The Simulation Paradox

Introduction

Have you ever wondered if life was a simulation? Perhaps you've heard other people discussing this theory in the past. Some claim that the chances of life being a simulation are 50-50 and believe that with current technology this could one day be possible on our own planet. 

In this blog post, I'll be providing my opinion and the evidence that supports it and elaborating on my thought processes and why I felt I should make a post about this. 

Explanation

Why is it that people believe the universe could be a computer simulation? Leading theories point to the argument that once maximum computational performance per processor is achieved in the smallest space possible that computers will become incredibly powerful and fabricating enough of these processors could actually simulate a universe similar to the one we live in. 

Due to the seemingly infinite size of the universe, we theoretically have infinite materials to fabricate an infinite amount of processors. Therefore, it is quite possible that we could theoretically simulate our own universe using these processors. Or at least, that is the idea.

Reality vs. Science Fiction

I'm going to get straight to the point here; I don't believe in this theory, it's mere science fiction that people are using to try and gain internet influence. Don't worry, I'll explain everything I just said with a logical explanation with plenty of evidence. 

The answer lies within what the true definition of consciousness is, our perception of the universe is simply a mere illustration portrayed by collections of neurons in each observer's brain. All our thoughts, emotions and ideas are electrical signals that can be converted directly into binary signals. 

So, if our perspective of the universe is in an electrical format; are we certainly living in a simulation? No, we simply aren't (or probably aren't). The chances of a species becoming capable of such a thing are next to impossible but are probably not impossible. 

What benefit would a species gain from completing such a complex, time-wasting task? There's simply no incentive as at this point you would need to understand how your own universe works down to the movement of each atom. 

Once again, this is not impossible but incredibly difficult and only provides minimal benefits. If you can already simulate every last atom's movement in your universe, why would you ever decide to go through the pain to create a replica of it or an alternative version? Just for your own satisfaction? There would literally be no scientific gain from such a task. 

Paradoxes are Real but Not Always Obtainable

Another issue I have with this theory is that it creates a universe-creation paradox. How far-fetched can you get? If we were to assume that this theory was true, surely there would be several "dimensions" of different universe simulations running inside of one another. This is even harder to believe but would have to be a part of this theory due to the nature of just being able to "create" universes using nothing but electrical signals.

It is calculated that the probability of our World being created in particular lies near to impossible but should still happen periodically throughout the universe. If the probability of a World that can sustain life is still not as slim as we think it probably is, why have we not observed life anywhere yet in our universe? Observe the Fermi paradox. 

Why would someone create a dead, vast and almost impossible to understand universe intentionally? Neglecting that it is computationally expensive to create a truly random event, the "code" used would have to be insufferably efficient and could only be developed by sentient artificial intelligence. 

Conclusion

Believing that the universe is simulated by sentient overlords is like believing the Earth is flat. The only difference is that we can use mathematics to determine that the Earth is not flat and we cannot use mathematics that this is the only universe. 

If we cannot use mathematics to prove this, we cannot use computers either (ever). This raises an even greater and more important point; if we can supposedly create a true universe then why can we not prove that the universe we live in is a simulation? It goes against everything we have ever researched and calls all conducted science a waste of time. 

In reality, it draws us away from what is likely the true materialisation of the universe as opposed to what is just a bit less than a conspiracy theory. 

Why did I make this blog post? Primarily to clear my own mind, but also for anyone that reads this. Most of us simply do not have the time or patience to ask these questions, but nonetheless, they are questions that will one day need to be answered definitively. 

Feedback

Please let me know what your thoughts and opinions are on this in the comments section. Try to keep things concise even if you don't plan on baking up your opinions with facts.