Are we living in a simulation? This question – whether our reality is merely an artificial computer simulation – captivates scientists and laypeople alike. What once was depicted as science fiction in films like The Matrix is now being discussed in earnest. Even prominent thinkers such as tech billionaire Elon Musk and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson consider the scenario possible – the latter even gave the simulation hypothesis “better than 50-50 odds” of being true​This blog post takes an in-depth, bilingual look at the current state of the simulation hypothesis. It presents scientific theories and (potential) evidence, discusses technological developments for and against the idea, highlights pop culture influences like The Matrix, compares alternative explanations of reality (from the multiverse to cosmic consciousness), and examines conspiracy theories and online debates on the topic. Finally, we review the latest developments from 2023 through 2025 that bring new insights to the age-old question of whether we might indeed be living in some kind of cosmic simulation.

Current Scientific Theories and Evidence

Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument lays out three possibilities: (1) humanity is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any advanced civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of ancestor-simulations; or (3) we are almost certainly already living in a simulation. If (3) is true, then most beings with experiences like ours would not be “real” biological humans but artificial, simulated minds. Bostrom concludes that the belief that we will one day ourselves run countless ancestor simulations is false – unless we are currently living in a simulation​

Published in 2003, his argument caused a stir in philosophy and beyond. In essence, if any future civilization can create trillions of conscious beings via simulation, then statistically it becomes nearly impossible that we just happen to be among the few “real” beings​

Bostrom’s simulation argument sparked the scientific debate and provides an initial (albeit indirect) clue: our existence could be artificial if technological civilizations at a certain stage typically create many simulations​

Another scientific approach is the idea of a “digital universe.” The field of information physics suggests that space, time, and matter are not fundamental, but are instead based on bits of information​

If physical reality is ultimately made up of digital bits (in 1989 John Wheeler coined the phrase “it from bit” to express that idea​, then our universe resembles a giant computation. Proponents of this digital physics see this as supportive of the simulation hypothesis: a reality that is computational (made of bits) could indeed be the result of a running program. Some physicists are therefore looking for signs of discretization or “programming” in nature. For example, it has been proposed to examine high-energy cosmic rays to see if space and time are pixelated or built from tiny lattice points​

If our universe were simulated on a grid, this might show up as slight violations of continuous rotational symmetry. In fact, researchers noted that extremely energetic particles (cosmic rays) might exhibit a distribution pattern revealing the structure of an underlying lattice​.

To date, however, no such anomalies have been observed – which either means no such lattice exists, or that any “pixels” are so small that our experiments cannot yet detect them​

Another frequently cited clue comes from theoretical physics itself: Renowned physicist S. James Gates discovered something astonishing within the supersymmetry equations of string theory in the 2010s – structures that resemble error-correcting codes​

​Error-correcting codes are known in computer science for detecting and fixing errors in digital data transmissions (they’re what, for instance, keep the internet working). Strikingly, Gates found exactly such codes hidden in the fundamental equations describing our physical reality​

His pointed observation: finding this kind of digital code in a universe that is not simulated would be extremely unlikely​.

It’s still debated what this discovery means – but it fueled speculation that our physics might literally resemble lines of code. If nature truly behaves like a computer, it would further bolster the simulation hypothesis.

Of course, there is also plenty of skepticism. Many scientists point out that so far there is no clear empirical evidence that we live in a simulation. Philosophically, the problem is tricky: a perfectly programmed simulation could be designed so that we can never detect its artificial nature – any test we devise might be anticipated by the programmers, and its outcome falsified within the simulation​.

This unfalsifiability problem leads some to say the simulation hypothesis is not a truly scientific theory that can be tested, but rather a matter of belief. Even so, researchers are attempting to bring the idea into the testable realm through clever experiments (such as the lattice and information-based approaches mentioned). Overall, the simulation argument provides indirect plausibility, but we do not (yet) have a “smoking gun” of proof. The scientific discourse therefore revolves around probabilities and clues – and these are continually reevaluated as new findings emerge.

