Getting Discomfortable with Simulation

This week’s episode was inspired by a talk I saw at SXSW a few weeks ago by hacker George Hotz, notorious for being the first person to “jailbreak” the iPhone in 2007 when he was just a teenager. But the theme of the talk was about jailbreaking something a lot more ambitious than just a phone, it was about jailbreaking the simulation that we all live in.

You can watch a slightly edited version of George’s talk on YouTube if you want:

The theory that we live in a simulation has been floating around on the internet and in even in scientific papers and discussions with Elon Musk over the last few years (I mentioned it briefly in one of my episodes on Subjectivity).

The idea is that if technology ever gets to the point where we can simulate our entire universe (which seems very plausible in the not so distant future), then it is statistically rather unlikely that we live in the real world, or “prime reality”. This is because there is bound to be many more simulations, even simulations within simulations, vastly outnumbering the single “prime reality” (even if you believe in the multiverse theory, simulations would still probably outnumber analog realities). 

Though at first blush this simulation theory seems like a rather ludicrous fantasy, I find the more I think about the logic of it, the more compelling it becomes. In fact, when I reflect on how “serious” things can feel in my life sometimes, the idea that this all might be a simulation brings a smile to my face. It adds a welcome sense of lightness to my perspective. And it encourages me to take more risks! If I was, hypothetically, afraid to go up and talk to a cute guy at SXSW, George’s talk would pop into my head and suddenly I would think, If this is all just a simulation, what do I have to lose?

And even if it’s not a simulation, what’s the difference? Why is being a bunch of particles and matter and energy inside a universe molded by the arbitrary laws of physics any more “real” or “important” or “serious” than being a bunch of electricity and zeroes and ones inside a hard drive molded by the programming “laws” of some arbitrary software? I think it’s just our peculiar human emotions and our negativity bias (both of which evolved for survival), that make everything feel so damned heavy and intense all the time. But when you think about it, none of our emotional reactions have any real bearing on whatever outer reality we live in. The universe — or simulation — is ultimately neutral. 

And if we do live in a simulation, what kind of simulation is it? Are we humans caught in a virtual reality, like in The Matrix? Or is this a kind of video game in which some people are controlled by players on the outside and others are just there to push the game forward? And if we are being controlled from the outside, would we know it? Does Mario from Mario Bros. know he has no free will? Or are we all just a part of the simulation — digital consciousnesses created entirely inside the machine? 

But more than just this what if? scenario, George actually had an idea for how we might escape the simulation! If you watch the video of George’s talk, SXSW has conspicuously edited out the key proof of concept, but I’ve included a link below of what he had in mind. This video demonstrates how a player can actually inject new code into the “reality” of a video game from within the game itself:

So while playing Super Mario World, this gamer was able to exploit certain glitches in the gameplay which allowed him to manually add new code into empty areas of the game’s memory by making Mario perform a repetitive series of bizzare moves. The code he entered was that of a different game or “reality” altogether with new physical laws or “rules” that basically changed Mario’s world completely. 

This proof of concept suggests that we may be able to alter the code of our own reality from within, thereby changing our world or even executing new software in order to control the computer in which our simulation is housed, allowing us to communicate with our “God” or even potentially escape through the internet of that upper world.

“Every bad thing that happens in the world today… Happens because the laws of nature allow these things. If we could hack into the computer running nature, we could change the rules.”

– George Hotz

Transcript

00:00:00 – 00:05:18

At SXSW this year, I saw an interesting presentation by a hacker by the name of George Hotz. George’s claim to fame is being one of the first people to jailbreak the iPhone. He also attempted to hack into the PlayStation and was eventually sued by Sony. But his talk at SXSW this year had a much loftier goal. It was about jailbreaking the simulation that we all live in.

