Once we realise that reality is unrealistic, we discover that we live in a simulation. That doesn’t require spending massive budgets on scientists. But that doesn’t tell us why we exist. We can explore the possible motives behind those who run simulations of human civilisations to understand their motivations. Again, that doesn’t require scientists. There is no point in speculating beyond the obvious, because the possibilities are infinite. Modern humans place great value on their inner selves, so we may not alter our human essence once we can. Hence, the motives of post-humans could be similar to ours. And so, post-humans might run simulations of human civilisations for research or entertainment.
Research could involve running what-if scenarios. What if a giant meteor hits the planet’s surface? What if China never becomes unified? Alternatively, what if religions such as Christianity and Islam never existed? Or what if a deadly infectious disease breaks out? Countless scenarios are possible. Post-humans might be interested in running them to see how we cope. These simulations are likely realistic. After all, playing what-if with unrealistic assumptions is not playing what-if. What if humans suddenly transformed into koala bears? Some individuals might entertain that thought. And so, that is entertainment.
Possible entertainment applications include games or dream worlds that bring your imagination to life. Such a simulation may be unrealistic in some aspects, as it reflects the rules of a game or someone’s imagination. Minor changes can have a dramatic impact on future developments. And simulations of civilisations are complex. If you desire to make your imagination come true, you need control over everything that happens. That doesn’t apply to games. Unpredictable developments make games more interesting.
What we know about human nature suggests the number of simulations for entertainment will vastly outstrip those run for research. If we live inside a simulation, we should expect its purpose to be entertainment. That could be either a game or a script, thus a story someone wrote. The owner or owners may use avatars and appear like ordinary human beings to us. If reality is unrealistic in some aspects, this suggests that our purpose is entertainment, as a simulation run for research is more likely to be realistic. Evidence of control further indicates that the purpose of this simulation is not to play a game, but to stimulate someone’s imagination through a story.
We live by stories, so there is nothing typically modern or Western about the idea of using the existing technological means to run stories. We have books, theatres and films. What is more speculative is the degree of individualism in the supposed motives of the post-humans. Humans are originally social animals who live in groups. It is particularly Western to see ourselves as precious individuals. It is an inheritance of Christianity that sees each human soul as precious. That individualism allowed Europeans to organise more flexibly, which eventually made them conquer the world, so it is not far-fetched to assume that an individualist culture is at the basis of the civilisation that created us, and that we are a product of a consumerist economy.
If the beings inside the simulation are sentient, that might raise ethical questions like whether they have rights that the creators should respect. Rights don’t exist in objective reality. We only imagine that we have them. And, considering how humans treat each other, it is not a given that our creators would respect these rights even when they acknowledge them. In a realistic simulation, bad things happen to people. And if the simulation is the stage of a story, and there is a script like a film, the beings inside the simulation, thus us, aren’t sentient beings but mindless bots. We would be less than worms. Real worms at least decide for themselves how to grovel and when, so there would be no reason whatsoever for our creators to respect the rights we imagine we have.
Will we soon create simulations of humans who act like humans and even believe they think? Will we invent a Holodeck like in Star Trek? And will we expand it to civilisation-size simulations? Nick Bostrom dares not to assess the likelihood of that. However, you don’t have to look far for answers. We are already close to doing it. Imagine a world where you can be king or queen. You can even create the world as you like and build your paradise. You can lead the life you desire. You can design the ideal spouse who fulfils your deepest romantic and sexual desires. And no one frustrates your ambitions.
Your dream can be your life. And you don’t have to wake up. It is simply too tempting for many of us to resist. Your life is not great. Your spouse is not perfect. Your job is mediocre or worse. Other people make you miserable. Your boss ignores your ideas. Your ventures fail. You think you deserve better. Likely, at least one of those options applies to you. If we could make our dreams come true, we would. We will spend a lot of time there if we ever invent something like the Holodeck from Star Trek.