Technological Developments: For & Against the Hypothesis

Fig.: IBM’s “Quantum System One,” the first integrated quantum computer (installed in 2021 at Fraunhofer Institute). Technologies like this might one day enable the simulation of complex systems – perhaps even entire conscious minds or universes. For now, however, they also highlight how enormous the gap still is between today’s computers and a machine capable of simulating our universe.​

A key argument for the simulation hypothesis relies on the rapid progress of information technology. We already create virtual worlds today – from simple computer games to complex simulations in science and industry. Each generation of supercomputers increases the realistic detail of such simulations. Many proponents argue that if this trend continues long enough, a future civilization could have enough computing power to replicate something as complex as human consciousness or even an entire universe. Indeed, AI research has already produced astonishing results – for example, artificial intelligences like GPT-4 that mimic human language uncannily well. This suggests that consciousness might at least partly be reproduced by information processing. Bostrom’s argument explicitly assumes substrate-independent consciousness​ i.e. thinking beings could exist in silicon computers just as well as in a biological brain. If future experiments confirm this (for example, if an AI system were to exhibit genuine self-aware consciousness), it would fulfill a major prerequisite for explaining our own experience as the product of a simulation.

However, there are also technical arguments against the simulation hypothesis. One of them is the sheer computational load that would be required to simulate a universe like ours in all detail. Our current technology provides illustrative benchmarks: In 2013, one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers (Japan’s K computer with 705,024 cores and 1.4 million GB of RAM) took about 40 minutes to simulate just 1 second of brain activity – and even that for only about 1% of a human brain’s network!​

In other words, even a machine with over 700,000 processing cores could not come close to modeling one second of human brain activity in real time – it ran about 2,400 times slower, and only simulated a tiny slice of the brain​.

This comparison shows how far today’s computers still are from being able to compute an entire human consciousness in real time – let alone an entire universe. While hardware continues to get faster and more efficient (consider Moore’s Law and emerging technologies like quantum computers), some scientists doubt that we could ever attain the astronomical computing capacity needed to calculate every subatomic detail of the universe simultaneously. Simulation proponents counter, however, that a simulation wouldn’t need to compute every particle all the time – analogous to video games, it could cleverly optimize by rendering only those parts of the “scene” that are being observed at any given moment. For example, quantum physics shows phenomena like the uncertainty principle and wavefunction collapse upon observation – which some have speculatively linked to “on-demand rendering” (if no one looks, the exact state isn’t fixed). For now, however, this remains philosophical speculation.

Quantum physics and other cutting-edge fields also provide mixed signals. Advances in quantum computing technology (see figure above) raise the possibility that future computers will be exponentially more powerful than classical von Neumann machines. A sufficiently large quantum computer might eventually simulate complex systems that seem impossible today. At the same time, quantum physics itself has properties that could contradict the simulation idea: quantum randomness, for instance, looks like genuine randomness, which classical programs can only emulate with great effort. If our simulation were based on deterministic algorithms, it would have to either feed in genuine randomness from the outside or mimic it with pseudo-random algorithms. Some theorists have even proposed to look for pattern gaps or inconsistencies in quantum processes that might hint at a finite algorithm behind the scenes. So far, however, no such inconsistencies have been found – quantum mechanics behaves as if it is truly fundamentally random and continuous, not simplified or pixelated.

The bottom line is that technological considerations reveal two things: On the one hand, it seems theoretically conceivable that a highly advanced civilization could have the necessary computers, algorithms, and energy to simulate universes like ours – especially if one factors in optimizations and doesn’t calculate every detail at once. On the other hand, our experience with computing power so far makes clear the almost inconceivable resources required, and our physical world hasn’t revealed any obvious “programmer errors” or shortcuts. This ambivalence is reflected in the expert community: some computer scientists and physicists say a simulation in the far future is not out of the question, while others point out that we have no indication of the practical feasibility of such a cosmic computer. Accordingly, the question remains open as to whether technology will ultimately confirm or refute the simulation hypothesis.

