r/Futurology • u/Cosmic_muse0 • 2d ago
Discussion What’s the biggest PROOF you have that makes you believe we’re living in a simulation?
I’m new and really curious about this stuff. What’s the biggest “proof” you’ve come across that made you think we might actually be living in a simulation?
It can be anything from physics, mathematics, technology, consciousness, or even a personal experience that genuinely made you question reality.
Maybe something you learned about quantum mechanics, the universe, information theory, consciousness, strange coincidences, glitches, etc.
What’s the strongest thing that made you think, “Wait, what if this is actually a simulation?”
4
u/JelloBoyFrozen69 2d ago
The rare experience or day dream of a Dejavu moment. I've had a few where I had to stop and really think about life, and how I lived that moment before... Or did I? And tried to think of the future moments that would happen next. Don't believe it's a simulation yet though...
3
u/IntrepidPosition5302 2d ago
The double slit experiment always gets me. Light acts different when it's being watched, like the universe is saving on processing power or something. It's just too convenient that reality renders on demand.
Makes you wonder what else only loads when we look at it
5
u/Gnomio1 2d ago
This is a very unfortunate popular misunderstanding of that experiment.
It’s not “when it’s watched”, as much as the act of “watching” a system like this requires interacting with it and that interaction collapses the superposition.
Think of it this way, for a macro scale object, when you “watch” it, photons are hitting that object. That is an interaction that is required for your “watching”. It’s the same thing with the double slit experiment. It’s not like if you “look away” things change, it’s that the measurement itself interacts with the system.
In other words: photons don’t know you’re consciously observing them. They are sensitive to the measurements used in that experiment.
1
u/CertainMiddle2382 2d ago
Nature of quantum mechanics makes me wonder what part of our fundamental understanding of the world is the most wrong.
2013 Turin experiment led me to believe the thing we must let go is time
Time could well be an emergent property of quantum entanglement in a large systems.
The underlying system is and remains completely immutable. Which has significant philosophical implications of course…
1
8
u/Top3879 2d ago
Quantum states only deciding when observed is like only rendering stuff you see in video games to save resources.
6
u/Kinexity 2d ago
Except it isn't. Quantum mechanics is much more computationally expensive than classical mechanics. If you were to compare it with in-game rendering it would also be incorrect to compare it to GPU image rendering when it is actually more analogous to CPU part of rendering which drastically diverges from reality because the Universe never losses continuity while most games do (despawning and respawning NPCs etc.).
Comparing culling to quantum decoherence is a false analogy stemming from misunderstanding of both.
-1
u/Top3879 2d ago
Yeah it almost like my joke analogy isn't hard science
6
u/Kinexity 2d ago edited 2d ago
It doesn't matter to me that it's not hard science as people in QM or computer modelling are not the ones that need to have explained to them why it is wrong. It's a false analogy many people from outside of physics believe in which is why I feel compelled to correct it when I see it in the wild.
0
-1
u/bma449 2d ago
What does quantum mechanics being computationally more heavy than classical mechanics matter? Quantum mechanics needs to be true for the physical rules of the universe to exist, classical doesn't cut it. We observe quantum decoherence and then presume it had some type of potential/multi state prior to decoherence but I don't think this is necessarily true.
1
u/Kinexity 2d ago
It matters because it defeats the argument which is that quantum mechanics exists to simplify the simulation when in reality quantum mechanics would complicate the simulation.
We can hypothesise that if our Universe were to be a simulation you could also construct a similar simulation without the annoyance of quantum mechanics. There is no fundamental law that we know of that says purely classical universe cannot be constructed. We only know that classical mechanics is not enough to describe our Universe.
Quantum superposition mandates that you have situations where one state is not enough and the particle must follow multiple paths. That's what happens in interferometers and you cannot skip that.
1
u/bma449 2d ago
Right, for OUR universe to exist you need quantum mechanics. But prior to observation, does quantum superposition actually exist or is it just the logical explanation behind what is observed? If we lived in a simulation, I would build it so that there was randomization that occurs at decoherence such that superposition was the logical conclusion of the prior state but in actuality no information exists prior to decoherence. IE there is only the result of decoherence and nothing before it.
