HN Reader

Ask HN: Does simulation theory invalidate its own evidence?

3 Jimmc414 1 8/6/2025, 7:29:36 PM
I've been thinking about the simulation hypothesis (Bostrom, Moravec, etc) and I'm stuck on what seems like a paradox:

The standard argument as I understand it goes: (1) Computing power grows exponentially -> (2) Civilizations will create ancestor simulations -> (3) Therefore we're statistically likely to be simulated

But if we're in a simulation, then (1) and (2) are just features programmed into our simulation, not facts about base reality. We'd be using potentially fictional evidence to prove the evidence is fictional.

It's like characters in a video game using the game's physics engine to prove they're in a video game - but the physics engine could be nothing like actual physics.

What am I missing? How do simulation proponents resolve this circularity?

Genuinely curious about responses to this, especially from those who find the simulation argument compelling.

[0] Bostrom - https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[1] Moravec - https://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Bodies,%20Souls,%20and%20Robots/Texts/AI%20and%20Robotics/Simulation,%20Consciousness,%20Existence.htm

[2] Moravec article - https://www.wired.com/1995/10/moravec/

[3] Discussion that prompted this post: https://x.com/AndrewMayne/status/1953148275407913073

Comments (1)

southwindcg · 18h ago
I agree with you, and I don't think examining our ostensibly-simulated reality could tell us anything about base reality except perhaps that base reality is more complex. (Even that, I'm not so sure of.) I believe that anything we can learn from within the simulation is information we've been allowed to measure, specifically. That is, Pac-Man thinks the entire universe exists inside a blue-walled maze, because we—the simulators—haven't given him access to anything else.