Some Thoughts on the Possibility of a Simulated

Reality
Nesta van der Schaaf
FNWI, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
January 8, 2014

Abstract
In this article I will shortly discuss some of my thoughts on simulated reality, in the hopes of perhaps giving the reader some new insights. The Virtual
Reality hypothesis states we live inside of a computer simulation. A question
on this notion is if our universe is calculable. Some modern theories in physics
suggest that it may be. Another argument against the VR hypothesis is that it
would be unethical to create a simulation like our universe, and therefore such
technologically advanced beings wouldnt create such a simulation. An unjustified idea on why this argument might be invalid is that our ethics might not
be universal. Another argument well discuss is about consciousness, which
states that a technological computer cant create consciousness. We will see
that this depends on the definition of consciousness and that for some "easy"
definitions, computers could indeed become conscious.

What is Simulated Reality?

The simulation hypothesis, simulation argument, or as well call it, the Virtual
Reality hypothesis is the argument supporting the notion that the reality we live in
is a Simulated Reality. (Also called a Virtual Reality, VR.) A simulated reality is one
which is generated by some sort of computer (i.e. through information processing).
According to the definition on Wikipedia, a simulation is a process where we
imitate the behaviour of a real system [15]. But we can generalise this idea by
defining a simulation as a process where we imitate the behaviour of any system.
Well do this because we could also simulate an entire new set of physical laws, which

s4363302 n.schaaf@student.ru.nl

wouldnt be representative of our own universe at all. (Although some might still be
inclined to call this a real system.) Thus, we will define a computer simulation as
a simulation run by a collection of computers (information processing) to emulate
or reproduce a certain process or behaviour of a system. In our case this would
be the planet earth, or to a much larger extent, the entire universe. So, a VR is a
reality created by a computer simulation. Because of this, it directly follows that
a VR could not exist just by itself. Meaning, something needs to be there outside
of the VR to simulate it. Namely information processing. Furthermore, we will
define an Objective Reality (OR) as a reality which exists in and of itself, meaning
it doesnt need anything outside of it to exist1 .

1.1

Types of Simulated Reality

Let us digress a little to look at a few different types of simulated reality. There are
two fundamental types:
Extrinsic simulation: In an extrinsic simulation, the consciousness is not created
by the simulation. The consciousness exists outside of the simulation, and
merely enters the simulation. Even though the consciousness may exist outside
of the simulation, it may believe the simulation it lives in is the only reality
its part of.
Intrinsic simulation: In an intrinsic simulation, the consciousness is created by
the simulation. Thus, the consciousness doesnt actually exist outside of the
simulation. (Though one could argue it may be able to indirectly influence
the outside of the simulation.)
We can also distinguish different types of simulation in terms of how they are
accessed:
Physical Simulation: In a physical simulation (PS), the simulation (or part of
it) is controlled by the physical body (whichever form that may be) of the
participant. A very simple example of this would be a video-game.
Brain-Computer interface: A simulation which uses a Brain-Computer (BC)
interface directly connects the brain of the consciousness with the simulation.
The fundamental difference between the BC interface and the PS are that
with the BC interface the sensory data from the brain are directly sent to
the simulation, while the PS actually requires physical motion outside of the
simulation. The feedback generated by interacting with the simulation is
sent directly back to the nervous system of the participant, arguably giving
a more immersive experience than a PS could provide. The Brain-in-a-vat
1

As defined in [9, p.5].

is a popular example of a BC interface, and is often used in philosophy for

thought experiments.
Virtual World Simulation: In a Virtual World Simulation, or VR, the consciousness of the participants/inhabitants are created by the simulation.
One could also think of combinations of the different types of simulations. For
example, a VR wherein simulated inhabitants live, while other beings could access
the simulation from the outside.