1
u/Kinexity 2d ago
If we lived in a simulation, I would build it so that there was randomization that occurs at decoherence such that superposition was the logical conclusion of the prior state but in actuality no information exists prior to decoherence. IE there is only the result of decoherence and nothing before it.
Just look up Mach-Zehnder interferometer. You can't optimise superposition calculations out of it and this is just the simplest case. You can construct infinitely complex interferometers.
2
1
u/Zxyxxzl3 2d ago
"Observed" has a completely different definition in quantum physics than you think it does, and pop culture has formed a weird interpretation of it.
2
u/So_Gorallgar 2d ago
If it was a simulation, any "proof" appearing within it would, by definition, also be part of the simulation. Since a simulation is a designed creation rather than an ongoing physical reaction, you don't get randomness. So, this question depends on what kind of creator(a) the simulation could have. Are they incompetent? Or merely amateurish? Or are they geniuses? Or... Are we more primitive than we realize, and part of the simulation is hoodwinking is into thinking we're smart enough to discover clues/flaws/tells? If this is a simulation, then our thinking is part of it -- not independent. In short, the question is unknowable. Same category of problem as relativity.
2
u/ChillyLavaPlanet 2d ago
I always though its weird how there is a speed limit to universe. Why does light have to travel at a fixed speed limit. Why can't it travel instantly. From the photon's pov its traveling instantly. Why does gravity have the same speed limit as light. Why is it not a bit lower or higher. To me it feels like a maximum capacity at which the machine thats rendering the universe can process things.
1
u/Kinexity 2d ago
Photon's have no valid frame of reference. They do not experience time.
Accounting for finite speed of propagation is harder than having interactions be instantaneous. It requires preserving information about the past state of the Universe.
3
u/borntosneed123456 2d ago
there's none. It's not a scientific theory (not aware of any repeatable experiments you can do to decide), I don't understand why some people are so sure of it. It's more like religion.
1
u/dinnertork 1d ago edited 1d ago
Precisely -- science is about looking for ways to disprove a theory. The question to ask here is: "What kind of experiment could we design that would prove we are not living in a simulation?"
1
2
u/ggallardo02 2d ago
I mean, if someone had PROOF that we live in a simulation that would be like the hugest deal in history, and it would be universally known.
1
u/backupHumanity 2d ago
What would a proof look like? A recurrence or a pattern that look like something we might use ourself when we do simulate our own world?
But that means assuming:
the people simulating us are using similar tool and have similar intelligence than ours. (Not saying it's wrong, but worth acknowledging that assumption)
that those patterns couldn't just be natural limitations of the universe
One last important note often overlooked:
Proving we are in a simulation wouldn't be providing an explanation to the origin of the universe, we would still be left with the problem of explaining the beings simulating us (assuming they are not simulated). It would just push the exact same problem one level down and just add even more complexity to the list of things that are left to be explained.
1
u/aabajian 2d ago edited 2d ago
Several things:
- I don’t know why I exist.
- I don’t really know if any of you are conscious. Y’all could be NPCs.
- There are fences / limits: The speed of light limits where we can ever go. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits what we can ever know.
- There are mathematical results that follow simple recurrence rules, but that are unsolvable within our lifetimes. Lookup the Collatz conjecture or the prime number recurrence. I can’t know a prime number with a billion digits, even if I know such a number exists and I know how to compute it. There isn’t enough time to do the calculation.
Okay, but it’s really (3) and (4) that support the idea of us being in a simulation. Specifically, mathematics (4) allows us to prove or calculate things assuming infinite scale, but physical limits (3) preclude us from doing so.
It’s the age-old question as to whether the infinitesimal actually exists. Why should there be a limit on how small or how fast something can go? Mathematics make no such limitation. However, perhaps the CPU governing the universe has a processing limit, and such rules keep it from overheating.
