Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?

This article originally appeared on Roosh V.

The strangest thing to ever happen to me took place in Tomsk, a Russian Siberian city. A week into my stay there, I bought a neon orange toothbrush to replace an old toothbrush. Some two weeks later I went to the bathroom to brush my teeth but the toothbrush was gone. It completely disappeared.

Looking for this neon orange toothbrush was the only time in my life that I felt insane. I scoured the bathroom on my hands and knees before extending the search to the entire apartment, even looking in trash cans, drawers, and cabinets. I figured that its disappearance was due to one of the following two reasons:

1. I sleptwalk and threw the toothbrush out the window. This is unlikely since I have no history of sleepwalking and sleep extremely light (so light that the sound of my own snoring wakes me up).

2. The landlord came during the early morning to dispose of the toothbrush, just to fuck with me. The problem with that scenario is that the front door was loud with a dungeon master lock. If I didn’t awaken to its opening, I would have when it was closed and locked again.

I stayed in the apartment for a week and the neon orange toothbrush never appeared again. At that time I didn’t consider a third explanation of its disappearance: there was a glitch—a bug—in the computer simulation we’re living in.

A paper by Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom makes a case for the computer simulation argument. His paper, which I recommend reading, states that one of the following three scenarios must be true:

1. We will go extinct or somehow destroy ourselves before developing the technology or computational power to create simulations with conscious subjects (i.e. become “posthuman”).

2. A posthuman civilization that can create a simulation with consciousness will elect not to, perhaps for ethical reasons.

3. We are currently living in a computer simulation, one that has sufficient detail without major bugs that convince us our reality is not an artificial construct.

The first time I heard of simulation theory, I reviewed it just for curiosity’s sake, to see how convincing the argument was for us to be living in a sort of Matrix but without the physical pod component. While I’m not fully convinced, the logic presented is sound and I’m open to the small possibility that we’re part of a SimUniverse where the big bang was a start button pushed by an advanced species who wanted to learn more about their own creation, or perhaps who just wanted to be entertained. The fact that scientists today are eagerly hoping to simulate consciousness on computers suggest that the idea must be irresistible to advanced species.

My initial objection to believing a simulation is possible is the detail our reality provides. There’s no way I can be “fooled” of existence, but nearly every single night I’m fooled by a simulation called dreams, which not only lack rich detail, but are still believed by my mind in spite of having colossal bugs well known to lucid dreamers:

  • You can’t see your hands
  • Light switches don’t work
  • Clock faces never display

Is it possible that dreams are a simulation of a simulation, and that everything around us is digital data stored on quantum computers so powerful that it would take an entire planet to house them based on current technology?

If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities.

There have been other theories that clash with the neatness of our current model of the world. One states that there are multiple universes operating concurrently, and another, my favorite, states that there has been a great many iterations of the universe, each with its own physical properties that determine its makeup and construction. Maybe we’re living in universe number 1,350,372—an advanced “species” of universe that evolved from previous ones like we evolved from previous animals—and when it inevitably collapses upon itself, another big bang will create a new universe with different conditions of physics, chemistry, and life.

How can we ever prove that we’re living in a simulation? The biggest indicator, based on probability formulas provided by Bostrom, is if we successfully create such a simulation ourselves. In that case, a posthuman scenario has most certainly occurred in the universe before, allowing there to be a far greater number of simulated organisms than real ones. If we create a posthuman simulation, Las Vegas odds would then heavily favor the fact that we are indeed living in one.

…we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.

Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage – the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure – there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)

One big part of our reality that can’t be explained is the double slit experiment, whereby the physics of our universe behaves differently just because we happen to be observing it. Watch the following clip if you are unfamiliar with this famous experiment, whose result has not changed after many replications:

This experiment is conclusive in proving that perception of objective reality can be dependent on the observer, meaning it changes simply because a set of eyes (mechanical sensors) are watching, without any other alteration to the environment. Can’t this mystery extend to life as a whole with people instead of electrons? Can things in our own reality change depending on if we’re looking or not? Are simulation programmers filling in information ad-hoc depending on how closely we are watching?

In my own life I noticed something consistently peculiar and frustrating—the attractiveness of women decline based on how carefully I’m looking for an attractive woman. If I decide on a day of dutiful work, I always see more attractive women than if I go out with the intent to meet women. Having a different mental goal changes what my eyes see and therefore what I get aroused by. While we can conclude that this difference in perception is due to my brain viewing reality differently based on the goal or intent it contains at the time, the double slit experiment offers up a potentially different explanation.

…a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.

And so we may be coming full circle, from believing in a single creator, God, then killing him off in place of evolution and natural selection, a process that prefers ever increasing levels of complexity and intelligence even though robust gene replication can occur on a basic cellular level like in bacteria, and now back (for some) to believing in a creator, not of one God but a species whose intelligence we would be unable to grasp with our feeble minds.

While the simulation argument has no bearing on my day-to-day life and what I’m feeling in the present moment, it has made me wonder more about what we’re doing here. If there is no reason, as I suspect, then we’ll just have to find a reason ourselves by living in a purposeful way, but until then I would really like to know what happened to my neon orange toothbrush.

Read Next: We Are All Sisyphus

163 thoughts on “Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?”

    1. descartes laid out his rationale for the cogito, butttttt…. there have been responses by other philosophers ever since descartes’ publication that pick holes at it bit-by-bit.

