As technology advances and philosophical questions about the nature of existence continue to intrigue us, the Simulation Hypothesis has emerged as a thought-provoking concept. In our study, we have delved into this topic and carried out some experimental research. So, let’s break down what this hypothesis is all about and how our research might shed light on this perplexing idea.
What is the Simulation Hypothesis?
The Simulation Hypothesis posits that reality, as we perceive it, is not the base reality but rather an artificial simulation, much like a computer-generated environment. It suggests that a highly advanced civilization, certainly far beyond our current technological capabilities, has created this simulation for reasons that remain speculative.
Historical Background
While the hypothesis has garnered mainstream attention recently, the idea is not new. Ancient philosophies such as Vedanta from India and Plato’s allegory of the cave from Greece toyed with similar concepts. However, the modern version was popularized by the movie The Matrix (1999) and the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in his 2003 paper titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?".
The Trilemma
Bostrom presents a trilemma - one of three possibilities is almost certainly true:
1. Almost all civilizations at our level of technological development go extinct before they reach the capability to create a realistic simulation of reality.
2. If civilizations do reach this level of technological maturity, they are not interested in creating simulations of their historical ancestors.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
The logic Bostrom uses to establish the logic of us almost certainly living in a simulation is as follows:
- We know simulated environments are possible because we simulate environments all the time, in video games, and simulations for learning purposes, be it in the military or dangerous jobs that require prior training with a dangerous environment.
- We see the development of the realism of these simulated environments as time goes by.
- If this trend of becoming more immersive and realistic continues (there’s no reason to believe that this process is bounded), then we will inevitably eventually manage to simulate a perfectly realistic environment like our world, which will include all of our senses and maybe more senses.
- Since by definition you can simulate an enormous amount of simulated environments in base-reality, these simulated environments will outnumber base reality almost infinite-fold. So the chance we live in base reality is almost zero.
Scientific and Philosophical Arguments
The Resolution Argument
One argument in favor of the hypothesis points to the rapid advancement of video game technology. Some proponents believe that at the current pace, we might one day be able to create simulations indistinguishable from reality. If we accept that such simulations can be created, then it is statistically more likely that we are in a simulation since there would be many more simulated realities than the one base reality.
The Quantum Argument
Some proponents find support in the field of quantum mechanics. They argue that the quantum world, with its wave-particle duality and superposition, can be better explained if we consider that it’s the result of computational algorithms running on advanced hardware.
Psychedelics and Perception of Reality
Another intriguing dimension in the debate surrounding the Simulation Hypothesis comes from the use of psychedelics. There has been research suggesting that substances like DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) can alter the way humans perceive reality, sometimes leading them to experience what they describe as other realms or dimensions.
The strongest argument in favor of the simulation hypothesis from this field of research stems from the repeatability of the the motifs in the experience, across individuals. Another strong argument coming from Dr. Andrew Gallimore, in which he claims that the cortex does not produce content. Instead, what is going on is that the brain constructs a model of what it guesses the external environment to be. Te closer the model resembles all the facets of that environment, the less energy the brain has to exert moment by moment navigating through that environment. So it’s only when new and contradicting information pours in through our senses, is when the brain has to correct the errors that arise by updating the model. This fact about the brain makes it very hard to explain why the content, worlds, and beings, people encounter on DMT are so realistic, stable and coherent. The content seems orthogonal to anything we’re familiar with from our daily lives. The building blocks from which the DMT world is made, are simply not the same ones we’re familiar with. This indicates strongly that the content is coming from somewhere else, and it’s not a scrambled signal of our usual senses.
The DMT-Laser Experiment in Our Study
Enter the Laser DMT Discovery. What separates our study and every other philosophical query on the subject of whether we live in a simulation or not, we bring the claim to a functional test. With the ability to replicate and observe the same phenomenon across, individuals, times, and conditions. In our study, we decided to explore the psychedelic aspect further. We conducted an experiment where participants smoked DMT while projecting a 650 nm red laser on non-glossy surfaces. Astonishingly, participants in our experiment were able to perceive a sort of code or language composed of strange characters that resembled Japanese Katakana, accompanied by rotating digits ranging from 0 to 5. Notably, both the characters and the digits were rotating, extremely coherent and distinct. This was experienced in a concrete, collective, and univocal way by the participants.
The Philosophical Angle
From a philosophical standpoint, proponents argue that since we have no concrete way of proving that the reality we perceive is the base reality, it is possible that what we experience is an illusion or simulation. On the other hand people who reject this idea are arguing that it is a pointless hypothesis, since if we can never find out if this in fact is the case, it will never be relevant to us in our reality.
Although both positions are understandable, what was missing is the link that we’re providing in our new research. W are claiming to have found a tool by which we can collusively determine that we are in fact in a simulated environment.
Conclusion
The Simulation Hypothesis is an exciting and thought-provoking idea. Our study provides a tool that never existed before, which allows us to probe the proposition in a way that was never thought of before. While it’s crucial to approach these findings with both curiosity and skepticism, we are now convinced that there’s room to a new kind of conversation. A conversation that includes people’s experiences to be included in scientific models and treated as real data. As science continues to evolve, the tools at our disposal for exploring these questions will become more sophisticated, and we’ll be able to prob our proposition much deeper.