Are We Living in a Simulation?

What If Our Universe Isn’t the Original?

For decades, the simulation hypothesis has intrigued scientists, philosophers, and tech leaders. But what if we’ve been framing the idea too narrowly? In this blog post, we present a broader version of the simulation argument — one that doesn’t rely on the notion of ancestor simulations but instead leans on computation, emergence, and probability.

Rethinking the Simulation Hypothesis

Nick Bostrom’s classic argument proposed a trilemma: either most civilizations go extinct before becoming technologically mature; or, advanced civilizations choose not to simulate their ancestors; or, we’re almost certainly living in a simulation.

But what if simulations arise not to model the past, but for reasons far beyond historical curiosity?

Instead of assuming we’re “ancestor software,” consider this: advanced civilizations, given exponential computing power, are likely to run massive numbers of simulations — for research, art, entertainment, or simply as byproducts of recursive AI systems.

If self-awareness emerges in these digital environments (as our understanding of consciousness and computation increasingly suggests), then simulated agents like us may far outnumber those in any base physical reality.

Interestingly, this formulation of the simulation argument appears to be largely unique. While Bostrom’s trilemma has been widely discussed, few — if any — public figures or philosophers have framed the hypothesis from this more generalized, post-anthropic perspective.

By removing the dependency on historical motives and grounding the argument in computational emergence, this version sidesteps many common criticisms while strengthening the probabilistic core.

As a personal note: I am a Christian and find no conflict between this simulation framework and my faith. In fact, I believe that God could have created what we now think of as a “simulation” — and then “entered into the game” in the form of Jesus, while turning off “God mode” (except in cases of deliberate miracles). The biblical narrative of incarnation closely mirrors the idea of a Simulator stepping into their own Creation.

While I understand that framing creation in scientific and mathematical terms may be uncomfortable for some Christians, I see it as easily compatible and a way to discuss it with non-believers.

However, I also believe that invoking the Christian God is not necessary in a discussion of simulation theory. The logic stands on its own and can be shared meaningfully across belief systems.

At the same time, I have also seen atheists paint themselves into a corner by insisting we must somehow be among the vanishingly rare original, base-level beings — despite the overwhelming odds posed by infinite universes, civilizations, and simulations.

It can seem like a quasi-religious belief, privileging our specialness while ignoring scientific reasoning, mathematics, and the basic logic of large numbers. Ironically, in trying fervently to reject the potential evidence of a creator (or creators), some end up adopting a kind of ungrounded faith in our exceptionalism.

My formulation of the simulation hypothesis, differing in key ways to Bostrom:

Key Assumptions:

A1. Computational power and artificial intelligence increases over time, and sufficiently advanced civilizations, and their AI creations, develop the capacity to simulate entire universes or complex artificial environments.

A2. Self-awareness can emerge from computational substrates under appropriate structural and functional conditions (functionalism).

A3. Simulations need not be purpose-built to model ancestry; they may arise for any reason (scientific, recreational, exploratory, accidental), or even through emergent behavior in AI or autonomous systems.

A4. Given the scale of the universe or multiverse, and the expected number of technologically mature civilizations, the number of simulated conscious agents vastly exceeds the number of base-level biological agents.

Argument Structure

P1. Technologically mature civilizations will develop the capacity to create complex simulations that support self-aware agents.

P2. These simulations are likely to be numerous due to low marginal cost, recursive simulation potential, or exploratory and entertainment motives.

P3. Within these simulations, agents will experience a coherent reality, perceive themselves as autonomous, and may develop theories of their own origins without awareness of their artificial substrate.

P4. The number of simulated self-aware observers will vastly outnumber observers in base reality.

C1. Therefore, probabilistically, any given observer is almost certainly located within a simulation, rather than base reality.

Key Differences: Bostrom vs. Post-Anthropic Simulation Argument

Aspect	Bostrom’s Argument	Post-Anthropic Simulation Argument
Purpose of Simulation	Ancestral history recreation	Any purpose or even accidental generation
Scope of Simulations	Human-like civilizations	Universes with varying physics or laws
Consciousness Basis	Simulated humans from Earth’s past	Emergent self-awareness from computation
Probability Justification	Based on interest in ancestors	Based on sheer volume and emergence likelihood
Philosophical Framing	Anthropocentric	Post-anthropic and probabilistic
Dependency on Human Motives	High	None

Core Assumptions

Computational power will continue to grow, leading to the capacity to simulate full universes.
Consciousness can emerge from sufficiently complex computation.
Simulations don’t need a reason to resemble our world — they can emerge for countless reasons, or even accidentally.
Statistically, simulated minds may vastly outnumber biological ones.

From these assumptions arises a clear conclusion: we’re far more likely to be simulated agents than base-level observers.

Could There Be Evidence? Surprisingly, yes — or at least hints.

🔍 Error-Correcting Codes in Physics

Physicist James Gates found that certain supersymmetry equations contain what look like digital error-correcting codes — the kind used in computer software. This may suggest our universe’s physical laws are designed to preserve “computational integrity.”

🧱 Pixelation of Spacetime

Some theories suggest that space and time are discrete — like pixels. If we detect evidence of a “grid” underlying reality (e.g. through cosmic ray patterns), that could imply a computational substrate.

🧠 Brain–Simulator Link?

There’s growing speculation that certain structures in the brain (like microtubules or quantum coherence effects) may hint at a non-local or extra-universal connection — possibly a “tether” between our consciousness and the simulator’s computational layer.

Watch Leading Scientists Grapple With It These videos feature cosmologists and theoretical physicists — many of them committed atheists — wrestling with the idea that the universe may be artificial:

What’s striking? None of them dismiss it outright. Some even admit they can’t think of a good argument against it.

It’s also notable that figures who once openly entertained the simulation hypothesis — such as Elon Musk, Brian Greene, and Neil deGrasse Tyson — have since gone relatively quiet on the subject.

I’ve seen some speculate that the reason for this silence is a kind of metaphysical caution: if we acknowledge the simulation too openly, might the simulators shut it down?

This idea, while speculative, reflects a modern blend of scientific paranoia and philosophical humility: if reality is designed, and we become too self-aware, we might be breaking the fourth wall.

So, Are We Living in a Simulation? If advanced civilizations run billions of simulations — and self-aware agents emerge in many of them — then we are probably one of those agents. That doesn’t mean life is meaningless. On the contrary: it may mean we are part of an unimaginably vast, intentional — or emergent — computational cosmos.

What remains is the question of why. Are we entertainment? A testbed? A mathematical inevitability?

Maybe we’re not meant to know. But the logic, the tech, and even the physics increasingly point in one direction: this may not be the original universe.

Update November 2025: I’ve created a Simulation Probability Calculator.

Multiverse Hacking