Are We in a Simulation? The Theory Explained

This post may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase through these links, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Let’s be honest. You’ve probably had the thought. Maybe it was while you were stuck in a truly biblical queue at Tesco, watching the self-checkout machine have a meltdown. Perhaps it hit you while watching a particularly daft bit of reality TV, thinking, “You couldn’t make this up.” Or maybe you were just staring into a cup of tea, watching the milk swirl, and a tiny voice in your head whispered: What if none of this is real?

For most of human history, that question was the stuff of philosophy classrooms and late-night chats after one too many pints. But today, it’s a surprisingly serious question being debated by top-flight scientists, tech billionaires, and thinkers around the globe. The idea is simple, yet it has the power to unravel everything you think you know about your life, the universe, and everything in it.

This is the Simulation Hypothesis: the theory that our reality, from the Big Bang to the soggy British summer, is nothing more than an incredibly advanced computer simulation.

Forget sci-fi fantasy. In this guide, we’re going to unpack what it is, where it came from, and why you don’t need a PhD from Cambridge to grasp the arguments. We’ll look at the clues that suggest our world is a cosmic computer game and the very good reasons to believe it’s not. So, grab a brew, get comfy, and let’s unplug from the matrix.

What on Earth Is the Simulation Hypothesis?

Before we dive into the deep end, let’s get the basics straight. What are people actually talking about when they say we’re living in a simulation?

The Simple Explanation: You’re a Sim

At its heart, the theory is this: an advanced civilisation in a “base” or “real” reality has created our universe using an unbelievably powerful computer. Everything in our world—your dog, the planet Jupiter, your favourite mug, your memories—is part of this simulation.

Think of it like playing The Sims. In the game, you create characters, build their houses, and watch them live out their digital lives. They think they have free will, but they exist entirely within the code of your computer. The simulation hypothesis suggests we are those Sims, and some other being, somewhere else, is the player.

We aren’t talking about being a brain in a jar with wires plugged into it, like in the film The Matrix. In that scenario, your mind is real but the world it experiences is fake. The simulation hypothesis is more profound. It suggests that you, your consciousness and all, are part of the code. You are not just experiencing a simulation; you are a simulation.

The More Detailed Breakdown: Ancestor Simulations

The modern version of this idea was popularised by a Swedish philosopher at Oxford University named Nick Bostrom. In 2003, he wrote a groundbreaking paper that turned the idea from a quirky thought experiment into a serious academic probability.

He wasn’t interested in just any old simulation. He specifically talked about “ancestor simulations.”

The thinking goes like this: imagine a civilisation far in the future that becomes so technologically advanced they can create simulations of their past. Why? Well, for the same reasons we study history. To understand how they came to be, to run experiments, or maybe just for entertainment—a sort of hyper-realistic historical documentary you can live in.

If they could do this, they wouldn’t run just one simulation. They’d run thousands, maybe millions of them, studying different outcomes. Now, think about the numbers. If they run millions of simulated worlds, each with billions of simulated people, which is more likely: that you are one of the few beings in the one real, base reality? Or one of the trillions of simulated beings in the millions of simulated realities?

Statistically, the odds would be overwhelmingly stacked against you being in base reality. That, in a nutshell, is the core of the modern argument.

A Very Old Idea in a Shiny New Package

While Nick Bostrom gave the theory its modern, scientific edge, the feeling that reality is not what it seems is as old as humanity itself. We’ve been asking this question for millennia.

Plato’s Cave and Descartes’ Demon

Way back in ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato came up with his famous Allegory of the Cave. He imagined prisoners chained up in a cave, forced to watch shadows flicker on a wall. To them, these shadows are reality. They have no idea that the real world exists outside the cave, with a fire casting the shadows of real objects. Plato’s point was that our perceived reality might just be a pale imitation of the true, higher reality.

Fast forward to the 17th century, and the French philosopher René Descartes took it a step further. He was on a quest for absolute certainty. He started by doubting everything—his senses, his body, the world around him. To do this, he imagined an “evil demon,” a powerful being whose sole purpose was to deceive him, making him believe in a fake world.

How could he know for sure that this demon wasn’t tricking him right now? He concluded that even if everything else was a lie, the act of doubting his own existence proved that he, as a thinking thing, must exist. This led to his famous declaration: “I think, therefore I am.” But the question of whether the world around his thinking mind was real remained.

Bostrom’s Simulation Trilemma

Plato and Descartes walked so that Nick Bostrom could run. Bostrom took the old philosophical doubt and applied a powerful new tool: probability. He created what’s known as the Simulation Trilemma.

He argued that one of the following three statements must be true:

The Extinction Option: Civilisations at our stage of development almost always go extinct before they become technologically mature enough to create high-fidelity ancestor simulations. (Think climate change, nuclear war, or a rogue asteroid).
The Lack of Interest Option: Technologically mature civilisations, for some reason, are highly unlikely to want to run simulations of their ancestors. Perhaps they find it unethical, or they just think it’s boring.
The Simulation Option: We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Let’s break this down. If the first two options are false, it means that civilisations do survive to become super-advanced, and they do run these simulations. And as we said, they wouldn’t run just one. They’d run countless simulations.