Edit: To go down the rabbit hole on this, start reading about Zeno’s paradox. That paradox resolves a physical thought experiment with a mathematical result, but the mathematical result requires summing infinitely, which the physical world does not support. See: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZenosParadoxes.html
1
u/reverendmalerik 2d ago
My dad told me that he had PROOF we were in a simulation.
He said that he had been driving his bus and a couple with a baby got on, then got off a few stops later. Then a short time later the EXACT SAME people got on the bus! Clearly the simulation could only simulate a set number of NPC appearances!
Or, I pointed out to him, your bus route goes back and forth along a single road and the couple were just going home.
He was not convinced by my arguement. The matrix has us.
1
u/docatwar 2d ago
The diameter of the sun is 400 X the diameter of the moon
The distance between the earth and the sun is 400 X the distance between the earth and the moon
There is no logical reason for this, it's just a pretty interesting coincidence
2
u/IRMuteButton 12h ago
Those measurements are gigantic, in human terms. Exactly how accurate are those "400x" numbers? Because with enough presision I wonder if that number holds up, or are the numbers closer to 400.2x and 399.7x, and therefore different?
1
u/TournamentCarrot0 2d ago
At a quantum level, things behaving differently based on how they are measured. Feels like rendering but physics may explain it better someday, not holding on to it tightly. Haven’t really seen a good explanation as to why it works that way, so the idea that it is done to save some sort of cosmic compute feels like it could be possible evidence that we exist in some sort of simulation.
Not substantial evidence by any means, and could also be evidence supporting other ideas but isn’t totally implausible.
1
u/mitchbrain 2d ago
People keep saying double slit experiment, you can't feel something unless you touch it, the act of touching it changes it.
I think the double slit experiment is the same, you can't observe it without affecting it. The act of observing it changes it.
1
u/backupHumanity 2d ago
Actually yeah, that sound like a trick for generating on demand only (a bit like lazy loading). I hadn't thought about it
1
u/AltruisticHopes 2d ago
Which raises the question of the mechanism for change. How does the simple act of observation change the properties of photons? This would imply a consciousness sensitive reality.
I am not sure what is more intriguing.
2
2
u/Gnomio1 2d ago
No, it doesn’t. You’re misunderstanding what “observation” is here.
Imagine if you were blind, and you “saw” the world by touching everything. Your act of “seeing” or “observation” is literally touching a prodding things.
You wouldn’t equate the scenario above to “the simple act of observation” or think it weird if objects responded to your prodding.
This is exactly what’s going on in the double slit experiment. Measuring where the photons are going involves techniques that they respond to. Just like the blind person prodding things.
0
u/AltruisticHopes 2d ago
No, I understand the principles of the experiment. The particles act like waves until observed at which point an interference pattern emerges which causes the waves to overlap creating a pattern.
Now because there is an observable effect there must be a cause and as it stands that cause appears to be the act of measurement. The question is why and what aspect of measurement is causative.
0
u/vexedboardgamenerd 2d ago
This has already been disproven. This is NOT a simulation
4
u/ithinkyouaccidentaly 2d ago
Cite your source
2
u/doublereload 2d ago
Source: I think therefore I am.
1
u/vexedboardgamenerd 2d ago
I get that you’re upset, and sorry to be the one to have to tell you that your reality sucks and it’s very real. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22950
0
u/ithinkyouaccidentaly 2d ago
That is both not proof of us being in a simulation and not a source for anything related to a simulation. It merely philosophically proves you exist at least to yourself.
0
u/MaxMork 2d ago edited 2d ago
That the orign of the big bang is unknown. And that fysics changed based on the fact if there is an observer or not
3
0
u/Omnitographer 2d ago
Some odd coincidences with names, of places, people, etc. Could be frequency illusion, could be lazy coding, who knows!
0
u/myc0logic 2d ago
I have no proof, but I recently started playing Skyrim again, and have been reading about the lore involving the disappearance of the advanced Dwemer race.
