The question “whether we live in a simulated universe or not” is more likely science fiction than science.
IN 2017, The two physicists Zohar Ringel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and Dmitry Kovrizhin from the University of Oxford, wrote a paper in Journal Science Advances. This paper refuted the Simulation Creationism theory that says, “The universe in which we live in a simulated universe. Our universe is inside an uber-advanced super/quantum computer’s hard disk of massive storage. Some extraterrestrial being or any other future being is running that commuter and has control of the simulation.”
Both the physicists Ringel and Kovrizhin have said that it was surprising for them to read the headlines of their study on simulation theory. Ringel from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem told the “New Scientist” that “It is not even a scientific question that the universe in which we live is computer-simulated or not.
Even though the simulated theory is not a new idea – there have been other versions of simulations for centuries; in 2003, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher, wrote a paper that made the simulation theory famous. The paper that he wrote in 2003 was manifesting the idea that “we are living in a simulated universe rather than base reality.
Our universe’s creator could have used a powerful advanced computer to create the mental history of humankind.
Some people concluded that this theory is pointing out that our existence could be a prototype.
Later celebrities like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson made the simulation theory even more popular. The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, said that “The probability that we are living in base reality is one in billions.”
On the other hand, the American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that” the probability that we are living inside the godlike computer of someone is fifty-fifty.”
Working With Observables
The fundamental idea for scientific study is to deal with something observed in our nature or scientific lab or anywhere and can be replicated. But in simulation theory, It is impossible to do a scientific study because we can not observe anything outside of our universe. Hence it does not come into the area of scientific research.
Marcelo Gleiser told the New Scientist, a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, that “The question that ‘Are our universe is a Simulation Creationism?’ and the response to this question based on the current computer knowledge, both sounds silly to me.”
“Bostrom wrote the paper with an assumption that a Hyper-advanced civilization has an interest in retroactively simulating their past. Typically, We used the computer to look forward, like weather prediction.”
Gleiser said, “It is tricky and risky to use the modern technology and knowledge that we have so far for digging the depth of simulation theory.”
“So far, we don’t know the versatility and power of a quantum computer could be when we have the perfect technology.”
“It is more likely that we don’t have access to the physics laws of the real world if we are living in a computer simulation.”
If it is true, then we can’t presume what is outside the simulated universe’s constraints. We would be in a situation like Neo in the movie. Neo had no clue that “some machines are dominating the world outside the Matrix.
Gleiser shared his opinion that ” The question is more likely a science fiction than science.” Or it is more philosophical with a shade of science. Since Bostrom is an Oxford Philosopher, the theory proposed by him is integrating science and philosophy.
The question intersecting philosophy and science gets the attention of science and philosophy. Both science and philosophy are trying to answer the same questions. But Why are they attempting the same question? Many times the philosophers catch science to answer the question. Similarly, scientists grasp philosophy to prove the questions.
Although Both the fields are practicing their subject in different manners, these fields overlap when we attempt to explain the most fundamental question of ” How did we get here and why?”