You might think you won’t do it, but others would, so there will be demand for the technology. What you have just read is information, specifically insights into human nature. We will make our dreams a reality if we can. We can also consider advances in artificial intelligence, extrapolate from them, and demonstrate that simulated humans will be feasible at some point, likely soon. Hence, we probably live inside a simulation and are someone’s fantasy. Showing it is possible or likely, however, doesn’t prove it. So, how can we do that? It is possible with the information we have.
Scientists have established the laws of nature, which determine what is realistically possible and what is not. Simulations can be realistic in many ways but also unrealistic in others. If we can establish that unrealistic events occur, thus breaching natural laws established by science, we could be living in a simulation. Instead of speculating that we live in a simulation by guessing the probability of post-humans existing and their abilities, resources, and possible motivations, we can look at what we know about our universe. That is information. We can establish that we live in a simulation as follows:
When this universe is genuine, we can never be sure about it. A simulation can be realistic and feature authentic laws of reality.
This universe may have fake properties, but we can’t establish this because we don’t know the properties of an authentic universe.
Breaching the laws of reality is unrealistic in any case. If it happens, we may have evidence of this universe being virtual.
Science can establish the laws of reality or the properties of this universe. Only science cannot determine whether they are real or fake. Perhaps there is no gravity in a genuine world, even though we deem it unlikely. But the breaching of these laws suggests we live in a simulation. If we believe science is correct, breaching its laws proves the simulation. We have a body of evidence for the scientifically established laws of reality. These laws of reality and breaches thereof are information about our universe. Science has established, among others, the following:
The laws of physics always apply inside their realms. Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The universe started with the Big Bang. Life on this planet emerged from chemical processes. And evolution shaped it. There is no evidence of a creator.
We are biological organisms composed of carbon and water, and our consciousness resides in our bodies. There is no spirit or soul.
Evidence to the contrary indicates this world is fake. Meaningful coincidences suggest there is an intelligent force directing events. The paranormal defies the laws of physics. A ghost pushing you breaches Newton’s laws of motion. Credible accounts of reincarnation challenge the claim that we are biological organisms. However, meaningful coincidences can materialise by chance. There may be laws of reality we don’t know. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that consciousness resides in the body, while only a few people remember a previous life. And have you seen ghosts? It may be time to take your pills.
Still, if a sufficient number of credible accounts of breaches of the established laws of reality exist, we can assume we live inside a simulation. We may still differ on what a sufficient number is or which accounts are credible. The proof can’t be scientific because science can’t prove we live inside a simulation. We can’t verify that we live in a simulation by doing experiments, because violations of natural laws are unpredictable. But we can check the accounts of violations of these laws. It remains speculation, akin to living in the dark, assuming that cows exist and make a mooing sound, even though we have never seen them, and believing that hearing a moo proves their existence.
In ancient times, philosophers speculated that we couldn’t tell whether the world around us was real or whether other people around us had minds and could think. Perhaps I am the only one who exists, while the rest of the world is my imagination. It could all be a dream. Some religions claim that gods created this universe and that we are like them. According to the Bible, God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’
For a long time, we couldn’t tell why this world might not be real or how the gods could have created it. That changed with recent advances in information technology. This universe could be a simulation. We believe that our senses register an external reality, so we ignore evidence to the contrary. You may think you see a pipe when watching an image. The caption of the famous painting The Treachery of Images by René Magritte makes you notice: ‘This is not a pipe.’
In 1977, science fiction writer Philip K. Dick was the first to assert that our reality is computer-generated. Believing his discovery to be of a most monumental kind, he organised a press conference in France, where he described his psychotic experiences and accompanying coincidences that led him to believe this world is fake. He told the audience that his lost memories returned in full for unknown reasons. He also claimed to have had a vision. And a scenario Dick wrote came true. His last name suggests that our Creator, if there is one, loves sexist jokes. And it matches the sense of humour of a Lady I came to know in a dormitory as a student.