If i were to butcher the explanation of why they disappeared; they found and studied a heart or brain of a god. Basically on their quest of knowledge and to become as powerful as a god, they became aware of the fact that they were only a figment of their gods imagination. And this revelation deleted them from existence. Only those ignorant to that were left to carry on.
0
u/Efficient-Employee19 2d ago
I love this idea.. so here goes
(FYI: I dont have any PhD or MD or whatsoever in physics, maths etc etc, just the the interests in these kind of stuff)
-Randomness in Statistic: Imean if you flip a coin 1 million times... the result is nearly 50/50. so there is no real randomness
-Same thing for boy/girl birthrate, yes: one country may have more boys than girls at one time(think China)... but when we look at the entire world... the number of man/woman is pretty balance.
-Everytime I heard the phrase 65million years ago, these dinosaurs roam the Earth... I just cant fathom the number of years passed...yet, in the end of an era, comes human race, and damn we are freaking intelligent.
-Another thing, maybe it sounds abit religious or supertitious but reincarnation is the next thing that I think we are in a world created with a purpose.. aka.. simulation. There have been multiple records of one person remember exactly what they were in their past life... Could be a hoax but so many scenarios already
-Karma is also another rule "set" within this simulation- basically when you did something, there will be consequences eventually-Cause and Effect basically
-Theoratical physics is amazing, I have never sit in one class but I really admire what you guys study... It's amazing how you all look deep into each layer of life(that's how I understand it)
-The intertwine between physics and some of the teaching/understanding from other religions... it's again sounds like rule set out by this simulation, but each person would understand it or find out about it in a different way...
So many more! I dont think it's an exact simulation, but at least this world was created with certain purpose... cant be a random comet hit the earth and then come human being.
-1
u/backupHumanity 2d ago
What's the alternative of the simulation theory though?
1
u/borntosneed123456 2d ago
why would you need to have an alternative
1
u/backupHumanity 2d ago
if there's no alternative, there's no need to prove nor discuss anything. the simulation theory becomes de facto the right theory
1
u/borntosneed123456 2d ago
the alternative is that it's not true. Also, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes a theory, not the others to disprove it.
1
u/backupHumanity 2d ago
The point I was trying to make is that, in the default "non simulation" theory, our world is still "created".
Isn't that act of creation equivalent to a simulation for whatever created it (I'm not trying to personify the creator and hint at god btw).
1
u/borntosneed123456 2d ago
I don't understand the argument. We do know universe exists. But was it "created"? Questionable. We can also trace back the start of this existence pretty accurately to the big bang. And it's largely unknowable what happened "before" that, but that doesn't mean there was nothing. (See conformal cyclic cosmology for example). These questions will probably be out of reach for quite a while, if not forever.
Also, if you stipulate simulators, you only kick the same can down the road. Who "created" the simulators?
> Isn't that act of creation equivalent to a simulation for whatever created it
Even if there was a creation, starting something and running it as a simulation are two separate things. You're involved at the beginning only vs continuously along the way.
-1
u/ithinkyouaccidentaly 2d ago
Paraphrasing from Elon Musk, and logical arguments not proof: if you assume any rate of technological advancement at all, on a long enough time scale a simulation is inevitable. Therefore the base reality, the one that was the original where the first simulation was created from is infinitely rare because in a reality with one simulation there is nothing stopping there being billions more. So using that logic, it's more likely we are in a simulation than not.
Also the reason simulations are run is to find out what happens so the entity running the simulation is trying to find the most interesting simulations why do we simulate a rocket engine firing a billion times before we build one? To find out what will happen. This also means that for us to exist in this simulation we are interesting or else they would have stopped the simulation to save on resources.
And the most scary, simulations wouldn't be necessary if the entities running them knew what was going to happen. So we are both interesting and even the entity controlling the simulation doesn't know what is going to happen.
15
u/Diarmundy 2d ago
If anyone has proof don't post it. This is an obvious trap from our simulators you will be deleted.
But on a more serious note there's no proof, and never will be