  1. Roosh, this turn in your thinking surprises me. You sound like the cryonicists and transhumanists I hang with.

      1. This is a great article and I found myself thinking about this concept again after a few hickups in the system were noticed.

      2. Well, we do have a way higher than average nerd load. I admit that. I do know a few who have told me about their adventures as sex tourists, like some of the ROK’s writers; and I also know a sex therapist into cryonics who works with sex surrogates.

  2. I wonder if some people on ROK have heard about this. But according to some conspiracy theories we do live in a computer simulation, and it’s being run by Saturn. Yes, as in the planet Saturn.
    That’s all I gotta say.

    1. That’s ridiculous. Saturn doesn’t have the cognitive capacity to run a computer simulation. Venus however is self-aware and is running the simulation.

    2. Are we sure its Saturn and not Saturn’s moon Titan and are we sure the computer isn’t ISAAC? This is Thanos’s doing, I know it…

    3. Saturn went bankrupt in 2008. perhaps Buick runs the universe in Saturn’s stead?

  3. The notion that there are multiple universes, that our universe is simulation, and that God created the world can are not mutually exclusive, in fact all 3 could be possible at once. For example, God could have created a world with multiple universes, one or more of which (universes) developed the ability to simulate more universes.
    God creating the world is, in fact, essentially the same as a simulation, because like a simulation, God would have created certain initial conditions and certain physical laws, and then allowed time to progress. The only difference is that if it were God, it would be done supernaturally rather than via a computer (although what does natural mean anyway? if it’s a law that applies to the natural world, isn’t is by definition a “natural law”; supernatural just means we lack understanding of it).
    That double slit experiment is very neat though, and creepy at the end too, although I suppose there could be other explanations for why the sensor changes the pattern.

  4. How this site went from –> Improve yourself –> lays are a side benefit to: feminism/political correctness is ruining the world —> lets review video games –> Are we even real? Smh how this site has turned into hundred chicken littles yelling the sky is falling..

    1. The site has always had info on a variety of topics. It made the shift into a less-romantically oriented realm in response to popular demand by we the readers.

    2. “Great point”. If it’s not about banging, then it’s pointless, obviously. Some people think there’s more to life than ejaculating. Maybe you should too.

      1. “Some people think there’s more to life than ejaculating. Maybe you should too.”
        No she can’t. Nobody will ever be able to get the dick out of a woman’s mind.

    3. Perhaps you have limited interest in alternative perspectives. I think many men interested in self improvement find philosophical contemplations fulfilling from time to time. In addition to acquiring a variety of knowledge sources to become more well-rounded. How many times do you need to read about doing compounds lifts or to take chances with women?

    4. The site has plenty of information (articles) on all of those subjects (and more). It’s not being forced fed to you…look around (browse) the topics. Plus, there are a couple of other sites with articles containing pick up game, self improvement, etc… It’s up to you on what you want to read and where you want to go (each day).
      Remember: It’s not “our goal”….It’s “your goal”.

  5. “Are simulation programmers filling in information ad-hoc depending on how closely we are watching?”
    This is an extension to the tree falling in the woods question.
    Lately I’ve become more convinced that this isn’t the first or only incarnation of the universe. The chances of all the required elements being just right for one single universe are simply too small. One universe with everything by chance correctly assembled? No chance! There mathematically speaking must be trillions of universes for the component parts of one to be this neat. Throw a pin off a tall building and land it in a cup. You won’t do it first time. You may do it the millionth
    The laws of averages dictate trillions of incarnations

  6. If you die here, you’ll all be trapped in the infinite abysmal vortex forever. I’ve seen it. Something only a mind truly evil could come up with, and therefore, something that only a human reasoning could. Have you wondered perhaps if the laws of causality have spawned their own God? One made by humans as a reason for their suffering, and those who relish in suffering and agony (subconsciously all humans do enjoy it) become a part of it?
    I only think that a truly enlightened mind can escape the gravitational pull of that vortex, that fate that awaits all of humanity. It’s an Idea, simply put.
    Universal variations is an interesting point of view, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re mortal and our countdown clock is ticking. This reality is very cruel when you take away all human constraints, especially ones bound by civilization.
    I see in Roosh the naturally inquisitive behavior that I had a long time ago, as a younger man, and perhaps if a collective of minds like his got together and worked together, some absolute truth can be established about our universe, however ephemeral.

    1. “If you die here, you’ll all be trapped in the infinite abysmal vortex forever. I’ve seen it.”
      If you die in your sins, you’ll implode like a black hole in space, an eternal nothing becoming ever more nothing.

      1. they dont make movies like this anymore. All cool puppets and sets, no cgi..

  7. Roosh, your toothbrush probably got suck into a parallel universe where the Roosh in that world wonders how he ended up with 2 orange toothbrushes. It didn’t return to you yet? It happens all the time to me like now, where I left my car keys on the table and it gets sucked into another dimension and I have to wait until-hey, they’re back! Sorry, I gotta cruise now, good luck!

    1. In my experience, washing machines often serve as portals to parallel universes. Someone, somewhere, has got an awful lot of old socks that used to be mine.

  8. 15 years ago when you would turn on the tv to watch discovery channel in the netherland I would get to see documentaries about WW2, Alexander the great, things about Vikings or Europe in the middle ages, gangsters etc. Then the quality started to drop with the introduction of those sharkweeks. Not much later all I saw was a channel filled with hours about some motorcycle-family and some beer grills guy. What I want to say with that are 3 things: They parted from what their audience wants to see and what is the core of the channel, second: they added drama and drama to their channel men get enough of real fast. Third: The qualitydrop seeps in. Don’t let that happen over here. You know why I don’t care if we live in a simulation? Because pain and pleasure both feel real to me.

