Why We Are Not Living in a Simulation

Simulation theory has gone mainstream. Elon Musk talks about it. Physicists speculate about it. Podcasts love it. The idea is seductive: reality is fake, consciousness is running on someone else’s server, and we are characters inside a cosmic video game.

But here is a contrarian thought experiment.

What if we are not living in a simulation?

Let’s debate this, purely for fun but with logic that bites.

The Core Claim of Simulation Theory

Simulation theory says:

  • An advanced civilization exists.
  • It has massive compute power.
  • It is running a high-fidelity simulation of reality.
  • We are inside it, unknowingly.

Fair enough. It cannot be proven. It cannot be disproven. That already makes it philosophically slippery.

Now let’s poke holes in it.

My Position: Why This Is Not a Simulation

1. The Compute Waste Problem

If this is a simulation, then 7+ billion humans are running in parallel, each with:

  • Independent consciousness
  • Free will
  • Continuous memory
  • Rich internal emotional states
  • Infinite combinatorial interactions

That is not a game engine. That is madness.

Any rational civilization optimizing compute would:

  • Render only what is needed
  • Use a single protagonist perspective
  • Fake or lazily generate the rest

We already know this from games and simulations we build.

If I am the main character, why fully simulate you? If you are the main character, why fully simulate me?

Running everyone fully, all the time, is the most inefficient design possible.

Advanced civilizations do not burn compute for vibes.

2. The “Only I Am Real” Hypothesis Fails Fast

A common escape hatch is solipsistic simulation:

“Only I am real. Everyone else is an NPC.”

But here is the problem.

If I believe I am real, and you believe you are real, and we can articulate, argue, disagree, and reflect independently…

Then either:

  • We are both real or
  • The word “real” has lost all meaning

A simulation where every conscious agent experiences itself as real is indistinguishable from base reality.

At that point, simulation theory becomes philosophical cosplay, not explanation.

3. The Mutual Reality Test

Here is a simple thought experiment.

  • If the simulation is running for me, then you are not real.
  • If the simulation is running for you, then I am not real.
  • But if we both believe we are real, simultaneously, independently, persistently…

Then the “single-observer simulation” collapses.

You cannot have multiple first-person centers of reality unless reality itself is shared.

This is not proof. But it is a serious constraint that simulation theory handwaves away.

4. “The Simulation Can Edit Your Memory” Is Not an Argument

At this point, simulation theory usually plays its trump card:

“The simulation can change your memories at runtime.”

Yes. And a demon could also rewrite logic. And an invisible unicorn could control causality.

Once you allow unlimited, unobservable powers, all theories become equally valid and equally useless.

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

The Pro-Simulation Counterpoint (Fairly Stated)

To be fair, supporters will say:

  • We already simulate worlds.
  • Compute scales exponentially.
  • Consciousness might be substrate-independent.
  • Probability favors being simulated over being original.

These are interesting arguments.

But notice something important: They are speculative, not evidential.

Simulation theory is not physics. It is metaphysical Bayesian storytelling.

Fun. Provocative. Not decisive.

The Real Issue: What Problem Is Simulation Theory Solving?

Simulation theory does not predict anything. It does not change behavior. It does not offer testable consequences.

Its main function is psychological:

  • It reframes existential anxiety
  • It replaces “Why are we here?” with “Who is running this?”

That is philosophy, not science.

My Conclusion

If:

  • I experience myself as real
  • You experience yourself as real
  • We can reason, disagree, and reflect symmetrically
  • The cost of simulating everyone fully is absurd
  • The theory relies on unfalsifiable escape hatches

Then the simplest explanation wins.

We are not living in a simulation.

And if we are? It makes no practical or philosophical difference.

Reality that cannot be distinguished from base reality is base reality for all meaningful purposes.

So let’s stop worrying about the server. And focus on the experience.

Because simulated or not, this debate was real enough.