes in the brain. This is known as the “hard problem of consciousness”.² To assume that we can replicate this unknown process in a different substrate like silicon is a monumental leap of faith.²⁰
• Simulation vs. Implementation: A crucial distinction is often made between simulating a system and truly implementing its properties.⁶⁹ A computer simulation of a rainstorm does not make the computer wet; a simulation of a star does not produce heat and light.²⁸ By this logic, a sufficiently detailed simulation of the neural processes in a brain might perfectly replicate its behavior without creating any genuine inner experience or consciousness. Such an entity would be a “philosophical zombie”—an automaton indistinguishable from a conscious being but lacking any subjective awareness.⁷⁰ Philosopher John Searle’s famous “Chinese Room” argument similarly contends that manipulating symbols according to a program does not equate to genuine understanding or consciousness.⁶⁹

4.4 The Burden of Proof: Unfalsifiability and Occam’s Razor

Finally, the hypothesis faces strong methodological and philosophical objections.

• Unfalsifiability: As noted, the hypothesis can be difficult to prove wrong. Any failure to find evidence of a simulation—such as glitches or computational constraints—can be dismissed by claiming the simulation is simply too perfect or that the simulators are actively hiding their tracks.¹⁷ A hypothesis that can accommodate any and all evidence (or lack thereof) is generally considered unscientific.⁶⁹
• Occam’s Razor: This principle of parsimony states that, all else being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. The simulation hypothesis is not simple. It requires positing at least one additional level of reality, a race of hyper-advanced beings, and unimaginable supercomputers. The “mundane hypothesis”—that the universe is a base reality and simply exists as it appears—is a vastly simpler explanation that requires far fewer unsupported assumptions.⁶⁶

These counterarguments are not isolated but form an interconnected web of challenges. The computational limits fuel the unfalsifiability problem, as proponents must appeal to unknown physics. The infinite regress problem stems directly from the core probabilistic logic. And the consciousness objection attacks the fundamental assumption of substrate independence, without which the entire edifice cannot be built. Together, they present a formidable case against the hypothesis, questioning its physical feasibility, logical coherence, and scientific legitimacy.

Section 5: The Human Experience in Silico: Existential and Ethical Implications

If, despite the formidable counterarguments, we were to accept the possibility of living in a simulation, the implications would ripple through the very foundations of human thought, challenging our understanding of free will, morality, meaning, and spirituality. The hypothesis does not necessarily provide answers to life’s ultimate questions, but it dramatically reframes them in a new, technological context.

5.1 The Illusion of Choice?: Free Will and Determinism in a Programmed World

The concept of free will—the capacity to make choices independent of prior causes—is central to our sense of self and our systems of justice and morality. A simulated reality poses a direct challenge to this concept.

• Predetermined Reality: If our universe is a computer program, it is plausible that every event is the result of the simulation’s initial conditions and its underlying code unfolding algorithmically. In such a scenario, our sense of making choices would be an illusion; our actions, thoughts, and feelings would be as predetermined as the movements of characters in a video game.⁸
• Determinism vs. Simulation: It is important to note that many scientists and philosophers already argue that free will is an illusion incompatible with a deterministic universe governed by the laws of physics.⁷⁴ From this perspective, our brains are physical systems, and our thoughts are the product of electrochemical processes that are, in principle, predictable. The simulation hypothesis adds a crucial new layer to this debate: it replaces the impersonal determinism of physical laws with the intentional determinism of a programmer’s code.⁷² The universe would not just be a clockwork mechanism; it would be a script written by an intelligent agent.
• Moral Responsibility: This reframing has profound consequences for moral responsibility. If an individual’s actions are ultimately dictated by a program, can they be held accountable for them? Some argue that moral responsibility would be entirely negated.⁸ Others, however, contend that from our subjective perspective within the simulation, we still experience deliberation and choice. Philosopher John Searle, for instance, suggests that even if our reality is simulated, the simulator’s intentions do not negate the
  apparent free will of the simulated agents, and thus we can still be held responsible for our actions within the context of our simulated society.⁷⁶

5.2 The Search for Meaning in a Virtual Existence

The possibility of living in a simulation forces a radical re-evaluation of the meaning and purpose of life.