If you’re not familiar with this theory, it’s been going around for the last couple years, the notion that it’s very possible that we are all living in a simulation, like in The Matrix. The theory goes like this, looking at video games that currently exist, they are getting increasingly realistic and increasingly powerful at world building. The assumption is that if technology continues to advance at the pace it has been, it is inevitable that we will eventually have computers strong enough that we will be able to simulate an entire universe. And once we have the technology to do that, we will probably do it multiple times. So there will be numerous different simulations of reality that seem completely indistinguishable from actual reality, or what they call “prime reality”. And therefore the chances that we are living in “prime reality” are quite small, and it’s actually much more likely that we are living in one of many simulations that will be almost certainly technologically possible in the very near future.

If there are 100 different universes –– 100 different realities that are all pretty much identical –– what are the odds that we live in the very first one and not one of the other 99 simulations that grew out of the first reality? In fact, we might even be living in a simulation within a simulation. If “prime reality” creates 100 simulations identical to prime reality, it makes sense that each of those 100 simulations will have 100 simulations within them of their own. So it’s this sort of branching tree that gets bigger and bigger. And it’s entirely plausible, if you believe that technology will continue to advance (which I do), that it’s actually completely possible.

George used the metaphor of a tiger living in a game park. The park being big enough and natural looking enough, and the tiger being not intelligent enough would create an environment where the tiger didn’t realize that it wasn’t living out in nature. Nor would it recognize that the landscaping, the plants, the other animals, the roads had all been created or placed or designed. That could be us. The boundaries of the simulation could be beyond our intelligence or could be designed in such a way that we never encounter them.

In his presentation, George talked about the “arrogance” of being an atheist. Given the plausibility of this simulation theory, it’s quite possible that we all have a God. But it isn’t the God that we’re expecting from a religious standpoint, it’s some programmer or organization that has created the particular simulation that we happen to live in. Why did this God create us? I don’t know, they were testing some kind of theory? They were creating some kind of video game? They were modelling evolution or climate change theory or testing out different types of physical laws and properties to see what they might create?

And I have to admit that I found it rather convincing. I was surprised to discover that I am more willing to believe that there is a God if it is a person or corporation or machine in the near future creating a simulation, than I am to believe in the Christian style God. But is there really even a difference? If there really is a Christian style God, then if you think about it, we are essentially just a simulation inside that God’s brain or computer.

00:05:18 – 00:10:03

There’s many different possibilities for what this simulation could be like. One possibility would be straight out of The Matrix — the idea that we are all still humans and our bodies or our brains are somewhere (or perhaps they’ve been downloaded onto a computer) and all of our consciousnesses are interconnected in a simulated reality. Another possibility is that none of us are real people. That our brains are entirely fabricated, our consciousness is just itself a simulation within a machine — a machine powerful enough to generate billions or trillions of consciousnesses (if you take into account the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe). That would mean that none of us are necessarily real.

Another possibility is that it’s sort of like the “Holodeck” on Star Trek. So a bunch of us are consciousnesses that have been created by the machine, by the simulation, but that there are players within the simulation who are actually humans. Or it could be a video game, for example. Which raises an interesting question: if this is a simulation, am I a character that’s being controlled from the outside? If I was being controlled from the outside, would I not be aware of it? Or would I know that I was a character from the outside? And given that I am not aware of being a consciousness outside of the game, does that mean that I am not a player character? Does that mean that I am completely simulated? That I am just bits of code in a machine? And even if I am bits of code in a machine, would that really be any different than being bits of matter and atoms and energy inside a universe?

If you’ve been spending any time on Twitter, you may have discovered that there’s a whole meme going around about “non-player characters”. The idea is that if we live in a simulation, and it’s some kind of video game, are you a character that is being controlled from the outside (you know, like the hero of the game)? Or are you a non-player character, just a creation of the game itself used to push forward the story of the actual player characters? The diss embedded in these non-player character memes is that most people are “NPCs” (non-player characters) and therefore not as cool, or active, or interesting, or affecting the reality of the video game or the world as much as the so-called “player characters”.