    1. ” You know why I don’t care if we live in a simulation? Because pain and pleasure both feel real to me.”
      If you live in a simulation that means there’s an intelligent Creator behind it. That has huge implications.

        1. No afterlife either, archived files don’t run.
          Speaking of which, even in the religious sense nobody can say that God isn’t yanking the chain what he would consider insignificant toy beings promising them a forever.

        2. Sometimes I sit and think, and nothing makes sense. God is playing a sick joke on us for his own amusement..
          Going back to the Bible.. “God created man” (he should have stopped there, if you ask me, lol).. Why? Why the fuck did he create us? I really think he’s an asshole.

        3. “‘God created man’ (he should have stopped there, if you ask me, lol)”
          Faggot spotted off the port-side bow.

        4. LOLOL settle down fucker only butt-pirates get upset by internet commenters and feel the need to reaffirm their sexuality by indirectly questioning the sexuality of their antagonist’s father l0l0l0l0l0l

        1. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be God to us.
          The creator of the simulation would be omnipotent all across it. That pretty much meets the definition of “God”. And even if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, all turn out to be hoaxes ascribing false rules to said “God”, there’s still Deism.

        2. What if it is more than one creator? More than one god is not only polytheism, it is also paganism. What if the creator/s is/are malevolent? This would not meet our definition of god.

        3. As per my last reply – the understanding here that Deism being the belief in a single creator.

      1. What if the creator is ME and I’m locked in some kind of cosmic hide and go seek game with myself?

    2. Some might argue that philosophical contemplations are a part of a balanced life perspective. Furthermore, such musings aren’t without their value in real work applications either.

    3. The real crime was that “Honey Boo Boo” show…because it was on TLC and the initials TLC once stood for “The Learning Channel”. o_0

      1. A real god damn shame, too. Those channels: History, Learning, Discovery, etc..used to have some quality content (for men). I’m guessing the ratings weren’t high enough so they had to add all of the reality garbage (to continue with dumbing down America)…I stopped watching.
        I look for the content that I want to watch online, now, instead of all the mindless programming they want to feed us.

        1. Exactly.. I don’t even own a TV. I go to youtube and other places to watch/read what I am interested in.

  9. and now back (for some) to believing in a creator, not of one God but a species whose intelligence we would be unable to grasp with our feeble minds.
    One case for God is that He would be the first cause, whereas an advanced species (or Mormonism’s God, while we’re at it) would require its own creator, who would require its own creator, and so on ad infinitum.
    but until then I would really like to know what happened to my neon orange toothbrush.
    My old man’s term for when that kind of thing happens is, “The devil was sitting on it.” He used it a few times when things disappeared and then appeared, with his being certain he had already checked the place it eventually appeared without seeing it there before.

  10. Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
    Bitches change what they’re doing depending on whose watching. lol

    1. LOL.. yeah they live in a parallel universe.
      About the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.If we live in a simulation, then that would explain it. As nothing is real, we ONLY get the instant feedback at the time of the observation from the machine running the sim. Anything outside of us observing it doesn’t exist, and it should not exist if it’s a simulation.
      Maybe the double slit phenomenon is THE glitch in the Matrix.

    2. Only God is real (“the only self existent One”), man and all the rest of creation (including time/space) exists only because God wills them to exist.

      1. What does it mean when you have first hand experience, that proves without a doubt, that God is the interfacing personality created inside of your psyche? This can arise from literally meeting yourself face to face. A certain pattern of jeans, modified over eons, to seek out this Harbinger episode, will always result in God being born in the psyche and fashion of a Hueman. Created in God’s image. An operating system interface mounted. A virtually mounted system.

    3. The beauty of this article…we won’t see any of those bitches commenting in here either. You know why? It’s not an article about them (self centered) and it’s “too deep”…too much critical thinking involved.
      We’re men….we’re busy right now figuring shit out.

        1. Yeah, but you see it doesn’t have any of the “trigger” words in the title. You know how SJWs work (lol). It’s all about “injustice” and they scour the place looking for titles with the certain words in them.
          Any article with words like: building, engineering, science, computers, self improvement, etc….and they’re lost.

      1. Female doesn’t care about that because to get filled all she has to do is to open her legs, not rocket science. I am not saying that woman are not intelligent but saying that they don’t have to be to survive.

        1. Agree. It’s just pretty fucking sad to see that they only time we get hit with the “stampede” is when an article is listed with those buzz words pertaining to a woman. They’re shallow and self centered.

      2. “The beauty of this article…we won’t see any of those bitches commenting in here either. You know why? It’s not an article about them”
        Indeed. As of late, no scag in the house on this article.

      3. Conversations of this magnitude with a woman, even a so called smart woman are about as rare as the Cubs winning the World Series.

        1. Then I’d love to have a discussion with you. Although I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that the conversation would drift towards feeling, emotions, and the necessity of government to put guys like me in our place and solve all the ills of humanity. You know come to think of it I wasn’t totally honest and accurate in my original comment. I did have in depth discussions with women once upon a time. But that was when I was young and these women are now very old or dead. I myself am one of the oldest men on this site. Things have changed and not for the better.

