Nick Bostrom is a philosopher who has proposed ideas about simulation that are at once deeply satisfying and deeply troubling. His argument is that once you assume that simulation is possible, you must look at the potential outcomes, of which he identifies three. Bostrom postulated three "axioms", of which (he says), one must be true:

* No civilizations have reached the point of being capable of producing a simulation

or

* No civilization capable of producing a simulation has been motivated to create a simulation

or

* We are very probably living in a simulation

The essential quandary here is that we appear to be at or at least very close to being at a point of being capable of producing a simulation. And, we appear to be interested in and motivated to create such a simulation. Thus, we may very well be living in a simulation.

Part of the argument for simulation appears to come from Quantum Dynamics. If reality is a simulation, we might expect a finite granularity of space-time. We might expect quantization of points in space in time. We might expect a simulation to provide finite precision for the location or velocity of an object. We might expect time to roll forward, but not backward. We might expect entropy to increase through the heat dissipation of the machine, which is the instrument of the simulation.

Reading on Amazon or a pirate site? This novel is from Royal Road. Support the author by reading it there.

But what of simulation? Of replication? Of those who would simulate us? Who are "they"? Are they perfect? Are they imperfect? Do they fluctuate in the same way we observe all life and reality to fluctuate? Is our simulation a result of their imperfections? How would we know? How could we know?

But maybe it is more interesting to consider that, if we are a simulation, what then, is external to the simulation? Is the simulation a representation of that objective reality? Or is it contrived in some way, perhaps even fully or partially “designed”? Is God nothing more than the controller and influencer of the simulation in which we exist? Is our simulation finite? Is our simulation coherent, predictable, and our future predetermined or fixed?

The trouble with such an idea has to do with responsibility… or at least, at first blush, seems to be relevant to responsibility. If we are finite, algorithmic simulations, then our decisions are not “our own”, and we are not responsible for them. But neither are the others in our simulation responsible for their decisions and actions. And more to the point, whatever enlightenment we have about such a realm, and whatever attachment and engagement with emotional reactions we have, or disassociation and detachment we have… either way, it’s still not “our” decision, not our free will. Even if we agree that we do, or do not have free will, it’s the same. So, even the idea of responsibility becomes esoteric and “meta” in the sense that whatever happens in our realm is essentially meaningless to us; however, perhaps, it helps some more enlightened beings who simulate us to better understand themselves, and perhaps, make better judgements and decisions. Perhaps, our world – our experience – is limited by the design of the simulation?