It kind of boils down to this idea of how active are you in the world? Or how self-aware are you? Are you able to transcend bland reality and be a hero? And even if you are one of these player characters, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you know that you are a player character. You could be a creation of the simulation that is then being controlled by a conscious entity outside of the game, but you aren’t aware that they are controlling you. It feels like you have free will. It feels like you have decided to do the things that they are controlling you and telling you to do, but that’s really just built into your consciousness so that the game feels more and more realistic. It’s also possible that there are no player characters at all. It might just be a simulation being run to prove some kind of scientific point or as some kind of entertainment perhaps.

This whole thing may sound kind of absurd, and you might be like, So what if we are simulation? Like, what’s the point in even thinking about it? There’s nothing we can do about it. There’s no way we can affect it, so we might as well just assume that reality is real. But to me, I find it kind of exciting and liberating that it’s at least possible that we are in a simulation. It makes me look at life with less seriousness. It makes me more relaxed. It makes me a little bit more carefree. It makes me willing to take a few more risks. Because ultimately, I’m just like, what is “real”? What is “serious”? What is “important”? Why does everything have to be so intense? Maybe I’m just a simulation inside a computer! Or maybe I’m not a simulation, but I’m still just a bunch of particles that randomly came together. And while I think either way it’s kind of amazing and I’m happy to be experiencing it, it just makes me feel lighter, it makes me feel better to take the pressure off.

00:10:03 – 00:15:06

Instead of walking around feeling like I’m living in a court of law, it feels more like I’m walking around living in one big playground. Our perspective that everything is really “serious”, or really “real”, or really “important”, is just that — a perspective. One of many possible perspectives. It’s just an opinion. It’s a belief. It’s an ideology that is probably reinforced by the fact that we have all these emotions. And the emotions inside us make things feel really “important” and really “serious” sometimes. Or really “scary”, really intense. Or really “sacred” or really “special”. But those are just emotions that don’t in any way reflect reality. Our emotions are real in the sense that we are really feeling them, but there’s no actual correlation between the vast neutral universe and the emotions that we are feeling at any given time, be they positive, light, or negative and heavy. So given that my emotional reactions are basically equal in the grand scheme of things, as always I am want to choose the most enjoyable ones!

George’s discussion of the simulation went even further than just the theory that it is possible. George actually had a scheme by which we might be able to break free! George showed that within modern computing, there are situations where what is happening inside the digital world is actually affecting the analog reality of the machine itself. Everything that happens within a computer, within a video game, is connected to a physical reaction in an actual, physical computer. So everything that is happening in this simulation, if it is a simulation, has some kind of real world counterpart in the physical states of the machine, of the hard drive. And George showed a fascinating example where a player was playing a game, a video game (in fact it was one of the Super Mario games), and the player discovered that there were certain moves you could make within Super Mario Bros that actually changed the code of the game. And when he figured out which moves created which changes in the code, he did a series of moves that encoded a new game inside the world of Super Mario Bros. And he was actually then able to play that new game that he had encoded inside of another game by moving in certain ways.

I’ll leave a clip of what he did on Discomfortable.net so you can watch it, or you can look in the show notes, but it was essentially a way to rewrite reality by figuring out the ways in which reality interacts with the code that creates the sense of reality. So George’s premise was that if we could get familiar with the code of our reality, there actually are theoretically exploits from within the code itself in which you could behave or move or try or do certain bizarre things in order to cause the code itself to change. And by changing the code, we could not only change our reality, but we could potentially cause the machine itself that contains the simulation to change its functioning such that we are able to control things outside of our reality, outside of our simulation. If, for example, the machine controlling our simulation could be controlled from within the simulation, then we could potentially use that machine to operate a different program on that machine to get on the internet in this other reality, this upper reality, and affect real-world changes from there. So in theory, we could actually meet and interact with our God by taking over his computer. And not only that, we could in a way become our own gods and rewrite our own reality. We could become the masters of nature and create new code telling nature to do different things!