Pop Cultural Influences and Public Perception

In 1999, the film “The Matrix” catapulted the simulation idea into pop culture practically overnight. Its iconic premise – a computer hacker named Neo discovers that the everyday world is only a virtual illusion and that humanity is actually enslaved by machines inside a simulation – familiarized millions of moviegoers with the notion that “reality” might not be what it seems. Terms like “red pill” (the pill of truth that allows Neo to escape the false world) and “glitch in the Matrix” have since entered our lexicon. People on Reddit’s r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix forum, for example, regularly share unexplainable experiences – strange coincidences, déjà vu episodes, or altered memories – dubbing them glitches, possible programming errors in a simulation​.

Thus, popular media have a huge influence on how the simulation hypothesis is perceived by the general public: not so much as a dry thought experiment, but as an exciting narrative made tangible through stories and images.

Fig.: The red pill vs. blue pill from The Matrix have become symbols for choosing between comforting illusion and inconvenient truth. Such pop-cultural metaphors heavily shape the public imagination of the simulation hypothesis.

Yet the origins of this idea predate The Matrix. As early as 1977, science fiction author Philip K. Dick surprised an audience by declaring: “We are living in a computer-programmed reality.” Back in the 1960s, the novel “Simulacron-3” (later adapted into films World on a Wire and The Thirteenth Floor) described a simulation within a simulation. Films like Tron (1982) played with the notion of being “sucked” into a computer, and The Truman Show (1998) told of a man who discovers his entire life is a staged illusion for a TV show – not a digital simulation, but a related parable about a false reality. All these works primed the collective mind to question the solidity of our reality. They provide vivid imagery: the world as a video game, the discovery of “another layer” behind the visible world, the motif of awakening (unplugging from illusion, like Neo being disconnected from the Matrix). Interestingly, Nick Bostrom capitalized on this pop-cultural momentum – in 2005 he wrote an essay “Why Make a Matrix?” discussing the philosophical aspects of the questions raised by The Matrix​

This shows a mutual influence: pop culture borrows from academic ideas (e.g. Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra in The Matrix), and scientists in turn use pop-cultural references to illustrate complex concepts.

In pop cultural terms, the simulation hypothesis has long secured its place. From rap videos (e.g. “Simulation” by Bliss n Eso) to TV series episodes (Black Mirror and Rick and Morty have tackled simulated worlds) to mainstream video games (the Matrix tech demo in Unreal Engine 5 in 2021 showed photorealistic city scenes and deliberately toyed with the question of whether one can still tell game and reality apart) – the idea inspires creatives across all media. As a result, the public sometimes approaches the topic in a playful way: the simulation concept is at times discussed seriously, at times used tongue-in-cheek as an internet meme. Bizarre coincidences on social media often garner the joking comment “Looks like the Matrix glitched again.” All in all, pop culture has provided a broad audience with access to this once abstract idea, thereby also fueling public debate.

Alternative Theories on the Nature of Reality

The simulation hypothesis is not the only game in town when it comes to unconventional explanations for our existence. There are several alternative theories about the fundamental nature of reality, some of which are discussed as competitors to, or complements of, the simulation idea. Here is an overview of three major alternative approaches and how they relate to the simulation concept:

1. Multiverse – many realities instead of an artificial one: The multiverse theory posits that in addition to our universe, countless other universes exist – possibly with completely different laws of nature. This concept is seriously discussed in cosmology and quantum physics. In particular, to explain the fine-tuned character of physical constants, scientists often invoke a multiverse: if there are trillions of different universes, it’s not surprising that at least one of them has exactly the right conditions for life – namely ours​. Thus, the multiverse offers an alternative explanation to Bostrom’s notion of a simulator “tuning” the parameters. Perhaps the constants aren’t deliberately set at all; we simply happen to live in a universe that by chance has suitable conditions, because all other combinations also exist somewhere. Interestingly, even in multiverse contexts the simulation idea pops up again: some theorists ask whether a highly advanced being from one universe could create another universe (a sort of “simulated multiverse”). But aside from such speculation, multiverse and simulation are distinct approaches. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics (every quantum decision splits the universe so that all possible outcomes are realized) is one form of a multiverse – but notably without any computers or programmers involved. Where the simulation hypothesis assumes an artificial origin of our world, the multiverse hypothesis envisions a naturally occurring cosmos that, in its entirety, realizes every possibility.
2. Holographic Universe – projection instead of simulation: Another fascinating idea is the concept of a holographic universe. In this view, our 3D reality (plus time) is actually some kind of projection of a more fundamental 2D plane (much like a hologram is encoded on a flat surface but appears three-dimensional to us)​. In concrete terms, physicists speculate that all the information that makes up our universe might be stored on a distant two-dimensional boundary surface (for example, the cosmological horizon) – and we only experience this information as spatial 3D phenomena. The idea originally comes from studying black holes and string theory (keyword: AdS/CFT correspondence). Surprisingly, studies have indeed found hints that a holographic model can explain certain observations as well as our standard model: in 2017, researchers reported “substantial evidence” that patterns in the cosmic microwave background point toward a holographic early universe – at least as much as they support the standard inflationary model​. The holographic principle would mean that our reality is physically real, but its depth is an illusion – comparable to a 3D movie that actually comes from a flat screen​. Unlike the simulation hypothesis, the holographic universe doesn’t require a “programmer” or external computer; it’s more of a different architecture of reality. However, there are overlaps: if the universe is a hologram, it inherently operates with some form of information encoding, which aligns with digital physics. Some therefore joke: perhaps we’re not in a computer simulation, but rather stored on the universe’s hard drive.
3. Cosmic Consciousness – mind instead of computer: A particularly philosophical alternative is the idea of a primordial consciousness underlying the cosmos. While the simulation hypothesis assumes a technological intelligence programmed our reality, this view holds that mind or consciousness itself is the fundamental ground of everything. Variants of this appear in spiritual traditions (for example, the Hindu concept of Maya, in which the material world is an illusion and Brahman, pure consciousness, is the only reality) as well as in modern idealist philosophy. A popular proponent is the theory of biocentrism (Robert Lanza), which suggests the universe is a product of consciousness, not the other way around. In such a model, one could view our everyday reality as a kind of “dream” or mental simulation by a cosmic mind – not computed on silicon chips but manifested in a “field of consciousness.” Interestingly, there are overlaps between this idea and some versions of the simulation hypothesis: for instance, physicist and former NASA scientist Thomas Campbell argues that consciousness is fundamental and our physical reality is a sort of learning simulation for that consciousness​. His hypothesis – known as the “Big TOE” (Theory of Everything) in some circles – posits that we live in a virtual reality created by a higher consciousness for the purpose of information, growth, and experience. The difference from Bostrom’s approach is that Campbell doesn’t assume a physically technological computer, but rather a conscious source that is simultaneously the observer and the computer. Similarly, some interpretations of quantum mechanics give consciousness a constitutive role (the idea that “reality only arises through observation”). We are moving away from testable scientific theories here, but these ideas illustrate: instead of a technological simulation, our world could be a thought experiment of a higher mind. For day-to-day life this might not change much – but philosophically it’s a very different framework: not aliens or future humans at a computer, but a universe as self-aware consciousness, in which we are part of the dreamer.