• Existential Angst and Nihilism: For many, the initial reaction to the hypothesis is one of existential dread.⁷⁷ The idea that our deepest loves, greatest struggles, and most profound achievements are “not real”—that they are merely data points in an experiment or fleeting sources of entertainment for an unseen audience—can lead to a sense of ultimate meaninglessness and nihilism.⁶⁴ If it is all just a game, why should we take it seriously?.⁶⁵
• Finding Meaning Within the System: An alternative perspective, championed by philosophers like David Chalmers, argues that a virtual reality can be a “genuine reality”.²⁵ Our experiences, emotions, relationships, and the consequences of our actions are undeniably real
  to us, the inhabitants of this reality. Their value is not necessarily diminished by the nature of the substrate on which they run.⁷⁷ From this viewpoint, the purpose of life remains what we make of it. Perhaps the goal is to live a good and interesting life, thereby providing valuable data or compelling entertainment for the simulators.²¹ Or perhaps the simulation is a kind of school or testing ground, designed for our own growth and development.⁸⁴ Ultimately, even in a simulated world, meaning can be found in the subjective richness of conscious experience itself.

5.3 A New Theology: The Simulator as God and the Ethics of Creation

The Simulation Hypothesis has striking parallels with traditional religious and theological frameworks, effectively offering a modern, technological creation myth.

• The Simulator as God: The concept of an unseen, hyper-intelligent, and vastly powerful entity who created our universe and established its laws maps almost perfectly onto the deistic or theistic concept of God.¹² The hypothesis can be seen as a secularized theology, where divine miracles are replaced by “glitches,” divine will is replaced by computer code, and God is replaced by “The Programmer”.⁵⁹
• The Problem of Evil: The existence of suffering in the world—the classic “problem of evil”—is reframed in a new light. In traditional theodicy, one must reconcile the existence of evil with the nature of an all-powerful, all-benevolent God. In the simulation hypothesis, the simulators need not be benevolent. Suffering, disease, and natural disasters could be intentional parts of the simulation’s design, products of the simulators’ negligence, or simply the result of their own flawed or even malevolent choices.²⁵ This provides a potential, if deeply unsettling, solution to the problem of natural evil by attributing it to the direct agency of a creator who is not necessarily good.²
• Ethics of the Creators: This immediately raises profound questions about the morality of the simulators themselves. Is it ethical to create a universe populated with conscious beings capable of experiencing immense suffering, purely for research or entertainment? What moral obligations, if any, do the creators have to their creations?.² These questions force us to confront the ethics of our own developing technologies, such as AI and virtual worlds, as we ourselves stand on the precipice of becoming creators of simulated realities.

The psychological response to the hypothesis is deeply divided. For some, it is a source of cosmic horror and nihilistic despair.⁶⁴ For others, it offers a strange comfort: an explanation for the world’s imperfections, a sense of a higher purpose, and even the possibility of a form of afterlife (e.g., one’s consciousness being “saved” or rebooted after physical death).⁸¹ This duality reveals that the simulation hypothesis functions much like a powerful belief system, where its ultimate meaning and impact are shaped by the pre-existing philosophical and psychological dispositions of the individual.

Section 6: From Thought Experiment to Cultural Phenomenon

The Simulation Hypothesis has transcended academic philosophy and theoretical physics to become a pervasive element of 21st-century culture. This cultural saturation has been driven by, and in turn has shaped, our collective intuition about the nature of reality in the digital age.

6.1 The Matrix Effect: How Science Fiction Shaped the Debate

While the idea of a simulated reality has been a staple of science fiction for decades, particularly in the works of authors like Philip K. Dick ⁸⁸, one work stands out as singularly influential: the 1999 film

The Matrix.⁸⁹

• The Cultural Touchstone: The Matrix was instrumental in launching the Simulation Hypothesis from a niche philosophical concept into the global consciousness.¹⁹ It provided a powerful and accessible visual lexicon for the idea, introducing concepts that have since become cultural shorthand: the choice between the “red pill” of truth and the “blue pill” of ignorance, the uncanny experience of déjà vu as a “glitch in the Matrix,” and a reality secretly controlled by intelligent machines.⁸⁹
• Influence on Discourse: The film’s metaphors have become deeply embedded in modern discourse, extending far beyond discussions of philosophy into politics and social commentary. The phrase “taking the red pill” is now a widely understood idiom for awakening to a perceived hidden or suppressed truth.⁸⁹ By dramatizing the abstract concepts of Plato’s Cave and Descartes’ Demon,
  The Matrix made the simulation hypothesis feel visceral, immediate, and plausible to a mass audience. This cultural priming created a fertile ground for the more formal academic arguments that followed.