On the Calculable Universe

Another problem with the VR hypothesis is the question if it is physically possible to create enough computing power to simulate an entire universe with such
detail. Or, at a more fundamental level, if our universe is a Calculable universe.
A calculable universe is a universe which can be simulated through information
processing. This would mean the universe would need to be digital in some way,
instead of continuous. Some modern theories in physics, including some quantum
gravity theories, suggest that there is indeed a minimum length we could measure.
That would mean two objects separated by less than this length, would essentially
be in the same place. This is essentially a digital explanation of space, and it would
only seem to be continuous at the scale of humans. In a similar fashion, energy
is also digital, or quantized. These theories in physics are often classified as the
sub-field of Digital Physics [10]. Assuming these theories are correct, our universe
might be calculable, meaning it would essentially be possible to simulate our universe, however much computing power that may cost.
Then, is it possible to create enough computing power to simulate our universe?
A (not so much justified) remark could be made that this question assumes the
physical laws of our universe when considering the limits of computation. Even
if a universe couldnt put forth enough computing power to create a simulation
as detailed as itself, that doesnt mean the universe in which the computer resides
has the same laws of physics. For example: it would probably be impossible to
build a functioning computer in a modern video game (like The Sims) which could
simulate a reality similar to its own (not to mention simulating in real-time). The
same might be the case in our universe. The reason I believe this to be an unjustified argument is that we dont know if it is possible to have any physical laws but
our own. Therefore it would be safest to assume that the universe in which our
simulation resides would have the same laws of physics. However, there are theories
in physics which propose that multiple universes exist, all with perhaps different
physical laws [12].

Whether we could create computers capable of sufficient computing power to

simulate our universe is the subject of much debate. In fact, we really arent sure
about how much computer power is actually needed to simulate our universe. And
a lot of assumptions vary greatly, sometimes differing more than 10 orders of magnitude in terms of computations per second. I will not present these arguments
here, as I feel other people have presented them far better than I could. But I do
encourage to read up on the subject [1, Computing Power], [2], [4].
A reply to this question is the dream argument. The main part of this argument
states that we might be living in a dream, implying that a brain could simulate a
universe all on its own. This means that the computing power required to simulate our universe would merely be the computing power of the human brain, which
our computers have almost matched (see section 4.1). Though, (for the same reasons the main dream argument is unjustified) because it fails Occams razor, this
argument is not really justified.

The Argument of Ethics

The argument of ethics discusses the ethics of creating a VR similar to our own
universe. To make this argument there is at least one assumption to be made: we
must assume that the simulation is created out of free will, meaning, with intention. If we wouldnt make this assumption, it would be hard to argue the creation
of the simulation unethical2 .
The main part of the argument says that an advanced civilisation would not create
a simulation similar to our universe. There are two key reasons for this:
Firstly, creating a universe which contains suffering (like our universe) is unethical.
Secondly, a sufficiently technologically advanced civilisation is also emotionally
advanced enough to avoid doing anything unethical.
Id like to shortly address the second point. Increasingly advanced technology naturally brings forth more advanced weaponry. Assuming our technology will keep
growing, there will be a point in time where our weaponry will be advanced enough
that it could easily destroy the whole human civilisation. (Arguably, bombs we
are capable of making today are already close to becoming such weapons.) And
that a lot of people will have the chance to almost instantly access and activate
2
That would be the same as arguing a radio controlled toy car hitting someones leg was to
blame while a human was controlling it. Whether the car is actually to blame is another discussion,
but lets assume for the sake of argument that the car itself is not at fault.

them3 . Thus, in order for the civilisation to survive, the emotional advancements
of the civilisation would have to be sufficient. Meaning, no one feels to need to
harm. If this wasnt the case, any single human who sees fit could destroy the
entire civilisation. Therefore, if any civilisation which is technologically advanced
enough survives, a key attribute is that it is also emotionally advanced enough.
Meaning it would try to be as ethical as possible4 . A more obvious example of an
advancing civilisation also advancing emotionally is simply our own civilisation. It
seems certain ethical advancements go hand in hand with the general prosperity of
our civilisation. (For example emancipation of women.)
Assuming these two key points are valid, it is obvious that any such civilisation
wouldnt create a simulation similar to our universe5 . From this, one could conclude that we are not living inside a simulation, meaning our reality is an OR, thus
debunking the VR hypothesis.