        2. Haha, it may drift into feelings and emotions on my part, but they are a large part of me and I trust my intuition greatly, however I assure you it wouldn’t turn into an anti-man conversation nor one about the government and what it’s duties should be, unless you yourself take our conversation in that direction! I agree with you that younger generations are generally not interested in meaningful discussions, but it doesn’t pertain to just women. Men my age don’t want to have these discussions either. You say that things have changed, and I don’t doubt it but if someone is interested in more in-depth discussions, they will be drawn to them regardless of the times. I understand that these days we have distractions all around us from our advancing technology and the ever-present media, but those who genuinely seek meaning will not let themselves be prevented from finding it. Im sure less people are interested in in-depth discussions now but I wonder if those women (and men) you had those conversations with long ago would still be interested when surrounded by modern media and modern technology.

        3. Hey Kena, I am quite curious to how old the men your age are? See what I did there I did not ask you your age haha. Anyway, in all honesty the number of male friends I have that you can have intelligent conversation with are quite few. Even though I try to keep adding these types of men in to my social circle. It is a sad picture of the demise of America. I definitely was born in the wrong decade. Now give me my iPhone. haha

        4. Forgive my super-late reply, I don’t check this email often! And men my age would be in their early 20s. I myself am 20. I’m sure at this age they are much more preoccupied with other activities haha, which I understand. But its disappointing to hear that it’s the same for your age group as well. And pshh iPhones are overrated lol

    4. If a woman falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear does she whine about it?

    5. What happens when you put her in a room where nobody can see her?
      She ceases to exist.
      Schroedinger’s Pussy

  11. If you take the double slut (cough, slit) experiment one step further, it gets even more fucked up.. Read this blog post if you have the time. Very interesting.
    Short teaser:
    Seeing Double
    In his delayed-choice thought experiment, Wheeler suggests that a single photon emitted from a distant quasar (far right) can simultaneously follow two paths to Earth, even if those paths are separated by many light-years. Here one photon travels past two different galaxies, with both routes deflected by the gravitational pull of the galaxies. Stranger still, Wheeler theorizes, the observations astronomers make on Earth today decide the path the photon took billions of years ago.

      1. More than that. We change the past while observing the present. There is a theory that says: “Everything that could have happen, happened.”

        1. Everything that CAN happen, HAS happened.
          This essentially disabuses us of the notion of time, wherein it appears that there is a seed (a cause), that unfolds over time.
          It also disabuses us of the notion that existing problems, have solutions, that we find out, and then solve.
          In the time-space all solutions and problems are already known, effectively meaning that all things can be known are already known.
          Nothing ever “happens”, because without potentiality things cannot happen, if something “happens”, then it is already the case.
          The unfolding or rotation of a potentiality throughout our time and space, creates the idea that something is actually happening, but really, it’s an unfolding.

  12. To be fair does it matter in the slightest?
    This is pretty much on the same level as those continental philosophers who prattled on about how everything except the mind was probably fake because they had no way to be sure it was real.
    Your senses are the only means you have to perceive the world. Just go with them.
    Stop whining.

    1. hehehe.. it’s not about whining.. Here’s something you might want to think about… You say “Your senses are the only means you have to perceive the world”… I’ll discard the second part…
      So let’s think about an experiment.. I agree the senses are all we have to experiment the physical world. In the end your eyes, ears, skin etc turn whatever they receive from the outside world into electrical signals that your brain interprets. Now, if I would disconnect your receptors from the nervous system, and I plug in a machine feeding your brain with electrical signals that I create, then I make your reality and you won’t be able to tell the difference… If nothing else it’s worth thinking about this stuff..

      1. And? It’s not like I could tell or do anything about it.
        So it’s not worth worrying about.
        Constant doubt like this leads eventually to the conclusion that it’s not worth doing shit.
        Since you can’t prove anything is real why bother doing anything.
        That’s why this kind of shitty philosophy isn’t worth the effort involved in thinking about it. It has no practical application of any sort.

    2. Neon orange, mate! If it was some common blue or red or green toothbrush i might agree.
      Neon orange, let me say that again! 😀 Lol.

  13. One possible use of this simulation could be to create billions of free will consciousnesses running at a far higher speed than its creators in order to spontaneously spawn new technologies that the simulation creators could observe and then replicate in their “real” world. Assuming they kept the physics the same of course.

    1. As I said before, the problem is, with a simulation, there is no free will. If “they” in their infinite wisdom were able to “fix” this quirk, then what you are saying makes sens.
      One other thing, that can go along with your theory is alien life. I am convinced that it exits out there but we are kept separate by time and space so we act as mini independent laboratories..Maybe the accelerating expansion of the Universe has something to do with these little rats gaining more and more knowledge, and that’s “their” way to stay one step ahead of us..
      One other question is how do they deal with time. In their time, all these are probably running for a couple of hours, where in ours is billions of years.. Oh, there’s Einstein for that..

      1. Goddamn, how can you be so crazy to think the ultimate bullshit you’re saying could be any true?

        1. Why do you feel so uneasy? I’m not getting it… who said this IS the truth? We’re speculating.. We’re doing the “what if” thing. But yeah, I understand. Some dudes got their ass fried on a pole just for thinking new ideas.. Carry on.

        2. You are CONVINCED is not an idea, you are saying you have 0 doubts that is true, which IS insane, and even worse a nihilistic poison.