These alternative theories demonstrate that the question of the “true nature” of reality can be posed in many ways. Whether multiverse, hologram, or cosmic mind – each of these ideas attempts to explain phenomena that are hard to grasp with a purely materialist, conventional worldview (be it fine-tuning, informational limits, or consciousness itself). Interestingly, these theories and the simulation hypothesis are not always mutually exclusive. Some people even combine them: for instance, one could speculate that a higher consciousness is the “programmer” of our simulation, or that our simulators themselves exist within a multiverse. As long as no model is empirically confirmed, there is room for such creative considerations. They broaden the horizon of our discussion – and remind us that the universe may be structured in a way quite different from what our everyday experience leads us to believe.

Conspiracy Theories and Online Discussions

As with many fringe topics, a number of conspiracy theories and intense online debates have formed around the simulation hypothesis. On the internet – especially on platforms like Reddit, YouTube, or esoteric forums – some users mix the simulation idea with existing conspiracy narratives. For example, it’s speculated that elites or governments have long known we live in a simulation but keep this knowledge secret to maintain power over the ignorant masses. Others draw connections to UFO phenomena or the flat Earth movement: if our whole reality is simulated, the reasoning goes, then things like the Moon landing or the shape of the Earth could “just be code,” and supposed anomalies (such as UFO sightings) might be bugs or intentional interventions by the programmers.

On the Reddit forum r/SimulationTheory, users exchange such ideas – partly as a game, partly in earnest. A recurring topic is the so-called Mandela Effect – collective false memories of facts (named after the fact that many people swear Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s, even though he actually died free in 2013). Some interpret such cases – e.g. differing memories of logos, movie lines, or historical events – as evidence that “the simulation changed something” and we recall the earlier version. Paranormal experiences are interpreted not as ghosts or aliens but as glitches in the simulation, as a widely-read article put it in 2019​. This line of thought is very popular on Reddit and YouTube and often blends with classic mystery content.

In esoteric and New Age forums, the simulation idea also resonates. It’s sometimes linked with spiritual concepts – for example, the notion that we must free ourselves from the “Matrix” to ascend to a higher consciousness. Tropes from The Matrix are taken literally: the red pill then stands for awakening to one’s true spiritual nature, the blue pill for remaining in material illusion. Some perceive the digital simulation theory as a modern version of ancient spiritual teachings (as mentioned above: Maya, or Gnosticism with a malevolent “Demiurge” as the creator of the false world, etc.). Such blending can lead to bizarre syntheses: for instance, fear of an all-powerful AI is sometimes combined with the simulation idea – the notion that a future artificial intelligence might have trapped humanity in a simulation, perhaps as a “prison” or to harvest energy (a motif from The Matrix). In certain forums, one finds discussions that border on science fiction, or which treat sci-fi scenarios as literal reality.

It’s interesting that even skeptics in online debates sometimes resort to a conspiratorial argument: if our world is indeed simulated, the simulation’s creators could easily manipulate any discovery we make. “If we were in a simulation, any tests to prove it would come out negative – since the simulation would be programmed to fake the results,” one Reddit user noted wryly​

This is usually offered as a counter-argument (the idea being: we cannot find out, so the question is moot), but ironically it itself sounds like a conspiracy theory – except here the “conspirators” are omnipotent programmers, against whom we have no way to uncover the truth.

In 2024, a news story made headlines that perfectly straddles the line between science and conspiracy: Former NASA engineer Thomas Campbell, who has long been convinced of his simulation theory, launched a crowdfunded project to test his ideas with physics experiments​

Researchers at California Polytechnic State University began implementing his proposed experiments – including a variation of the double-slit experiment with no observer – in the lab​

Campbell hopes to find deviations from conventional quantum physics that would indicate reality isn’t “rendered” when no conscious being observes it​ .Although the physics community remains largely skeptical of such approaches, the media response was considerable. In conspiracy and esoteric circles, this was taken as a sign that there “must be something to it” if even scientists are now explicitly searching for the Matrix. Again, the boundary blurs: Campbell himself presents his idea as a scientific hypothesis, but the motivation springs from personal convictions and an almost missionary community supporting him. The significant attention such projects receive shows that the fascination with the simulation question has long reached the mainstream – even if it’s often viewed with a wink or with skepticism there.