6.2 Living in the Digital Cave: VR, AI, and the Modern Intuition

The plausibility of the Simulation Hypothesis in the public imagination is continually reinforced by the trajectory of our own technology.

• The Rise of Virtual Worlds: The exponential growth in the realism and immersiveness of video games and virtual reality (VR) has made a simulated existence more intuitive than ever before.² As millions of people spend significant portions of their lives interacting, working, and playing in increasingly sophisticated digital environments, the conceptual boundary between the “real” and the “virtual” becomes increasingly porous.⁸⁸ Our daily experience validates the core premise that convincing, complex worlds can be built from code.
• AI and Digital Consciousness: Concurrent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) lend further weight to the hypothesis. The development of AI that can generate realistic text, images, and even entire virtual environments raises questions about whether a sufficiently advanced AI could one day create self-sustaining simulations or even achieve consciousness itself, a key tenet of Bostrom’s argument.¹⁹
• The Coincidence Problem: This very technological context has led to a compelling critique. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and others have pointed out the suspicious coincidence that the Simulation Hypothesis has gained widespread popularity at the precise historical moment that humanity is beginning to develop the technology to create its own rudimentary simulations.⁵⁹ This suggests the hypothesis may be a “cultural artifact”—a projection of our current technological anxieties and capabilities onto the fundamental nature of the universe. Just as post-Newtonian intellectuals conceived of the universe as a giant clockwork mechanism, we, in the computer age, conceive of it as a giant computation.⁵⁹

This interplay between culture and theory has created a powerful positive feedback loop. The Matrix made the public receptive to Bostrom’s formal argument in 2003. The subsequent popularization of Bostrom’s work by influential tech figures like Elon Musk, who often reference the film, further amplified the idea.² This mainstream attention, in turn, inspires new cultural products—films, television shows, and games—that explore the theme, keeping the academic hypothesis firmly in the public eye. This self-reinforcing cycle has elevated the Simulation Hypothesis from a fringe thought experiment to a defining philosophical and cultural touchstone of the 21st century.

Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Reality

The Simulation Hypothesis stands at a unique intersection of ancient philosophy, modern physics, and computational science. It offers a provocative, technologically-grounded framework for one of humanity’s oldest questions: What is the nature of reality? The arguments in its favor are compelling, resting on the sober logic of probability and the strange, seemingly digital nature of our physical laws at their most fundamental level. If one accepts the premises of continued technological advancement and the substrate independence of consciousness, the conclusion that we are more likely to be simulated than not appears difficult to evade.

However, the hypothesis faces equally, if not more, formidable challenges. The computational and energy requirements to run a high-fidelity simulation of our universe appear to be physically impossible under our current understanding of physics. The argument is also beset by profound philosophical problems, including the logical paradox of infinite regress, the unproven nature of artificial consciousness, and its potential unfalsifiability, which may place it outside the realm of empirical science.

Ultimately, the question of whether we live in a simulation remains unresolved and may be fundamentally unknowable. Yet, the enduring value of the hypothesis lies not in the certainty of its answer, but in the power of the questions it forces us to confront.²³ To seriously consider the possibility is to engage in a radical act of epistemological humility. It compels us to scrutinize our most basic assumptions about existence, consciousness, free will, and meaning.⁷⁷ It serves as a powerful modern thought experiment, a digital-age

memento mori, reminding us that the reality we experience is mediated by our senses and our intellect, and its true nature may be far stranger and more complex than we can currently imagine. Whether our world is ultimately composed of atoms or bits, the quest to understand it—to question, to explore, and to marvel at its intricate mystery—remains a profoundly meaningful endeavor.