        3. The hell do you want man? Are you going to put words in my mouth? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I specifically said it’s speculation. Anything else? Go back to school if you can’t read.

  14. I hope we are not seriously entertaining this idea.
    The idea of a Matrix resonates because the kind of society we have created feels wrong. It feels wrong because it goes against our biological nature. This is not news, just pointing it out. Just a shame there is nothing that can be done about it.

    1. the concept is NOT new, it goes back centuries, even before they knew what computers were. it is not a new idea !!

      1. well, it also originated with every 8 year old boy who wondered if his parents were really aliens and the whole world was staged just to fool him into believing it’s real.
        Unfortunately, while it’s a fascinating exercise, taking it too seriously is the definition of solipsism.

    2. I suspect society started to feel a lot more wrong to people around the time of the Enlightenment with its untested, arbitrary social ideology.
      The recklessness of the guys who gave us the Enlightenment really should astonish us. Basically they said that our ancestors did almost everything “wrong” for thousands of years, until some white European guys (plus one of the Others named Spinoza) figured it all out from their armchairs in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and got humanity on a better path. Hence they discarded a functional society based on patriarchy, tradition, hierarchy, aristocracy, religion, tribalism and so forth, in exchange for a massive social experiment based on feminism, radical innovation, equality, democracy, secularism and cosmopolitanism.
      No wonder we have the splinter in our minds. The human species did not evolve for these kinds of radical changes.

  15. Interesting article.
    I’ve been sent the link to the simulation theory before. A lot of the math does escape me, and it could be written much more clearly, but I do understand what Roosh is pointing out.
    My two cents, based on my experiences and upbringing…
    It is kind of proving the eastern philosophies true. I’m not an academic in the subject by any means. But in hinduism, and buddhism, “maya” is the world, or “reality”, in which we are all plugged into for this experience now.
    And the “maya” is all just an illusion.
    I see the intersect between the “maya” and “simulation”.

  16. Theoretically it’s all technically possible. To create a simulation of the magnitude of the Universe. Right now, we are bound by the way our computers work. i.e. one calculation at a time. And that’s fine, for a certain class of problems: the ones that only require polynomial running times. The problem starts to creep in when dealing with algorithms that run in exponential time, where the exponent is a function of the input we give it. That’s the NP Complete class of problems.
    Most of the problems we are trying to solve are NP complete. The way we deal with this situation is by using approximation algorithms (that will run in polynomial time). We will not obtain the optimal solution, but something good enough.
    Quantum computers will theoretically fix this by being able to execute multiple operations at the same time.
    Think about solving a getting out of a maze problem using classical computers. It has to check each and every path, and maybe it’ll get lucky and only run though half of the possibilities. A quantum computer is able to check all the paths at once and give you the answer instantly. With such a computer, one would be able to keep track of the state and interaction of each atom and its sub particles in the Universe.
    People have already developed the first experimental quantum computers…

  17. Well of course it’s a simulation, depending on what your definition of “simulation” is.
    A Space Marine in a Warhammer RTS game does not exist outside of the game world. He exists in that simulation, from our point of view. But for him, it is his entire world, and nothing exists outside of it.
    If we’re talking Matrix-style simulation, then this implies that we’re actually truly living in another world, and simply collectively dreaming of this one. This could be an explanation of the concept of souls. Once you die, you stop dreaming, and return to the “afterlife”, which is actually the real world all along.
    But if we’re truly existing only in this world, and this world alone, can we really call it a simulation? Sure, assuming God or something created this reality, and is watching us – from his point of view, it’s a simulation. From our point of view, much like with the Space Marine above – it is our entire existence.
    That is why I found the experiments where the researchers observed that humans seem to be hard-wired to believe in things such as God, intriguing. Perhaps it’s some kind of “reality-check” mechanism which can often be misdirected in the direction of beliefs in such things as ancient astronaut gods, or Zeus, Amun-Ra, Odin and so on?
    Fascinating stuff, really.

    1. There were two films that came about in the late 90’s, similar period to the release of the first Matrix film, which dealt with these concepts.Thirteenth Room and the other being Dark City.

    2. best break down of simulation I’ve read. great logic.
      From our point of view, much like with the Space Marine above – it is our entire existence.
      Did I miss this?
      That is why I found the experiments where the researchers observed that humans seem to be hard-wired to believe in things such as God, intriguing.

  18. This article misunderstands some of what is known in quantum physics. Its not that the electron is being observed that makes it behave as a particle and not a wave, but rather the light energy (photons I believe) binding with the electron causing it to behave like a particle.
    So the video plugin makes it sound more magical. But its misleading we know just a little bit more than this.

    1. yeah, I have told people before that Occam’s razor points to an insufficiently advanced technology lending proof to heisenberg’s uncertainty principle rather than an observational error leading to an entirely new school of physics.
      In other words, he probably moved the toothbrush and forgot about it, and it fell in the trash or toilet and got flushed.

    2. thanks for the further explanation that makes more sense. The quantum world is quite mystifying though.
      Neural Plasticity is also quite mystifying as well.

  19. I have heard of similar stories, even experienced a few of them myself. Pencils rolling off tables, never hitting the floor, appearing decades later. I often felt like there was something moving behind the scenes. Heck I think we were all put on a different hard drive back in feb 2013.