The Argument of Consciousness

An argument against the notion of VR is that consciousness can only arise from
a (biological/human) brain. The argument criticises the notion that a computer
could attain consciousness. It states that a biological brain might be a requirement
for consciousness. Obvious questions that arise are: "What makes a technological
computer any different from a biological computer like our brains?", or "If biological evolution can create a computer which creates consciousness, why couldnt we
through technological evolution?". In my eyes these questions are very much justified, but it is very difficult to answer them at this point. I think mainly because
the scientific consensus on consciousness is that we dont even understand what
consciousness is yet. (Let alone computer consciousness.) Perhaps partly because
there is no objective test to determine a level of consciousness, because we cant
objectively measure subjective experiences. We will discuss this because it is essential that consciousness could arise from a technological computer. Because there is
at least one conscious being in our universe: you. Even though we cant be sure
other people are conscious (because consciousness is an entirely subjective experience) and others might be philosophical zombies [13], [14], that still leaves at least
1 consciousness to be simulated.
3

This is not yet the case for our civilisation. An example would be guns becoming more
available to the public over the coarse of the years. Similarly, such weapons might become more
available to the public in the future, too.
4
This argument was inspired by a short science-fiction story [8].
5
Note that we assume the ethics of our civilisation would still hold in another civilisation. This
argument might not be valid if our ethics are not universal. Meaning something ethical in our
civilisation might be considered unethical in another.

4.1

Computing a Brain

Moreover, even the issue of whether the (human) brain is a computer itself is still
subject to controversy, although they are both types of information processors. Even
though brains and our current computer technology are fundamentally different and
work very differently6 , we might be able to simulate a brain. I would like to point
out an interesting quote from Ray Kurzweil [5, p.181]:
" ...a Google inquiry for "Quotations: the brain is not a computer" also returns millions of links. In my view, statements along these lines are akin to
saying, "Apple-sauce is not an apple". Technically that statement is true, but
you can make apple-sauce from an apple. Perhaps more to the point, it is like
saying, "Computers are not word processors". It is true that a computer and a
word processor exist at different conceptual levels, but a computer can become
a word processor if it is running word processing software and not otherwise.
Similarly, a computer can become a brain if it is running brain software. That
is what researchers including myself are attempting to do."

In fact, we are already simulating human brain activity with our computers. Researchers at the Okinawa Institute of Technology Graduate University (OIST) in
Japan have succeeded in simulating 1 second of human brain activity using the K
supercomputer, in (just) 40 minutes of real-time [7]. Thus, it is quite evident that
we can emulate the brain with our modern computers, and we can conclude that a
computer can function as a human brain. That still leaves the question of whether
a computer can attain consciousness:

4.2

Computer Consciousness

There are many definitions of the concept of consciousness. Some people see consciousness as the ability to perform certain tasks. One example is, "the ability to
be aware of things", but that is just kind of a synonymity. Another example is,
"the ability to think about ones own thinking". According to this definition, a few
months old baby would not be conscious, but a chimpanzee, or even some modern
computers would be7 .
Another view on consciousness is that in essence any physical system is conscious. This view is called panprotopsychism. A similar view (which I tend to agree
with, inspired by Ray Kurzweil) is that consciousness is an emergent property of a
complex physical system. According to this view, a dog and a cat might have about
the same level of consciousness, but less than a human. An ant, in turn, would be
6

e.g. the brain uses analogue signals, whereas a computer uses digital signals. The brain
works with parallel connections between components, most modern computers process very much
serially (which is why brains are much better at pattern recognition than todays computers) etc.
7
An example of such a computer is Watson, [16], [5, p.200]

less consciousness than a dog. And a whole ant colony, would be more conscious
than one single ant. According to this logic, a computer could become as conscious
as an ant, dog, cat or human, if it were running the appropriate software. And
a computer fully emulating the human brain would give rise to the same level of
consciousness that a human brain would.
When looking at most conscious beings, they arent constantly conscious of everything. For example, most humans are not aware of how their bodies are regulating their breathing rate or their heartbeat. They are not aware of the computations
and algorithms in their brains which allow them to speak. One is then said to be
unconscious of those things. On the contrary, while typing this text I am aware8 of
what colors appear on my computer monitor, and the feel of my fingers touching my
keyboard. I am conscious of these things. As Steve Pinker has pointed out, this is
a result of our brains (and also our computers) having to work in real-time, because
our brains need to direct our bodies in real-time. Our brains lack the computational
ability to literally take everything into account. I quote [6]:
"A device in which every morsel of information had to be easily available at
all times to every process would be perpetually lost in thought. It would have
to calculate whether the price of tea in China was relevant to which foot should
be put in front of the other one next."