Works cited

1. Simulation hypothesis – Wikipedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
2. Simulation Hypothesis – Consensus Academic Search Engine, accessed August 29, 2025, https://consensus.app/questions/simulation-hypothesis/
3. Simulation Theory Debunked – The Think Institute, accessed August 29, 2025, https://thethink.institute/articles/simulation-theory-debunked
4. Simulation Hypothesis – LessWrong, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/w/simulation-hypothesis
5. Cave Allegory and Simulation – The Shield, accessed August 29, 2025, https://mcqshield.org/1932/showcase/cave-allegory-and-simulation/
6. Allegory of the cave – Wikipedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
7. Episode 71: The Allegory of the Cave and Simulation Theory – Reflecting History, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reflectinghistory.com/podcast/episode71
8. Are We Living in a Simulation? – Scholarly and Creative Works from DePauw University, accessed August 29, 2025, https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=studentresearchother
9. Plato’s Allegory of The Cave | – | Digital Image and Culture, accessed August 29, 2025, https://catherinebanksdiac.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/platos-allegory-of-the-cave/
10. Evil demon – Wikipedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
11. 400 years ago, this philosopher predicted that we’re living in a simulation : r/SimulationTheory – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/comments/1c53qs5/400_years_ago_this_philosopher_predicted_that/
12. Simulation Theory: How is ‘Religion’ Part of It? – Department of Religious Studies, accessed August 29, 2025, https://religion.ua.edu/blog/2022/01/24/simulation-theory-how-is-religion-part-of-it/
13. Meditation #8 are we living in a simulation? – Lisdorf.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://lisdorf.com/2025/05/18/meditation-8-are-we-living-in-a-simulation/
14. Are We Living in a Simulation? Ancient Religions and Quantum Physics Say Yes – Miles Rote, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.milesrote.com/blog/are-we-living-in-a-simulation-ancient-religions-and-quantum-physics-say-yes
15. Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? | Philosophy Break, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophybreak.com/articles/simulation-with-bostrom/
16. How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation | University of …, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/developing-enhanced-technologies/how-to-test-if-were-living-in-a-computer-simulation
17. The Simulation Hypothesis: A Scientific and Philosophical Inquiry | by Lorenzo Makoy, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@ki90grq8y/the-simulation-hypothesis-a-scientific-and-philosophical-inquiry-755a6aac4172
18. Do we live in a computer simulation like in The Matrix? My proposed new law of physics backs up the idea | University of Portsmouth, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/developing-enhanced-technologies/do-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation-like-in-the-matrix-my-proposed-new-law-of-physics-backs-up-the-idea
19. What Is Simulation Theory? Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? – Built In, accessed August 29, 2025, https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
20. Simulation Hypothesis and Argument Explained | by Apollonian delights | Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://apolloniandelights.medium.com/simulation-hypothesis-and-argument-explained-523e36600c76
21. Review of Bostrom’s Simulation Argument – Stanford University, accessed August 29, 2025, https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
22. Evaluating the Simulation Hypothesis | by Thinking Deeply with Ben …, accessed August 29, 2025, https://theapeiron.co.uk/the-simulation-theory-debunked-evaluating-the-simulation-hypothesis-403bba3c3da0
23. What Is the Simulation Hypothesis? – TEDAI San Francisco – TED Talks, accessed August 29, 2025, https://tedai-sanfrancisco.ted.com/glossary/the-simulation-hypothesis/
24. Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?, accessed August 29, 2025, https://simulation-argument.com/simulation/
25. The Simulation Argument, accessed August 29, 2025, https://simulation-argument.com/
26. Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis : r/Existentialism – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Existentialism/comments/175upk4/nick_bostroms_simulation_hypothesis/
27. Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Theory: We Could Be Living Inside the Matrix | TheCollector, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/nick-bostrom-simulation-theory/
28. Is consciousness substrate-independent? – Sympathetic People, accessed August 29, 2025, https://sympatheticpeople.com/2018/03/22/is-consciousness-substrate-independent/
29. Substrate-Independence – Edge.org, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27126
30. Energy Requirements Undermine Substrate Independence and Mind-Body Functionalism, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2BB3C2353EFF80F9D5805CDCEA8C3C89/S0031824821000155a.pdf/energy_requirements_undermine_substrate_independence_and_mindbody_functionalism.pdf
31. The Mind Beyond Matter: Substrate-Independence and the Simulation Hypothesis – Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@nicjames0515/the-mind-beyond-matter-substrate-independence-and-the-simulation-hypothesis-15e52e7f0fb4
32. newsroom.intel.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://newsroom.intel.com/tech101/understanding-moores-law#:~:text=Summary,industry%20since%20its%201965%20publication.