  20. It’s already been said but I’ll repeat it. The idea of life as an illusion or as a low level in a hierarchy of “worlds” is old. The analogy of computer simulation is born of recent technology, brings it up to date and earned Keanu Reeves a decent buck or two along the way. For example, the Kabbalah pictures layered worlds wherein the essence of God manifests to the extent designed for those worlds. According to Kabbalah ours is at the lowest level, though I feel that lower ones are possible.
    I believe, our perceptions of the rules and mechanics of operation of a multi-layered universe are highly constrained by the wetware and senses given us by evolution. However, those rules and mechanics do exist and they include the machinery of fate which, incidentally, can be reconciled with free will. As can the apparent moral neutrality of the universe. It’s all a matter of perspective and our own is usually highly myopic.

  21. Reading about life in a simulated world always makes me think about a certain story.
    No, not the Matrix.
    Okay fine, two stories.
    The other one can be found via the link below, I believe some of you might like it. It is well written, has a very unique core idea and is short enough to not keep you from pursuing your goals for too long.
    Have fun!
    Also, LessWrong itself is worth a read for any man who wishes to base his actions on reality, instead of on what our brain makes of it. I wonder why I’ve never seen any reference to it on this site.
    Have a nice day, fellow men!

  22. Reading about life in a simulated world always makes me think about a certain story.
    No, not the Matrix.
    Okay fine, two stories.
    The other one can be found via the link below, I believe some of you might like it. It is well written, has a very unique core idea and is short enough to not keep you from pursuing your goals for too long.
    Have fun!
    Also, LessWrong itself is worth a read for any man who wishes to base his actions on reality. I wonder why I’ve never seen any reference to it on this site.
    Have a nice day, fellow men!

  23. But in the simulation how do you know the difference between the behaviors of the experiment when it is not being ‘watched’ ?

  24. What’s more likely. you’d think that if there was a matrix there would be much more odd glitches than a toothbrush. Like how hard it is to you know manage the sun. One slip up there and its game over. if they can’t handle the toothbrush why would i trust the computer to handle the sun.

  25. Without a shadow of a doubt I can state that we are indeed living in somewhat of a simulation. Many of the great names of the past were also aware of this fact. Its all Jesus was ever trying to tell us. The creator that some know and love and some deny even exists was an ancient software designer who created a small chip where we all live ignorant to the truth of what time and space actually is. Division is a delusion/illusion. We are all one. We can even leave the grid. There is no instruction manuel that can help you leave the grid for truth and knowledge can never really come with words. Though if you think on a triangle long enough or contemplate on the numbers 333 you may begin to understand just what is needed to leave the grid, though when you leave the grid you will also realise that there was never a grid to leave and leaving anything is also an illusion. Words are not objects that allow us to make sense of the world, they are designed in order to enslave and keep us trapped in blatant contradiction. The Kingdom of Heaven exists within and you can change your past as easy as you can change your future. You are the ancient software designer. You are a man. You are The I AM Alpha. Wake up and smell the electric.

    1. You are very beta. This will get you hurt. Badly. This isn’t your fault entirely. My suggestion is maybe get involved with some PUA that gels with your persona. You have far more truths within yourself that you aren’t accessing. This has led you to let others dictate what should be truth for you. The end result is you have a schism where part of you sees the truth and the other is trying to listen to what society wishes you to adopt.
      I won’t suggest sticking with MGTOW. Whatever floats your boat though. I will suggest accepting that women are by and large manipulators. This isn’t bad per se but reveals a level of pragmatism that you must acknowledge to get what you want from your relations with them. They will capitalize on your ‘honor’ and ‘trust’. This will always lead you astray as pragmatism is as ruthless and kind as an ocean. They will hide what needs to be hidden, soothe when it pleases itself, and crush utterly what it sees as unnecessary.
      MGTOW is the pain period of learning some truths. To move beyond this, if that is your choice, become the Prize that you are. No one will do this for you. And disconnect from the myth of needing a woman to be a prize. I can read it in your comment and it stinks to high heaven of neediness. The only thing you need is yourself. If your sexuality gets the better of you, acknowledge if you will or won’t hate yourself for sleeping with a hooker and do that. Get your sexuality out of the way and become what is necessary.
      I suggest PUA as well because there are some truths that you will find quicker if you face them head on. Most PUAs will advise facing women head on. Facing women is like facing what is true for yourself. And also seeing someone’s perception of you isn’t real. Just the collection of everything they encountered before you. Don’t let them deter you from what you want.
      Don’t hope and pray for change. Become it! Wishing is for women as they have the system rigged so that work or no, they will eat, sleep and shit for free tomorrow if they so choose. Even find a reliable source to ensure their safety in the process. You, as a man, will not be so fortunate. Hopefully you take something from my words. Good luck.

        1. Some guys get like that. It really depends on how you grew up. Too many men aren’t growing up to know what being a man is. There is a distinct difference though with a mangina and a beta hurting because they are too trusting and honest. I’ll play it as him being the latter because the former tries too hard to be impartial.
          I will admit the beta vibe was too strong for my liking. I read 2/3 of his post before I had to stop reading and just respond.

