Simulation theory

"We are living in a computer-programmed reality, and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed, and some alteration in reality occurs. We have the overwhelming impression that we were reliving the present - deja vu."  -- Philip K. Dick

This is basically the same argument made in The Matrix movie.

I kind of sympathize with simulation theory in the sense that I think some of its elements are quite plausible, but I can't help but think that those arguments as-is are too crude.

We make assumptions as to the limitations of the creators of the simulated reality, but given that they have made such an elaborate simulation, it seems that it is unwise for us, with such a limited perspective, having only had access to such technology for mere decades, to speculate on specific limitations that they might have when designing or implementing the simulation.

The deja vu, the "Mandela effect", the glitches in the system -- they are intriguing for sure and deserve further investigation and analysis, but I think it is premature to say that they provide evidence of simulation. It just *looks like* artifacts of simulation for us given our technological limitations, but they may be limitations of some other kind (eg. allowing the reality to adopt different laws and mechanisms including possibility of Magic -- I wrote about my own speculations here ) 

I also want to note here that the arguments about limitations in laws of physics due to computational limits are absolutely baseless -- the system running the simulation must have orders of magnitude more computation power than we have access to; it would be like people in 1900 conjecturing what computation power we have in the 2000s. They wouldn't be able to fathom the thing we have and all the "wasteful" ways we are using the power (electron apps anyone?)

Furthermore, the idea that time exists outside the simulation and poses a limitation on the simulation engine is very suspect. (Also, this idea does not align with ancient esoteric teachings, and thus probably doubly wrong.) The system doing the simulation could be nothing more than a simple Turing machine with infinite tape -- because the concept of time only exists within this simulation, it doesn't matter how "fast" or "slow" the simulation is run.

That said "simulation" is definitely a step in the right direction -- it's what ancient esoteric teachings have been telling us for a long time -- that life is a game that repeats itself (Reincarnation), that life is a play (Brahman?), etc.

There's also a risk of people not fully aware of the philosophical meaning of "reality is a simulation". For starters, it doesn't render reality as "unreal" -- there's the "simulations all the way down" argument, and arguably all *and* none of them are "real" -- reality is only as real as you let it be.  It is perfectly viable to know about simulation theory, agree with its arguments, and still choosing to treat the allegedly simulated reality as "real". In fact, I would argue that it is the most prudent way to interpret things.

By the way, the question of why the simulation isn't perfect (and so we can exploit its bugs to take a peek at what is "outside" of it) is a profound question that probably doesn't have a convergent answer. I suspect it may be a fundamental law that there is no perfectly closed system. This law would allow for changes in reality to a greater extent than whatever one could imagine, and perhaps could be seen as a corollary of the law of abundance...

Perhaps.