Latest Developments (2023–2025)

In recent years – especially 2023 through early 2025 – the debate about the simulation hypothesis has received new impetus and attention. This is partly due to scientific publications, partly due to technological breakthroughs and heightened public discussion. Here are some of the most important recent developments:

1. Possible physical evidence of a digital reality? In October 2023, physicist Dr. Melvin Vopson from the University of Portsmouth caused a stir. He had previously suggested that information is a physical quantity with mass and might even be viewed as a “fifth state” of matter​. In 2023, Vopson published work on what he calls the Second Law of Information Dynamics (the second law of infodynamics)​. In brief, he claims that in information systems (e.g. the entire digital data universe, but by analogy also in biological and physical systems), information entropy does not increase but remains constant or even decreases​. In other words, there’s a sort of built-in optimization and compression process. Vopson’s bold conclusion: this is exactly what one would expect if our universe were a simulation doing data optimization to conserve computing power and storage​. He draws an analogy to a program deleting unnecessary code to run more efficiently​. Nature shows us this behavior through its tendency toward symmetry (symmetries correspond to minimal information entropy)​ and through deliberate “data deletion” – for example, in genetic mutations, which Vopson argues are not purely random but occur in ways that minimize information entropy​. These claims are controversial, but they garnered significant media attention. Popular science outlets ran headlines like: “New law of physics could mean we’re living in a simulation”.​ Vopson himself said he wants to move the simulation hypothesis from the philosophical realm into mainstream science​. Many experts caution that Vopson’s idea is far from “proving” we live in a simulation – it requires rigorous verification and replication​. But it illustrates how current the topic has become in research. If it turns out that such an information principle is fundamental in physics, it would fuel the interpretation that we live in an artificial, information-based world.
2. Asimov Debate & growing scientific attention: In 2021, a high-profile panel discussion at the American Museum of Natural History (the Asimov Memorial Debate) in New York featured renowned scientists debating whether the universe could be a simulation​. Panelists included physicists like Lisa Randall (quite skeptical), James Gates (with his code discovery, more open to the idea) and cosmologist Max Tegmark. Events like this show that the topic has become respectable even among science stars. Tegmark, for example, emphasized that the deeper you look into nature, the more mathematical and rule-bound it appears – as if one might indeed eventually realize one is following a program code​. Although no consensus was reached (apart from Chalmers’ point that we may never know for sure, because any evidence could always be doubted​, the debate garnered a lot of press and in turn fueled further research interest and public curiosity.
3. AI and virtual worlds 2023+: Rapid advances in AI and virtual reality have given the simulation theme new relevance. In 2023, many were astonished by generative AI models (like ChatGPT) that almost simulate conversational consciousness. This led to the question: if an AI can “awaken” within our world – could we not also be an AI in a higher-level world? At the same time, VR/AR experiences are approaching a quality that makes immersion into alternative realities increasingly seamless. The vision of the metaverse (an extensive virtual parallel world) has parallels to the simulation idea. Tech visionaries like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have speculated about it publicly. Musk reiterated in 2022/23 his view that the odds we are not living in a simulation are “maybe one in billions,” which again generated media stories. Overall, the tech community has fully embraced the topic: they often see the simulation hypothesis not as a frightening scenario but as inspiration and a philosophical framework for thinking about AI, virtualization, and the future of humanity. In a sense, the generation that grew up with The Sims, Minecraft, and VR headsets is much more familiar with the concept of virtual worlds – making the notion that we ourselves might be inside one feel more intuitive.
4. Public surveys and culture: Around 2024, surveys indicated that a noticeable minority of the public considers the simulation hypothesis possible. In online communities, the question “Do you think we’re living in a simulation?” is often posed and taken seriously. While most people are likely skeptical or amused by it, the idea has seeped into general discourse – similar to how UFOs or time travel became popular thought experiments in earlier times. In 2023–2025, there were also numerous documentaries, books, and podcasts on the topic. For example, the documentary “A Glitch in the Matrix” (2021, but still widely viewed) explored the stories of individuals who firmly believe in the simulation hypothesis and connected pop culture imagery with in-depth interviews. Such works ensure the topic remains present outside of science and nerd culture as well. However, a backlash is crystallizing: some philosophers and physicists (e.g. Sabine Hossenfelder) caution that the simulation hypothesis is at risk of veering into quasi-religious territory and doesn’t merit the status of a scientific theory​. This criticism has grown louder as the topic became more popular – effectively a reminder not to let science fiction completely override common sense.