Because we (or computers) cant be conscious about everything all at once, we are
(un)conscious about certain processes or aspects of a process, and we can switch
between the two. An example of going from unconscious to conscious is someone
noticing his heartbeat. Or a more extensive example of the opposite: someone
learning to play guitar. Say you want to learn how to play a G-major chord. At
first, you would have to put a lot of effort into the positioning of your fingers. You
are being very conscious about where you place your fingers. Through practise you
will build a muscle memory, and the movements of your hands will be automatic.
You will likely still be conscious you are playing a G-major chord, but you are no
longer conscious about the movements of your fingers.
This seems to be a way of distinguishing between being conscious and being
un-/not conscious, or being more aware or less aware of certain things. It seems
to be an essential ability of conscious beings, and our modern computers can do it
too. Computers will only display what the software (or sometimes user) tells it to
display. In other words, it will only access information it needs in order to do what
its told to do. A computer wont use information for a word processing operation
when it is asked to display a picture. In this sense, you could say modern computers
are already conscious.
Taking these arguments into account, and assuming they are valid, consciousness
8

at least I think I am.

could arise from a technological computer. Making the VR hypothesis more justified and debunking some counter arguments. Another relevant counter argument
is a thought experiment created by John Searle. I wont discuss it here, (I would
probably do it injustice) but I highly encourage to read up on it as it fundamentally
discusses the posibility of computer consciousness [3].
These kinds of definitions of consciousness are addressing the so called "easy" problems of consciousness, as David Chalmers called them. These questions are all about
some measurable ability conscious beings can perform. For example, the ability to
discriminate and categorize, or as pointed out, the ability of self reflection. We
can actually answer some of these questions by studying what is going on in the
brain. On the contrary, are the "hard" problems of consciousness [11]. These are
the questions of how and why we are conscious. Some formulations of the problem
are, "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?" or "Why arent we
philosophical zombies?". There is not a scientific consensus on either potential answers to these questions or even the questions themselves, as I have pointed out.
Which is why I think it is so difficult to make the hard claim that a computer (or
even a human brain for that matter) could be conscious.

References
[1] Counterarguments to ancestor simulation theories.
http://users.
digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/rants/simulation_errors.html.
Accessed: 28/12/2013.
[2] Nick Bostrom. Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 2003.
[3] Larry Hauser. Chinese room argument. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/. Acessed: 5/1/2014. Original article by
John Searle, "Minds, brains, and programs", 1980. http://cogprints.org/
7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf.
[4] Ray Kurzweil. The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend Biology.
Duckworth, 2005.
[5] Ray Kurzweil. How to Create a Mind, The Secret of Human Thought Revealed.
Viking Penguin, 2012.
[6] Steve Pinker. Can a computer be conscious?
August 1997. Acessed: 6/1/2014.

US News and World Report,

[7] Riken. Largest neuronal network simulation achieved using k computer. http:
//www.riken.jp/en/pr/press/2013/20130802_1/, August 2013. Accessed:
28/12/2013.
[8] Harry Stottle. Talking to god. Ragged Trousered Philosopher, http://www.
fullmoon.nu/pdfs/tal.pdf, October 2000.
[9] Brian Whitworth. The physical world as a vitual reality. Centre for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science Research Report Series,
CDMTCS-316, December 2007.
[10] Wikipedia. Digital physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_
physics, December 2013. Accessed: 7/1/2014.
[11] Wikipedia. Hard problem of consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hard_problem_of_consciousness, December 2013. Accessed: 7/1/2014.
[12] Wikipedia. Multiverse hypotheses in physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics, December 2013.
Accessed: 29/12/2013.
[13] Wikipedia.
Philosophical zombie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Philosophical_zombie, December 2013. Accessed: 7/1/2014.
[14] Wikipedia.
Problem of other minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Consciousness#Problem_of_other_minds, December 2013. Accessed:
28/12/2013.
[15] Wikipedia. Simulation (disambiguation). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Simulation_(disambiguation)/, June 2013. Accessed: 29/12/2013.
[16] Wikipedia. Watson (computer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_
(computer), January 2014. Accessed: 5/1/2014.