The hypothesis that we are living in a simulated world is believed by some people, including prominent figures like Elon Musk. However, there is currently no serious or substantial evidence to support this hypothesis. A major flaw of this theory is its inability to explain how we can prove the reality of the world around us.
According to natural philosopher Marcelo Gleiser, a professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College and a Templeton Prize winner, the hypothesis that humanity is living in a simulation created by computer software is merely an excuse to justify failures in environmental and social ethics.
The simulation hypothesis originated in 2003, in a famous scientific paper by philosopher Nick Bostrom from the University of Oxford. He argued that our reality is just a computer simulation of some advanced civilization.
Professor Marcelo Gleiser believes the simulation theory is a way to shift blame. (Photo: Popsci).
Shifting Blame to Supernatural Forces
According to Professor Marcelo Gleiser, humans must take responsibility for what we have caused to the Earth and bear the consequences of our actions.
“It’s too convenient to blame the current chaos on forces beyond our control. In fact, the phrase ‘it’s not my fault’ sounds like a religious viewpoint,” Marcelo Gleiser remarked.
The world has experienced many upheavals in recent years, from political instability and economic downturns to armed conflicts and a global pandemic that has claimed over 6.7 million lives and continues to unfold unpredictably.
Therefore, if humanity is indeed living in a simulation, perhaps the simulation masters are looking at humans as malevolent beings.
For those struggling to make a living, worrying about bills, and battling illnesses, taking the time to ponder whether our world is real or not is quite unrealistic.
“I wish smart people would focus on real-world issues instead of these meaningless discussions,” the professor shared the perspective of a friend.
The Flaws of the Simulation Hypothesis
According to Nick Bostrom, the foundational figure behind the simulation hypothesis, at least one of the following three propositions is true: civilizations typically go extinct before they develop the ability to create realistic simulations; advanced civilizations are unlikely to be interested in creating realistic simulations; or it is almost certain that we are living inside a computer simulation.
The simulation hypothesis contains many contradictions. (Photo: NBC News).
In his article, Marcelo Gleiser pointed out the fundamental errors in Nick Bostrom’s reasoning.
First, he argued that if we are living in a simulation run by a superintelligent race, there is nothing to prevent them from being part of a simulation created by an even more advanced supernatural race. This would lead to an infinite recursive loop, raising the classic philosophical question: Who created the first simulation?
Second, the Dartmouth scholar questioned why a species, belonging to a post-human evolutionary generation or aliens, would want to simulate humanity at the current level. “When assessing the actions of an intelligence we have never encountered, the fundamental question is why they would do that. We have no understanding of their intentions,” Marcelo Gleiser argued.
The professor believes that while we may not determine what truth is, the simulation hypothesis negatively affects human self-esteem. It leads believers to abandon their sense of agency and become nihilistic.
“After all, if everything is just a grand game that we cannot control, why bother? What difference could action or awareness make?” Marcelo Gleiser posed the question.
The professor argues that the simulation worldview is closely aligned with nihilism, seeking to reduce humans to mere subjects of fate, stripping away the will to fight for what we believe in.
