Probably the most famous expression of the Simulation Hypothesis<\/strong> comes from the philosopher Nick Bostrom. He proposed that at least one of the following three statements is likely true:<\/p>\n Put differently, if simulating entire universes is feasible among advanced species, then there could be countless \u201cfake\u201d universes for every \u201creal\u201d one<\/strong>.<\/p>\n So, what are the odds we just happen to be in the original, unsimulated reality? Sounds convincing, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n Physicists can neither support nor deny the simulation theory at this point, there is evidence for and against it. Thus, it\u2019s no wonder that some people seem to believe we live in a simulation.<\/p>\n Furthermore, popular media and science fiction also love to toy with simulation narratives:<\/p>\n But let\u2019s leave fiction aside for a moment.<\/p>\n As an experimental scientist myself, I wonder: if I were the one running this cosmic simulation, carefully observing sentient beings evolve, interact, and grapple with existential questions. What would I think? What ethical responsibilities <\/strong>would I feel toward these conscious creations?<\/p>\n I am hardly the first to ask these questions: many philosophical articles were published exploring them.<\/p>\n Below is a very short summary of some selected ideas from these articles.<\/p>\n If an advanced civilization were indeed running a simulation of our universe, the most reasonable motive would likely be scientific curiosity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Think about it: building and maintaining a simulation as vast and complex as our reality would require unimaginable resources<\/strong>. Even for a highly advanced species.<\/p>\n Perhaps they\u2019re investigating the emergence of consciousness, the evolution of intelligent societies, or the dynamics of technological development.<\/p>\n Maybe they\u2019re curious about how civilizations handle resource scarcity, climate change, or artificial intelligence. <\/p>\n In this view, we are most likely not entertainment, nor a game, nor a vanity project.<\/p>\n Perhaps they didn\u2019t even intend to simulate the whole universe with conscious beings in it. But once that happened, they couldn\u2019t just stop and erase everything that had evolved to that point.<\/p>\n If we accept that our reality is a carefully monitored experiment, the next logical question is whether and how the simulators intervene in their creation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n After all, any scientist running a long-term experiment faces the need to tweak parameters, introduce new variables, or correct unintended outcomes.<\/p>\n But overt interference might compromise the integrity of the results.<\/p>\n Thus, if interventions happen, they would likely be rare, subtle, and designed to appear as natural phenomena or coincidences from our perspective.<\/p>\n Perhaps an unexpected scientific discovery appears sooner than anticipated, or a catastrophic event is narrowly averted by a chain of seemingly unrelated causes.<\/p>\n On the other hand, if the experiment ever risks stagnation, if evolution slows down or intelligent life fails to emerge, the simulators might give it a gentle push. Just enough to keep complexity and intelligence evolving rather than collapsing into dead ends.<\/p>\n In this light, history\u2019s pivotal moments could reflect tiny adjustments made behind the scenes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This question, known in philosophy as the problem of theodicy, has troubled thinkers for millennia. If a higher intelligence governs our world, why would it allow pain, injustice, or natural disasters?<\/p>\n From the simulation perspective, the answer might be dispassionately pragmatic. An experiment meant to study complex systems, moral evolution, or societal dynamics cannot be conducted in a sanitized, risk-free environment.<\/p>\n Conflict, suffering, and even tragedy may be unavoidable byproducts of authentic development<\/strong>. Shielding simulated beings from hardship would skew the results or make the simulation unrealistic.<\/p>\n Worse, it could prevent the emergence of resilience, cooperation, or ethical systems.<\/p>\n Much like scientists observing wildlife cannot intervene every time a predator hunts its prey, the simulators might accept suffering as a necessary, though regrettable, component of an unsupervised, authentic experiment.<\/p>\n In a simulated reality, death <\/strong>could simply mean the end of a local process: the deletion or archiving of a data instance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n But what if the simulators have a system for extracting particularly valuable \u201cinstances\u201d – consciousnesses that exhibited unique traits, insights, or behaviors? Or perhaps they wish to compensate those who suffered excessively during their simulated lives?<\/p>\n Call it \u201ccyberheaven<\/strong>\u201d: a repository where select minds are preserved, studied, or even granted existence in a different simulation.<\/p>\n In this light, death might not be an end, but a transition to another stage of a process we cannot yet comprehend.<\/p>\n Is there a \u201ccyberhell<\/strong>\u201d? Probably not, as there\u2019s no practical reason to waste resources on that.<\/p>\n Maybe some particularly evil personalities are judged by their victims in a kind of simulated afterlife trial before being erased forever.<\/p>\n One key insight from this thought experiment is that moral responsibility remains ours<\/strong>, even if some form of cosmic oversight exists.<\/p>\n Whether we are lab rats, free agents, or both, our actions matter: to ourselves, to others, and perhaps even to the data being collected by the simulators.<\/p>\n If they do intervene, it may be precisely because our authentic responses to challenges and opportunities are the most valuable results of the experiment.<\/p>\n In that sense, we cannot sit back and wait for a cosmic caretaker to fix our problems; we must face them ourselves.<\/p>\n At the same time, we shouldn\u2019t despair or panic. We should try our best, and even if we fail, in the worst case, perhaps the world will still be saved by an intervention that appears to us as a miraculous stroke of luck.<\/p>\n Finally, one more thing I wonder about\u2026 could the simulators get SR&ED credits<\/a> for this experiment?<\/strong><\/p>\n The answer is obviously yes: it is a classic<\/strong> Basic Research type project<\/strong>. They just need to incorporate, pay themselves T4 salaries, and keep records of the time they spend on the project and of the materials consumed. <\/p>\n What science and technology code would this project fall under? Probably all of them at once.<\/p>\n So, are we living in a simulated universe? Probably the most famous expression of the Simulation Hypothesis comes from the philosopher Nick Bostrom. He proposed that at least one of the following three statements is likely true: Civilizations never reach a level of technological maturity that would allow them to run \u201cancestor simulations.\u201d Civilizations that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2887,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[110],"tags":[232,114,2856,115,113],"expertise":[774],"class_list":["post-2190","article","type-article","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sred","tag-funding","tag-innovation-en","tag-quantum-mechanics","tag-sred-en","tag-sred-2","expertise-sred-tax-credits"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
What is the purpose of the simulation?<\/h2>\n
Would the simulators interfere?<\/h2>\n
Why is there so much suffering?<\/h2>\n
Can suffering be compensated and moral behavior rewarded after death?<\/h2>\n
So, what\u2019s the conclusion?<\/h2>\n
Sources<\/h3>\n
\n