33. What is Moore’s Law? – Our World in Data, accessed August 29, 2025, https://ourworldindata.org/moores-law
34. Moore’s Law and Exponential Growth | PDH Academy, accessed August 29, 2025, https://pdhacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Moores-Law-and-Exponential-Growth-course-for-website.pdf
35. The Simulation Argument, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.simulation-argument.com/
36. Is Moore’s Law Really Dead? – Penn Engineering Magazine, accessed August 29, 2025, https://magazine.seas.upenn.edu/2024-2025/is-moores-law-really-dead/
37. Understanding Moore’s Law: Is It Still Relevant in 2025? – Investopedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp
38. The Simulation Hypothesis Explained by Nick Bostrom – YouTube, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvnIXeAz1mk
39. Does the Quantization of energy imply the universe is fundamentally digital? – Quora, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Quantization-of-energy-imply-the-universe-is-fundamentally-digital
40. Fine-Tuning and Simulation Theory: Crafting a Universe with Precision – Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@nicjames0515/fine-tuning-and-simulation-theory-crafting-a-universe-with-precision-96c25ae08840
41. Fine-tuned universe – Wikipedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
42. Fine-Tuning – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed August 29, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/
43. What Is Fine Tuning? – John Templeton Foundation, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning
44. Controversial Physicists Say They Are About To Test Whether We’re Living In A Simulation, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.iflscience.com/controversial-physicists-say-they-are-about-to-test-whether-were-living-in-a-simulation-75370
45. On testing the simulation theory – Caltech Authors, accessed August 29, 2025, https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/91xq4-c7r09/latest
46. ‘Simulation Hypothesis’ has leaped into serious quantum lab experiments – Earth.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.earth.com/news/simulation-hypothesis-leaped-serious-quantum-lab-experiments-consciousness-connection/
47. New Evidence For The Simulation Hypothesis? Donald Hoffman on The Simulation Argument – YouTube, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhAgpq26Noc
48. New, Easy Experiments for Testing the Simulation Hypothesis | by Eliott Edge | Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://eliottedge.medium.com/new-easy-experiments-for-testing-the-simulation-hypothesis-324e98525121
49. On Testing the Simulation Theory – Caltech, accessed August 29, 2025, https://users.cms.caltech.edu/~owhadi/index_htm_files/IJQF2017.pdf
50. Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for … – Frontiers, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873/full
51. We assess how physically realistic the ”simulation hypothesis” for this Universe is, based on physical constraints arising from the link between information and energy, and on known astrophysical constraints. We investigate three cases: the simulation of the entire visible Universe, the simulation of Earth only, or a low resolution simulation of Earth, compatible with high-energy neutrino observations. In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics, or (literally) astronomically large, even in the lowest resolution case. Only universes with very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as a simulation. On the other hand, our results show that it is just impossible that this Universe is simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements of the far future. – arXiv, accessed August 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2504.08461v1
52. [1703.00058] On testing the simulation theory – arXiv, accessed August 29, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058
53. Glitch in the Matrix – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/
54. I experienced a glitch in the matrix a few years ago, here’s my story. : r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/comments/15d9ip7/i_experienced_a_glitch_in_the_matrix_a_few_years/
55. This Quantum Breakthrough Indicates We DON’T Live in a Simulation! – YouTube, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj9G_j85Jo4
56. What are some strong criticisms of the simulation argument? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/7a2woc/what_are_some_strong_criticisms_of_the_simulation/
57. How much computing power would be necessary to simulate our universe? – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/k118f/how_much_computing_power_would_be_necessary_to/
58. [Request] How much computing power would it take to simulate the Universe? – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/uabyxm/request_how_much_computing_power_would_it_take_to/
59. The simulation hypothesis and other things I don’t believe – Backreaction, accessed August 29, 2025, https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-simulation-hypothesis-and-other.html
60. Probability and consequences of living inside a computer simulation – PMC, accessed August 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8300600/
61. Logical/mathematical (non-physical) arguments against simulation hypothesis?, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/82630/logical-mathematical-non-physical-arguments-against-simulation-hypothesis
62. Infinite regress – Wikipedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