The idea that we live inside a computer-generated world is known as the simulation hypothesis. We could all live in a simulation created by an advanced humanoid civilisation. Professor Nick Bostrom explored its probability in the simulation argument. According to Bostrom, there could be many different human civilisations. The humans in those civilisations may, at some point, enhance themselves with biotechnology and information technology, live very long, and acquire capabilities that ordinary humans don’t have. These beings are no longer humans, but are called post-humans. A post-human might be a biological creature, a humanlike artificial intelligence or a combination of both. They might be brains in vats or have no physical bodies at all.
These post-humans might feel the urge to run simulations of their human-ancestor civilisations, so we could be living in one of those simulations. Bostrom argues that at least one of the following options must be true:
Nearly all human civilisations terminate before becoming post-human.
In any post-human civilisation, only a negligible number of individuals develop an appetite for simulating their human-ancestor civilisations.
We almost certainly live inside a computer simulation.1
The argument comes with the following assumptions that seem increasingly plausible due to the recent developments in artificial intelligence, but are not proven:
The computing power of post-human civilisations is sufficient to run numerous simulations of human-ancestor civilisations.
It is possible to simulate human consciousness in a computer.1
Bostrom concludes that if you think our civilisation will one day become post-human and run many simulations of human ancestor civilisations, you must believe we already live inside one.1 It is a matter of probability. If we invent this technology in the next 10, 100 or 1,000 years, it won’t happen later than that. By then, we will have done it. But millions of years have passed since it could have happened, so it probably did. If we do it within 100 years, and it could have happened a million years ago, the chance that it already happened is (1,000,000 – 100) / 1,000,000 = 0.9999, or 99.99%.
One particular possibility is that the post-human civilisation is a humanlike artificial intelligence. In this case, the time argument proves its merit. Even when human civilisation has spawned only one humanlike artificial intelligence that runs only one simulation, we most likely live in a virtual world.
Non-humanoid civilisations are probably not interested in running large numbers of simulations of human civilisations. They might run a few for research, perhaps to investigate human behaviour, but it seems unlikely that our emotions and history entertain beings entirely different from us. Thus, most simulations of human civilisations will likely be run by post-humans.
Non-humanoid civilisations are probably not interested in running large numbers of simulations of human civilisations. They might run a few for research, perhaps to investigate human behaviour. Still, it seems unlikely that our history and emotions interest beings entirely different from us enough for them to run billions of simulations of human civilisations. And if they exist, they must first learn to travel faster than the speed of light to find humans. Thus, post-humans will likely run most simulations of human civilisations. So, our Creator, if there is one, is probably post-human.
Philosophy is the art of not accepting what seems obvious because the possibilities are boundless. That is why what seems obvious often isn’t the case. With the information we do have, it is our best guess. We think of God as having a human nature because we imagine God. The God in the Bible has human traits. Conversely, when God imagines us, God probably is humanoid. We would create virtual realities with humans if we could, not of goats or Vulcans. So, it seems obvious, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. It is only what our imagination and the evidence suggest is most likely. But we know very little. We can’t go outside the simulation and check.
The simulation argument comes with uncertainties. Post-humans might lack sufficient computing power. Recent developments in quantum computing suggest otherwise. Alternatively, nearly all human civilisations die out before they can build these simulations. Alternatively, post-humans have evolved and differ from us, so they aren’t interested in running simulations with humans. We may only know this once we have become post-humans. Bostrom doesn’t try to guess the likelihood of the options. He thinks we have no information about whether this universe is real, but that is incorrect. There is evidence.
Latest update: 27 July 2026
Featured image: Inspired By The Treachery of Images.
1. Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? Nick Bostrom (2003). Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
What is truth, and what is knowledge? Philosophers have been discussing these questions for thousands of years. It is the domain of knowledge theory, also called epistemology. It deals with truth, belief, and the justification of beliefs. It concerns the following questions. What do we know? What does it mean that we know something? And what makes beliefs justified? We usually acquire knowledge in two ways:
by induction, which is using observations to formulate general rules or theories, and
by deduction, which is applying those rules and theories to specific situations.
