This article in Scientific American presents new findings that say that the odds we live in a simulation are 50/50. I have read the article a few times and I’m not totally sure that I understand how the researchers come to this conclusion, so I will not try to explain their process. The way they reached their conclusion is not what intrigued me anyway.
What really caught my attention was a quote in the lede from Neil DeGrasse Tyson. In a recent episode of his podcast StarTalk, Tyson, and his co-host, Chuck Nice discussed simulation theory. They discuss the reasons why the speed of light is the universal speed limit. Tyson jokingly asserts that the speed of light is some limit the programmers of our universe put in because if we could travel faster, we could reach a part of our universe that has not yet been programmed. This idea that the speed of light could be some number arbitrarily set by the creators of the simulation we live in got me thinking.
Some people may not like the idea that we live in a simulation. They may argue that if we live in a simulation that means we are not real and therefore our lives have no meaning. I think that’s simply not true. Whether we live in base reality (not a simulation) where the speed of light is some fundamental of nature or a simulated reality where the speed of light was arbitrarily determined, we are still living. We are far from a full understanding of the fundamental laws of physics that govern our universe, so what does it matter if those laws are truly fundamental or were arbitrarily determined by those that created our simulation? Even if they were arbitrarily determined does that mean it’s not worth it to try and discover them? What does it matter if we are “real” or simulated when I can string these words together and you can derive meaning from them?
Even if our reality is a simulated one. It’s the only reality we’ve got. So we might as well make the most of it.