63. Why simulation theory is statistically the most likely to be correct : r/singularity – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/135x2cz/why_simulation_theory_is_statistically_the_most/
64. The simulation hypothesis is a dangerous illusion – Big Think, accessed August 29, 2025, https://bigthink.com/13-8/simulation-hypothesis-escapism/
65. Simulation – r/Existentialism – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Existentialism/comments/py6u38/simulation_existentialism/
66. The Simulation Hypothesis is just an unjustified religious belief disguising itself as realism : r/nihilism – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/nihilism/comments/1fnugn2/the_simulation_hypothesis_is_just_an_unjustified/
67. Can we know if our universe is a simulation? – Polytechnique Insights, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/science/can-we-know-if-our-universe-is-a-simulation/
68. Can consciousness exist in a computer simulation? – ScienceDaily, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240719123825.htm
69. logic – Understanding the simulation argument – Philosophy Stack …, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/54936/understanding-the-simulation-argument
70. Consciousness in Simulation theory & AI, why do some believe that it is even possible?, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/73909/consciousness-in-simulation-theory-ai-why-do-some-believe-that-it-is-even-pos
71. What is a good argument against the simulation argument? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/svvuqm/what_is_a_good_argument_against_the_simulation/
72. Is there a qualitative difference between being in a Determinist universe and being in a Computer Simulation? – Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/122640/is-there-a-qualitative-difference-between-being-in-a-determinist-universe-and-be
73. What is the point of a simulation when free will doesn’t exist? : r/SimulationTheory – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/comments/18jxog7/what_is_the_point_of_a_simulation_when_free_will/
74. The Illusion of Free Will – Alex MacCaw, accessed August 29, 2025, https://blog.alexmaccaw.com/free-will/
75. The Simulation Hypothesis & Free Will Explained by Brian Greene – YouTube, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMneQsUw6XI
76. Simulation Theory. Why Scientists Think We Are Actually Living In A Crazy Simulation, accessed August 29, 2025, https://quantumzeitgeist.com/simulation-theory-why-many-scientists-think-we-are-living-in-a-simulation/
77. Simulation Theory — the Ultimate Existential Crisis? | River Campus Libraries, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.library.rochester.edu/about/news/simulation-theory-ultimate-existential-crisis
78. Unveiling Existential Horizons: Contemplating a Simulated Reality | by Soulthreader, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@nicjames0515/unveiling-existential-horizons-contemplating-a-simulated-reality-bf5b9031286c
79. Philosophical Implication of the Simulation Hypothesis | by Ioana Cristina Nicolae | Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@ioanacristinanicolae/philosophical-implication-of-the-simulation-hypothesis-08b33d7ffeba
80. Simulation Theory & Forced Existentialism | by Vidhu Dashora – Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@vdash001/simulation-theory-forced-existentialism-b9d763f69fc
81. reality – What is the point of knowing whether we are in a simulation …, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/123957/what-is-the-point-of-knowing-whether-we-are-in-a-simulation-or-not
82. If we’re all living in a Simulation, does that change anything? – Grokkist, accessed August 29, 2025, https://grokk.ist/philosophy/simulation-ecology-on-the-ethics-of-hyperreality/
83. Unveiling Simulation Theory: Exploring a Simulated Universe | The Missing Prompt, accessed August 29, 2025, https://themissingprompt.com/the-basics-what-is-simulation-theory/
84. What does the simulation theory imply about what happens to us when we die? – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/comments/1ca65fk/what_does_the_simulation_theory_imply_about_what/
85. Can simulation theory be considered a form of religion? – Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed August 29, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/60280/can-simulation-theory-be-considered-a-form-of-religion
86. Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience, accessed August 29, 2025, https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-simulation-hypothesis-is.html
87. Simulation Theory and Religion : r/SimulationTheory – Reddit, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/comments/h9hrm5/simulation_theory_and_religion/
88. Escaping into sci-fi: Virtual and simulated reality in pop culture | Pacific Wave | dailyuw.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.dailyuw.com/pacific_wave/escaping-into-sci-fi-virtual-and-simulated-reality-in-pop-culture/article_bc6237c0-789c-11eb-93ca-77859d474e95.html
89. The Rise of Simulation Theory in American Culture: How The Matrix Made Us Question Reality | by Kathlene Herberger | Medium, accessed August 29, 2025, https://medium.com/@beforebreakfast/the-rise-of-simulation-theory-in-american-culture-how-the-matrix-made-us-question-reality-ccd502505563
90. builtin.com, accessed August 29, 2025, https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory#:~:text=The%20World%20We%20Know%20Is%20Simulated&text=Along%20with%20powerful%20computing%20hardware,by%20the%20movie%20The%20Matrix.
91. Simulation Theory Explained – Are We Inside a Program? – YouTube, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YhJYCPhOis