How does that work? Let’s give an example. After carefully investigating the records of people who have lived and still live, you conclude, with the help of induction, that people typically die before they reach 120. Using this rule and deduction, you infer that you will die before the age of 120. That seems straightforward, but there are pitfalls, so philosophers continue to discuss these issues.
There is a difference between rules and theories. A rule is that if A occurs, B happens. A theory is that A causes B. If we can’t observe A, the theory assumes its existence. A then exists in our imagination. The explanation of electricity assumes the existence of electrons and their behaviour. We can’t see electrons, not even with a powerful microscope. We can do experiments to see how electricity behaves. We presume the conduct of electricity proves the existence of electrons, so experiments demonstrate their existence. It is like living in the dark and assuming that cows exist, even though we have never seen them. We have theorised that such animals say moo, so our hearing of moos proves the existence of cows. So if we hear moo, that must be a cow.
We are imaginative beings. Our knowledge involves imagination. We imagine electrons and gravity. Dogs can’t imagine electrons or gravity, so they can’t build electric cars or aeroplanes. Electrons and gravity may exist in our imagination, but they point at something real. Otherwise, objects wouldn’t fall to the ground, and we wouldn’t drive electric cars. This discussion of knowledge theory is a historical account. New ideas usually build upon previous thoughts. This treatise discusses Western philosophy. Western thinkers have been the most inquiring. As a result, the Scientific Revolution began in Europe. Science is the result of thinking, but it has also greatly influenced thought. It started with the ancient Greeks. What distinguished them from other traditions was their rational thinking.
Classical philosophy
Some 2500 years ago, Greek philosophers speculated about the nature of reality. Some claimed everything consisted of fire, water, earth and air. Later, a few philosophers argued that the building blocks of reality are small particles called atoms. These atoms differ in size and shape for different materials. The objects we see are groups of atoms stuck together. Democritus argued that the universe merely consisted of atoms in the void. That is already close to what we believe today. Speculation about the nature of reality, such as whether matter consists of atoms, is metaphysics.
Metaphysics is about how we perceive reality. We connect the dots in a particular way. It is our imagination. We can believe that everything consists of fire, water, earth and air, or we can think that atoms are the building blocks of everything around us. It was speculation because these atoms were invisible, and the Greeks had no microscopes to verify their existence. By assuming atoms exist and have different shapes and sizes, you can explain the presence of various substances. You can also do that by presuming everything consists of fire, water, earth and air. Only, we find atoms more convincing.
The ancient Greeks also pondered other issues. Some figured that the Earth is a sphere. When you look at the sea, you see the horizon slightly curved, and boats disappear in the distance before their sails do. A philosopher named Xenophanes doubted religion. He realised that people believed that the gods were like themselves. Black people believed the gods were black, while red-haired people thought they were red-haired. Xenophanes claimed it was impossible to know the gods and how they looked. It was an early form of scepticism.
And why should you worship the Greek gods if the Persians and the Egyptians bow before other gods? If your birthplace determines your beliefs, your beliefs are likely false. The sophists were philosophers who had come into contact with different cultures. They claimed that absolute knowledge is impossible. Everything is subjective, they argued. This view is called relativism. Socrates is known for his dialogues in which he debated the sophists.
According to Socrates, there is absolute truth, even though we don’t know that truth. His pupil Plato later claimed that ideas are the basis of knowledge and that ideas, not objects, are the building blocks of reality. His view is called idealism. It relates to deduction. Plato’s pupil Aristotle asserted that knowledge comes from observation. His approach is called empiricism. It works like induction. Both methods come with problems. If you imagine a unicorn, you have the idea of a unicorn, and the idealist could claim unicorns exist. On the other hand, if you see a unicorn after eating some mushrooms, the empiricist could also say unicorns exist.