      1. Honestly, some of your words I resonated with and others I didn’t. Although, I will acknowledge that I have been letting my sexuality/neediness get the best of me and I’m caught up in the gray area of all this nonsense to a degree. Pussy has been tossed my way a plenty but I’ve just been WAY too picky over the pass few years. To my own detriment. And as you can see my own choices have gotten the best of me. I think I need to just take whatever comes my way and stop putting pussy on a pedestal. And as far as the PUA thing goes I find it unnecessary for myself at least. I have the confidence level of Hercules (no BS), with the tolerance level of a single mother with five kids. It’s a both a good and a bad thing. Groups of guys at my job have seen me straight up approach and converse with what they considered to be the baddest bitch in room at times. And are astounded at how I could do that and still walk away with my head held high even after being rejected. Right in front of them! And I’ve had those same chicks (who have boyfriends) still give me the eye which perplexes me to this day. That is also apart of the reason why my views of western women have been on decline. Dealing with our women, I just hate the process of it all. I just want them to come my way (no questions asked), select which ones I want and do as I please. Very successful men (I’m going to be apart of those men) do this all the time. So I know it can be done, and that inspires me. I just don’t know how to do it…yet. I’ve always disliked the idea of settling with an ugly chick just for some pussy. I only want to fuck sexy ass women it’s in my blood I can’t help it. Though, it comes with a price for a very picky man without a quality sex life. And my friends are always so irritated by my adamance and how persistent I can be when it comes to that, because I complain about not getting the pussy I want when there’s pussy I don’t want sitting right in front of my face! So when I do that I feel like I’m in digging a pile of shit for gold. Just to deal with more shit to mold the gold into whatever I want with it to be. When I could’ve already had stacks of silver and bronze. And I don’t want it to happen that way anymore. At least not right now. The thought of the process annoys me. I think it’s best that I put myself in situation where I’m dealing with the least shit possible, but I feel like I’d be unhappy. Basically, I’ve always been the type to walk before I crawl and I was delusional enough to think that I can walk well with both of my legs wobbling. Do you know of any men who have succeeded with woman like that? If so please tell me, I’d love to know how. At this point I know change is necessary because if I remain picky/needy then that will become a detriment to my own sex life (what I need to lower my level of neediness for women and sex period). And constantly trying to talk to all these pretty women would ruin my personal one. Which is doing shit completely ass backwards to achieve my ultimate goal. So what is a man to do, A. stay picky and keep talking to these women I want, B. take that easy pussy, C. find that foreign women, or D. take baby steps until I can do it all? Thanks for enlightening me though, you’ve helped me realize a lot now. Your right women and sex isn’t everything and I need to get pass that asap. It’s about me. Btw, if your know of any articles regarding picky men such as myself or just how to be “that dude” in general please let me know.

        1. I guess the better answer should have been stop being so needy. Hot is an objective term. Whether I think a girl you talk to is hot or not has more to do with myself than with you. At some point with all your seeking you should stop and ask yourself, why are you so driven to get a hot woman. While finding that answer don’t make excuses and date hot women. If you have the resources just do it. The only problem with hot is it is always subject to change and may be more verified with an audience than by your own opinion.
          Why this is affecting you so much is that you are using your desire of being with a hot woman to replace something else. Until you find out what that something else is you will always be distraught over this loss of a hot woman. You need not rush overseas for what you can’t even find at home. Women are the same the world over. You bring a feminine woman from overseas with the attitude you are displaying here, you will only be adding one more whore to the cock carousel.
          The number one priority is to start uncovering your own truths. Why are you so determined to get a hot woman. What areas are you too needy in. Hint one, it has nothing to do with sleeping with a hot woman and everything to do with the mystery validation you are after. Are you looking for a woman to say you are worthy? Are you seeking male approval for having a hot piece of ass on your arm? Trophy wife with extra smarts and good looking babies?
          Keep standards but verify what you are seeking in lust and love and control it so that it doesn’t control you. On your last points, women won’t just come your way. Know a guy who has slept with thousands (2-3) of women. He is chasing all the time. Every man, unless he has slept with a small amount of women, has had sex with women who were attractive and some who might be less so. Nothing is easy. You want better women you must become a better man.

        2. Thank you! Now this actually hit home for me. I’ll be sure to refer to it every time I find myself getting out of control.

        3. I only want to fuck sexy ass women it’s in my blood I can’t help it. Though, it comes with a price for a very picky man without a quality sex life. And my friends are always so irritated by my adamance and how persistent I can be when it comes to that, because I complain about not getting the pussy I want when there’s pussy I don’t want sitting right in front of my face!
          This is me. I have no idea how either of these comments got on an article about us being in a computer simulation but oh well.
          My advice work on you. Focus on you for being you and the great pussy will come.
          Work on these things.
          Talent, get really good at one or two things
          looks i.e. body, grooming, fashion
          Charm/personality practice
          status business owner or climb the corporate ladder
          Money save invest wisely
          humor take a comedy class or an improv class, watch funny shit and adapt it to your style
          confidence you can always be more confident or have situations where your confidence is not as good as others
          These 7 things are the 7 things that a woman finds attractive. The more of these you have and the higher the level of them the better quality and more abundant the pussy.
          good luck.

    2. Western women are just like all the rest only in stage four of decline. They are neck deep in the quicksand while the rest have at least their toes dirty. It’s just more of a chore and challenge to re-animate the western woman to life but where there’s ‘WOOL’ there’s a way. An old saying from back before western women all shaved their twats. A few strong men will always pull a few worthy young women from the wreckage that is western civilization. TOOLS FOR CONTROL are essential for saving our people or at least preserving a hedge. The great forest that was the western people will return when it’s MEN RETURN TO THE THRONE.