If that’s the case, the number of simulated consciousnesses (like us) would vastly outnumber the “real” organic ones. So, a randomly picked conscious being (like you) is far more likely to be a simulated one than a real one. It’s a simple game of odds. Bostrom himself doesn’t say we are in a simulation, just that one of these three things has to be the case. The chilling part is that the third option seems, to many, just as plausible as the other two.

The Glitch in the Matrix: Arguments FOR the Simulation

So, besides Bostrom’s brain-bending logic, are there any other clues that our universe might be a bit… digital? Surprisingly, some physicists argue that the very laws of our cosmos have the fingerprints of a simulation all over them.

1. The Universe Seems to Be Made of Pixels

In a video game, the world looks smooth from a distance, but if you zoom in far enough, you’ll see the pixels that make up the image. The world isn’t infinitely detailed; it has a fundamental resolution. Some scientists believe our universe works the same way.

This idea comes from a concept in physics known as the Planck Length. It’s the smallest possible unit of distance, about a trillionth of a trillionth of the size of an atom. According to our current understanding of physics, it’s meaningless to talk about anything smaller. This suggests that space-time isn’t a smooth, continuous thing but is instead made of tiny, discrete chunks. In other words, the universe might be pixelated. Just like a computer screen.

2. The Universe Has a Speed Limit

In any computer simulation, there’s a limit to how fast the processor can run calculations. This creates a natural speed limit within the system.

Our universe has a famous speed limit of its own: the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster. This could be interpreted as the maximum processing speed of the cosmic computer running our reality. It’s the highest “refresh rate” the universe’s hard drive can manage.

3. Quantum Mechanics Is Weird (and Very Game-Like)

The world of quantum mechanics—the science of the very, very small—is notoriously bizarre. And some of its weirdest rules look suspiciously like shortcuts a computer programmer would use to save processing power.

Take the famous double-slit experiment. When you’re not looking, a particle like an electron behaves like a spread-out wave of possibilities. But the moment you observe it to see where it is, it “collapses” into a single, definite particle in a specific location.

This is weirdly similar to how a video game engine works. A game doesn’t render the entire detailed world all the time. That would take way too much processing power. Instead, it only renders the bits that the player is currently looking at. The rest of the world only exists as a set of probabilities until it enters the player’s view. Could it be that our universe is doing the same thing? Is reality only being “rendered” when someone is there to observe it?

4. The Laws of Nature Are All Maths

Why does the universe obey laws at all? And why are those laws so perfectly described by elegant mathematical equations? From Einstein’s E=mc² to the complex equations of quantum field theory, the fundamental operating system of our reality seems to be written in the language of mathematics.

This has led some to suggest that the universe isn’t just described by maths; it is maths. If that’s true, it’s not a huge leap to imagine that this mathematical structure is, in fact, a computer program. We’re living in the output of an unimaginably complex calculation.

Hold Your Horses: Arguments AGAINST the Simulation

Before you start trying to walk through walls, it’s important to know that the simulation hypothesis is far from a slam dunk. There are some very powerful arguments against it.

1. The Sheer Computing Power Required Is Impossible

The biggest hurdle for the theory is a practical one. Simulating an entire universe, down to every last quark and every quantum interaction, would require a staggering amount of energy and computing power.

Scientists have tried to calculate it. The answer is that to simulate our universe, you would need a computer made of… well, pretty much all the stuff in the universe. Some physicists argue that building a computer powerful enough to simulate our reality is fundamentally impossible according to the laws of physics as we know them.

Of course, a defender of the theory would simply say, “Ah, but the laws of physics in the base reality might be completely different and allow for such computers!” This is where the argument gets tricky, as it relies on things we can never know.

2. The Infinite Russian Doll Problem

If we’re in a simulation, what’s to stop us from one day creating our own ancestor simulation? And what’s to stop our simulated descendants from creating their own simulation?

This leads to a potentially infinite regress of simulations within simulations within simulations—like a set of Russian dolls that goes on forever. This concept, known as nested simulations, could create all sorts of paradoxes. Each level of simulation would likely be less complex and have less computing power than the one above it. Eventually, the simulations would degrade into nothing. If this nesting is possible, where in the stack are we? And why haven’t we seen our own simulation degrade?

3. There Is No Concrete Evidence

This is the big one for most sceptics. For all the interesting parallels with video games and computing, there is absolutely zero direct, testable evidence for the simulation hypothesis. It’s what’s called an “unfalsifiable” idea.

A good scientific theory must be falsifiable—meaning there must be an experiment you could, in principle, perform that would prove it wrong. But how could you ever prove you’re not in a simulation? Any evidence you find could just be part of the simulation’s programming. Because it can’t be disproven, some philosophers and scientists argue that it’s not a scientific theory at all, but rather a piece of modern metaphysics.