And so, knowledge can always be called into question. If no one has ever seen a unicorn, this isn’t definite proof of their non-existence. These creatures could still be hiding deep down in the forests. And perhaps eating mushrooms enhances your senses, allowing you to see things that would otherwise remain hidden. For that reason, scepticism emerged. There were two groups of sceptics. The first claimed that nothing is certain. They aimed to refute the claims of other philosophers. The second argued it is better to postpone judgment until the matter is sufficiently clarified.
These ideas revived in Europe in the late Middle Ages after texts of classical philosophers turned up in Arab libraries. European philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham were also theologians. They believed that there was no difference between theology and science. Over time, science and religion divorced. Their paths separated. Today, science requires empirical evidence, while religion does not. Scientists test assumptions, such as the existence of electrons, with experiments that others can verify. In religion, the evidence is often personal, as with most accounts of the Virgin Mary’s appearances, and experiments like checking the answer to prayers never yield anything substantial.
The most obvious explanation is usually correct, or what occurs most often is most likely the case. If you see something flying in the sky, it probably isn’t Superman. And so, it is rational first to ask yourself, ‘Is it a bird? Is it a plane?’ Once you have ruled out these possibilities, you can conclude, ‘No, it is Superman!’ William of Ockham is known for his principle of simplicity, Ockham’s Razor. It says the explanation with the fewest required assumptions is preferable. If what you prayed for transpires, you could check whether it is a coincidence before claiming that God is answering your prayer. The latter requires God’s existence and that this supposed infinitely powerful being listens to your request while ignoring many others, while a coincidence does not.
Modern philosophy
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed to America. Ancient sources, including the Bible, didn’t mention this enormous, lurking continent stretching from the North Pole to the South Pole. A little later, Nicolaus Copernicus claimed that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around, which everyone believed until then. Traditional knowledge had failed dramatically. Copernicus had the luck of dying soon. The Catholic Church prosecuted Galileo Galilei for claiming Copernicus was right and the Bible was wrong.
At the same time, Protestants challenged the authority of the Catholic Church by making religion a personal matter. If you had reason to believe something, it could be correct. Religion is about your conscience rather than what the Church teaches. The number of issues on which we can disagree is infinite, so we have 45,000 branches of Christianity today. The ensuing religious wars ravaged Europe and ended without a clear winner.
And who was right? There can be only one truth. Merely believing something doesn’t make it true. However, questioning the existence of God was initially out of the question. European philosophers sought a rational foundation for religion, attempting to base it on verifiable claims, an effort known as deism. The project failed because it was impossible to establish the properties of the invisible fellow in the sky that everyone imagined.
The confusion spurred renewed scepticism and a new search for the foundations of knowledge. As philosophers from continental Europe, such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza, argued, our senses are deceptive. Therefore, only rational thinking can generate knowledge. This school is called rationalism, but it was a refurbished idealism.
a brain in a vat believing itself to be a person who is walking
In a thought experiment similar to the brain-in-a-vat scenario, Descartes questioned everything the senses register. Your brain could be inside a vat filled with a life-supporting liquid and connected to a computer that generates the impression you are walking. What is beyond doubt, according to Descartes, is that you exist, even when you are just a brain-in-a-vat. And you can establish this fact through thinking. ‘I think, therefore I exist,’ he concluded.
Other philosophers from Great Britain, such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume, argued that knowledge comes from observations. It was a renewed empiricism. A philosophical divide emerged between idealist continental Europe, most notably Germany and France, and empiricist Great Britain and, later, the United States. The duck test is an example of pragmatist empiricism. It says that when something looks, quacks, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck. It is no coincidence that a US writer, rather than a German philosopher, invented it.