In summary, a lot has happened between 2023 and 2025: from new theoretical proposals to high-profile scientific debates to a vibrant online culture around the topic. The simulation hypothesis is more present than ever – yet a definitive answer to whether we really live in a simulation remains elusive.

Conclusion

Are we living in a simulation? – After all the aspects discussed, the most honest answer is probably: We don’t know. The simulation hypothesis has evolved from an obscure idea to a seriously considered scenario discussed across disciplines – from philosophy, physics, and computer science to pop culture and internet forums. At present, there is no proof confirming the hypothesis, but also none definitively refuting it. We find ourselves at the intersection of science, technology, philosophy, and a bit of speculation.

Bostrom’s argument highlighted a fascinating possibility: if future civilizations can simulate consciousness, then the probability that we are already living in such a simulation is bewilderingly high​

Whether this argument is sound remains debated, but it has inspired a generation of thinkers to view our existence from new angles. At the same time, alternative ideas like the multiverse or the holographic principle remind us that our universe still holds many mysteries that need not involve computers at all.

For some, the simulation hypothesis carries almost existential implications: if true, what would it mean for our purpose, our morality, or our faith? Opinions diverge here. Some say it changes nothing – we should live our lives by the same values either way, whether real or simulated. Others find it comforting to think there might be “more” than this physical world (a sort of modern creator myth, just with programmers). Still others feel unease or nihilism: does being in a simulation make our lives any less real or meaningful? Such questions are ultimately personal and philosophical. Interestingly, Bostrom himself said that despite the simulation being quite possible, we should live life normally until there is a real reason to assume otherwise​. That sounds like a pragmatic approach.

For science, the simulation hypothesis remains for now a thought experiment. But it holds significant value: in pondering this possibility, we are forced to sharpen and scrutinize what we know about the universe, consciousness, and information. Already, reflecting on “the Matrix” has led to new questions and research in fields from quantum physics to computer science. Whether we ultimately find that behind the world there is a programmer, a quantum code, or simply astonishing laws of nature – the journey toward the answer will deepen our understanding of reality in any case.

In conclusion, one can say: the idea that we live in a simulation has secured a firm place in the discourse of the 21st century. It fires our imagination, challenges our scientific thinking, and uniquely bridges high-tech with age-old questions of reality and illusion. We still don’t know whether we are “real” players or just NPCs in a cosmic game. But the search for the answer will surely accompany us for some time to come – perhaps until we ourselves become creators of complex simulations, thereby holding up a mirror that helps us better understand our own existence.

📚 Quellen / Sources:
• Nick Bostrom – The Simulation Argument
• Beane et al. (2012) – Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
• Scientific American – Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
• Dr. Melvin Vopson – Second Law of Infodynamics (2023)
• Asimov Debate 2021 – Is the Universe a Simulation? (YouTube)
• Wikipedia – Simulation Hypothesis
• Reddit – r/SimulationTheory
• Doku: A Glitch in the Matrix (2021)
• New Scientist – Information has mass?
• Nick Bostrom – TED Talk (Simulation Argument)