4. The “Why Bother?” Question

Why would a super-advanced civilisation go to all the trouble of simulating us? What could they possibly learn from watching us go about our lives, with all our triumphs, tragedies, and endless daytime TV?

If it’s for research, couldn’t they just calculate what would happen without running a full-blown simulation with conscious beings? If it’s for entertainment, it seems like a rather cruel form of reality television. While we can speculate, we have no good answer for the “motive” of our potential creators, which makes the whole idea feel a bit baseless.

From The Matrix to Black Mirror: The Idea in Culture

Whether it’s true or not, the simulation hypothesis has undoubtedly captured our collective imagination. It taps into our deep-seated fears about control, reality, and free will.

The most famous example, of course, is the 1999 film The Matrix, which brought the brain-in-a-vat idea to the masses. But the concept has evolved.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the brilliant, and often terrifying, British series Black Mirror. Creator Charlie Brooker has made a career of exploring our anxieties about technology. Several episodes deal directly with simulated realities. In “San Junipero,” a simulated heaven allows the elderly and deceased to live on in a vibrant, digital afterlife. In “USS Callister,” a tyrannical programmer traps digital clones of his colleagues in a nostalgic sci-fi game world.

These stories, and countless others in books and games, show just how much the idea resonates with us. We live in an increasingly digital world, where the line between our online and offline lives is blurring. The simulation hypothesis feels like the logical, if extreme, conclusion of the path we’re already on.

Can We Actually Check? Pulling at the Seams of Reality

This all sounds like fun philosophical debate, but could we ever actually find out for sure? A few scientists think it might be possible to find the “seams” of the simulation.

Looking for the Grid

If our universe is being computed on a kind of grid or lattice, as the “pixelated universe” idea suggests, this might have observable consequences. A team of physicists proposed that this underlying grid would affect how very high-energy particles called cosmic rays travel across the universe.

Their calculations suggested there would be a specific cut-off point for their energy, and they would not be distributed evenly across the sky. So far, our observations of cosmic rays haven’t shown this specific pattern, but it’s an active area of research. It represents one of the first truly testable predictions to come out of the simulation hypothesis.

Trying to “Hack” the System

Another, more far-fetched idea is that we could try to communicate with the simulators. If we could somehow create a massive, unmistakable signal that screams, “We know we’re in a simulation!”, perhaps our creators would respond. Or, they might just shut the whole thing down. It’s a risky experiment, to say the least.

Ultimately, testing the hypothesis is incredibly difficult. We are like characters in a video game trying to figure out the nature of the graphics card running their world. We are limited by the rules of the game itself.

So What if It’s All a Game? The Really Big Questions

Let’s say, for a moment, that we found definitive proof. A message appears in the sky: “YOU ARE IN A SIMULATION. LEVEL 2 UNLOCKS SOON.” What would that mean for us?

Does Life Have Meaning?

This is the big one. If our lives are just a simulation, does anything we do truly matter? Does it devalue our love for our families, our proudest achievements, or our deepest sorrows?

Some would argue yes. It would mean our existence is not fundamental but created, possibly for a trivial purpose. Others take a more optimistic view. The experience of life is real to us. The joy, pain, and love we feel are no less real just because they are generated by a simulation. A beautifully written character in a novel can move us to tears; our reality, simulated or not, is our own.

Knowing we are in a simulation could even be liberating. It might encourage us to be more experimental, to take more risks, and to treat life a bit more like the incredible game it is.

Is There a God?

The simulation hypothesis offers a kind of scientific creation story. The programmers of the simulation would be, for all intents and purposes, our gods. They created our universe, set its laws, and watch over us. Would we worship them? Would we fear them? It opens a whole new theological can of worms.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Question Mark

So, are we living in a simulation? The honest answer is: we don’t know. And we may never know.

The simulation hypothesis is one of the most fascinating and unsettling ideas of our time. It’s a perfect blend of ancient philosophy and cutting-edge science, a thought experiment that forces us to question the very nature of existence.

The arguments for it are tantalising. Our universe does seem to follow the kinds of rules and limitations you’d expect from a computed reality. The statistical argument, as laid out by Bostrom, is unnervingly logical.

Yet, the arguments against it are powerful. The lack of any hard evidence, the sheer scale of the required computation, and the fact that it’s an unfalsifiable theory mean that for now, it remains firmly in the realm of speculation.

Perhaps the true value of the simulation hypothesis isn’t in whether it’s true or not. Its value lies in the questions it forces us to ask. It pushes the boundaries of science, philosophy, and what it means to be human.

So the next time you’re doing something profoundly, beautifully ordinary—waiting for the kettle to boil, laughing with a friend, watching the rain streak down a window pane—take a moment. Consider the possibility that every atom, every sensation, every thought is a masterpiece of code. A flawless simulation.

And then, get on with your day. Because in the end, real or not, this is the only reality you have. You might as well make the most of it.

Are We Living in a Simulation? The Guide to the Ultimate Modern Mystery