The divide affected moral philosophy and views about society. The empiricist view holds that ethical rules are whatever people agree on, thus reflecting society’s sentiments. The idealist vision is that morals are absolute and apply to everyone. Idealistic schemes to improve society, with religious claims to be the truth, such as Marxism, came from continental Europe. Pragmatic thinkers, including Adam Smith, the intellectual father of Capitalism, came from Great Britain or the United States. Smith attempted to describe what had happened and offer practical guidance on how to manage an economy.
It was an era marked by advances in the natural sciences. These advances were the result of thought. And the advances, in their turn, spurred thinking. It was the combination of observation and thought that led to scientific progress. You can investigate the effect of gravity on the motion of objects. You can do so by dropping an iron ball from a tower. You can release the ball from different heights and measure how long it takes for the ball to hit the ground. The table below contains the results of these measurements.
Height (in metres)
Time (in seconds)
0.05
0.10
0.50
0.32
1.00
0.45
5.00
1.01
10.0
1.43
50.0
3.19
It requires considerable thought to get the formula representing the relationship between height and fall time: fall time = 9.81 * √ (2 * height). For instance, 3.19 = 9.81 * √ (2 * 50.0). If the tower is only 50 metres high, you cannot measure how long it will take for the ball to fall from 100 metres. With the help of the formula, you can calculate the fall time without the need for measuring it: 9.81 * √ (2 * 100) = 4.52 seconds. It is the combination of observation and thinking that made this possible.
Finding the mathematical formula that matches the data is like solving a jigsaw puzzle. This method of reasoning is induction. It is establishing a general rule based on observations. You can never be sure the outcome is correct. Using your sightings and induction, you might conclude that all swans are white. And if you go to the Moon to drop an iron ball from a tower over there, you will discover that the relationship between height and fall time is different from Earth.
Another way of reasoning is deduction. It involves working from assumptions to conclusions using logical reasoning. If the premises are all justified and the rules of logic are correctly applied, then the inference must be correct. Thus, deduction is the application of general rules to specific situations. If all humans are mortal (first premise), and Socrates is a human (second premise), then Socrates is mortal (conclusion). Also, if the relationship between height and fall time is fall time = 9.81 * √ (2 * height) (first premise), and the tower is 100 metres (second premise), then the fall time is 4.52 seconds (conclusion).
The scientific method combines thinking, induction and deduction. Simply put, a scientist uses observation and reasoning to develop a theory. You need observations to determine the formula that represents the relationship between height and fall time. The observations alone are not enough. It requires a stroke of brilliance or some puzzling to find the formula. Once you have found the formula, you can use deduction and experiments to check its validity. You can calculate how long it will take for a ball to fall to the ground from 321 metres. You can then go to the top of the Eiffel Tower to drop the ball and measure how long it takes. If the measurement equals the calculated time, the theory works.
Kant and Hegel
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant didn’t settle for a duck test. Germans get to the bottom of things. He aimed to uncover the foundations of our knowledge. Kant realised knowledge arises from observation (empiricism), but we can’t know anything without thinking (idealism). We interpret observations. We recognise differences, count instances and think of cause and effect. Our thinking imposes its structure upon our observations. It is our nature. If we see a tree, we see branches and leaves. We see that the leaves are green and that the branches are brown. We see a difference between a tree and a deer. We can count trees. The concept of a tree encompasses other ideas, such as branches, leaves, greenness, and brownness.
We view the world through our framework, language. Without the word tree, we don’t see trees. So, if we only have the words animal and plant, a tree is a plant to us, and we don’t see a difference between trees, bushes, grass, and ferns. We don’t know reality or the things in themselves (relativism). We attach the categories to our perceptions. Speculation about the nature of reality, such as asking whether trees, gravity, or electrons exist, is pointless. Kant is also famous for attempting to find a rational foundation for absolute moral rules.
