I've been thinking a lot recently about reality and the different theories that surround it, like the belief that everything is a simulation. As a scientist I've always been put off with ideas that prevent further scientific understanding - like when people say 'god made the big bang happen.' From my perspective this is a problematic view since it creates a resistance to further study, either subconsciously or consciously and so spreading such beliefs would cause a loss in scientific efficiency. If you consider the benefits of a more scientifically advanced world then it must be immoral to hold a theistic world view. If one truly believes that god created made the big bang happen then they will not question the science. This is the first write up of a theory for why we exist which does not in any way prevent a deeper understanding of the universe.
Over the past 20 years, there have been significant developments in the philosophical reasoning to warrant the belief that the universe is a simulation[1]. The theory claims that it is reasonable to assume both that an advanced civilisation will develop computers capable of running sufficiently complex simulations and that the people of the civilisation will run simulations of themselves. Hence it is not reasonable to assume that we are at the top of the simulation tree because there are potentially an infinite number of simulations in the tree. Hence we are living in a simulation. My problem with the theory is, however, that the philosophy behind existing as a simulation is not explored sufficiently far. For example, there is the question of what happens when the simulation is turned off. The assumption from the current theory is that since all the thoughts in your head are calculated by a computer, the experience would be similar to dying.
I disagree with that assumption. The act of running a simulation is independent from what is being simulated. All a simulation does is harvest data from an underlying mathematical model. So when the simulation is turned off, all that happens is the owner of the simulator no longer receives information about the model underneath. There is no change to the experience of the simulated, since the mathematical model has nothing to do with the simulator.
I therefore suggest that there is no need for the simulator in the first place. The universe exists in the same way that numbers exist and in the same way that the solution to an equation exists before the equation has been written and the answer worked out. The ability for one to run simulations does not make our reality any less real than without them, and if a civilisation does make a sufficiently advanced computer and simulates their correct theory of everything, then the model they observe will be the same structure that creates their reality.
