Is Simulation Theory a bunch of nonsense, the product of faulty logic? Are the people who believe we live in a simulation stupid? Ask a mathematician or physicist. You will get some interesting answers that are by no means stupid.
They have come to support the idea from a science and tech perspective that the universe as we know it is not real. Simulation Theory is actually rather credible for them. They accept the possibility that we are living in a virtual creation concocted by a sophisticated super intelligent alien entity. Or this could happen in the future!
Some pretty big names are already on board with the likes of Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Nick Bostrom, a noted Oxford University pundit. Now a bevy of youngsters on TikTok have joined the fray.
The challenge of logic
Is it fact or nonsense? One mathematician has something to say. Jonathan Bartlett is the director of a STEM research non-profit, The Blythe Institute. He maintains that simulation theory is full of false logic and humans live in a real, replicated world. Imagine the technology needed to even attempt a simulation in a virtual space.
“I can make a model of atoms moving around, but it actually requires entire computers, which are all made of trillions of atoms, to make that simulation,” says Bartlett in an effort to convince those for the theory.
“And so you actually wind up with a space problem that you can’t simulate as much as you have reality. And so even if you could make a perfect simulation of reality, it would have to be a smaller reality than what you’re simulating it with.”
His statements represent the kinds of arguments in play today about an advanced civilization crafting a simulated reality. It comes down to little likelihood from a logical perspective. “There’s kind of a faulty logic that goes to why a lot of people think we live in a simulation.”
Of course, his work poses issues for Simulation Theory’s proponents who find a simulation perfectly credible. Why can’t simulated beings learn to do the same thing and fabricate a series of them? A lot is riding on the proof.