  26. But you can’t even acknowledge the diversity in this here simulated reality. So something is amiss.

  27. Interesting article. It reminds me of what Carl Jung called the “participation mystique.”
    I don’t suppose that toothbrush ever turned up…

  28. Thucydides said, “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.” I think philosophy runs into a similar problem in that it easily can be separated from actually living life. Philosophers spend all their time thinking about ‘deep’ questions that are irrelevant to anyone who has a life to live. To the person out living their life ideas like solipsism make no sense because there is no way to make a conclusion on the truth of the question. At the end of the day you can neither discern evidence for the truth of the claim, nor can you provide a practical objective of the question. So it becomes a moot point that does nothing but distract someone from living their life.
    For me the experience of the world around me is too real to even consider solipsism as a valid question. As a thought experiment it is fine, but I wouldn’t consider it too deeply or too seriously.

    1. The end point of the train of thought is reached when you derail your identity…and realize that you are a Sovereign Integral in the Reality. All other identities pale in comparison…and all other images or idols are recognized as handles of virtual operators…all Sovereign Integrals in their own right.

  29. Computers scramble, encode, modulate, censor, retard, police, control and contain the free flow of communicative and interfacative energies in the region of universe where the computing device tech has taken foothold and has become ‘rooted’. That is they PREVENT TELEPATHIC ABILITY FROM EVOLVING OR BEING TAPPED. What a powerful and colossal BITCHSMACK to us all. The ‘timespace’ where computers are located becomes a ‘black hole’ region where the ‘matter of the mind’ is sucked into. The ‘free flow’ of mind energy is quantitized and made lifeless within the ‘grid’ which usurps all local mindstates. The ‘webs’ become ultimate collectivized mosh pits of mind dust. It is the final MARXISM OF MIND where the computerized territories become as ‘speed trap’ zones to be avoided in the cosmos. Just as the peace you experience away from cell towers in the jungle, the free air of mind and thought exists outside and far away from the computing devices which hone in and ‘crunch’ your thoughts down to dissolution and confused submission to the insidious devices.

  30. For anyone looking to delve deeper into this topic I’d recommend watching some videos by Thomas Campbell and listening to interviews with Anthony Peake.
    And if you want to go “neurons deep” sit through the 3-hour 1973 Fassbinder film “World on a Wire.” Way ahead of its time, dealing with computer simulated worlds while treating the audience fairly–and no cheap Hollywood outs! You can read my philosophical review of the movie here:

  31. We also now know that it isn’t the instruments measuring that causes the electrons to behave as particles, but the observation in and of itself. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment basically observes photons after they’re entangled partners have made their mark on the interference pattern detector. What they’ve found is that observing them causes the entangled photons to behave like particles, with the two non-interference pattern, and that not observing them causes them to behave like waves, with the wave interference pattern. What this means is that detecting a definite position for a waveparticle causes that thing to have acted like a particle in the past, which in turn causes its quantum partner to act like a particle, giving it a particle collision pattern. In laymens terms, observing something to be a particle now loads up a backstory which causes it to have been a particle in the past when it collided with other things, and choosing to not observe lets it be both a wave now and a wave in the past. Additionally, detecting the photons without recording any data gives a wave interference pattern, showing that it is the observation that matters. The way people try to get around this is through some sort of selection bias scenario, in which the only way you could get a particle interference pattern is if someone inevitably must observe the system at some point in time – which usually gives way to the many worlds hypothesis. So ask yourself – are many universes really being created here (every time a quantum wavefunction is evaluated), or is it more likely that whenever we inspect the universe, the code correcting bits adjust the results to allow our observations to take place?

  32. This is why I love this place. The existential thought and analysis of our existence with rigorous theorizing. Women won’t be on this one because it goes too far beyond reality shows and status updates.

  33. I used to read Advaita Vedanta.
    While it may appear complex, it really isn’t. Essentially the self is all that is knowable, and beyond that there is no knowledge.
    It may appear that time exists, but that is a false duality, a splitting up of cause and effect, things don’t “happen”, if something is not ordained to happen, it cannot.
    In the dream, which we are in, we already know everything, yet in irony we keep knowledge from ourselves. Through the mechanism of “time”, our knowing unfolds, yet we already know, ironically.
    Knowledge is not known all at once, but revealed. So this brings back the subitism argument.

  34. I have had one seemingly impossible glitch of my own before. I woke up behind a key-locked bedroom door for which I have no key and no other possible means of access. Nobody was in the room to let me in or drag me in while I was sleeping, and I had no access to the window unless I somehow rented and returned a 20 foot ladder in my sleep. Door wasn’t broken in the morning, I can’t pick locks.

    1. It is the Truth. It will set you free from the shackles of identity. The Prime Directive still applies.

  35. well i for one here with request a change of venue, i want to experience the Fallout universe or Zombie apocalypse although i prefer the Post Nuclear war with giant insects and irradiated ghouls. would anyone happen to know how to get in touch with our programers?

    1. I hear that if you rub your penis hard for about three minutes they respond via small packets of data.

  36. Even if we manage to create a computer simulated world – with consious entities, we would never be able to verify their consiousness. For example, from a third party point of view, what is the difference between a person, and a robot that is modelled to act exactly as that person? We would not be able to tell, which is the concious human, and which one is the robot. Therefore, if we were a computer simulation, I doubt if the programmers simulating the environment we live in, are aware of our consiousness. It must be a big accident.

Comments are closed.