Subsequent idealist philosophers disagreed. They believed the mind creates reality, so absolute knowledge is possible. They argued that reality is subject to our thinking, allowing us to uncover it. The fall of a ball is subject to mathematical laws invented by the human mind. You can claim gravity causes the ball to fall even though gravity exists only in our imagination. Imagining gravity lets us predict how long it takes a ball to hit the ground after we drop it from a tower. Our predictions coming true corroborate the existence of Sir Isaac Newton’s imaginary invisible friend, gravity. You can poke fun at gravity this way, but gravity has proven to be a trustworthy companion, more dependable than many people you can see and touch.
The most notable idealist philosopher was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He argued that we increase our knowledge over time, so there is progress. If we dig deeper, we may learn more about trees, for example, where their roots are. The more we know, the closer we come to the absolute truth. However, by decomposing reality into parts and analysing them, we lose the essence of the whole. We are part of reality and interact with it. Hence, we are one with everything around us and history. We can comprehend reality only in this way. And in doing so, we might find the ultimate answer, which is why we exist. Hegel was also a religious man, so he expected us to discover God at the end of our quest for knowledge.
Seeking knowledge is a process that never stops. You can ask yourself, ‘Is the way I look at the subject correct and adequate? Have I not forgotten something?’ After we arrive at a conclusion, our experiences and thoughts continue, or the situation changes, and we may later come to a different belief. Hegel called it dialectic. Our knowledge increases. It pushes forward, leading to progress. Hegel’s dialectic has three phases:
an initial thought or assertion (thesis),
a contradicting or supplementing argument (antithesis, negation),
and the integration of the two into an improved insight (synthesis).
Contemporary philosophy
Kant ended the idea that metaphysics gives us knowledge. Philosophers became less ambitious from then on. One reaction was pragmatism. The theory of evolution suggests we hold beliefs to survive and reproduce. Pragmatic American thinkers like Charles Sanders Peirce and William James viewed thinking as a means of solving problems. They were not interested in truth or the nature of reality. Another approach, hermeneutics, associated with German thinkers such as Wilhelm Dilthey and Martin Heidegger, concerns human communication. Dilthey argued that the natural sciences are about interpreting observations, while the humanities are about meaning and, in Heidegger’s case, about what it means to exist.
Others embarked upon a renewed search for the foundations of knowledge. Analytical philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein believed that the primary tools of philosophers were language and logic. They aimed to develop a new method to gather knowledge. There is an outside world, and language expresses facts about that reality, or so they argued. This view is known as realism, which is closely related to empiricism. They claimed there are justified true beliefs. Jane might think something is true based on what she knows. If this is indeed the case, her belief is justified.
Karl Popper introduced the idea of falsification. You can never prove a hypothesis is correct, but you can prove it is wrong when you find contradicting evidence. That is also scientific progress because knowledge increases. The theory you believed in is incorrect. You might think all swans are white as long as you only see white swans. Once you spot a black swan, your theory is proven wrong. From then on, you think most swans are white while some are black. It is the way knowledge progresses. The belief that most swans are white and some are black is closer to the truth than the idea that all swans are white, even if a red swan is lurking somewhere out there that no one has ever seen.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. Otherwise, they aren’t scientific. Scientific theories must enable us to make testable predictions. As long as these predictions come true, we assume the theory is correct. We can’t be certain, but the theory works for us. You can go out and look for swans and check their colour. Your theory says they must be either black or white. You can use the formula relating height to fall time to calculate the fall time from a height of 100 metres. If you do an experiment and the outcome differs from the calculation with the formula, the theory is wrong unless your measurement or computation is in error.
Edmund Gettier criticised the notion of justified true beliefs. You can be correct for the wrong reasons. Suppose Jane looks at her watch. It says it is two o’clock. She believes it. She doesn’t know it stopped exactly twelve hours earlier. Her belief is thus not justified. The watch accidentally gives the correct time, so her belief is true nonetheless.
As our knowledge increases, our understanding of reality changes. Philosophers call that a paradigm. Thomas Kuhn noted that scientific paradigms change over time. A scientific paradigm is a theory or system of ideas that dominates a field, such as physics. Existing theories don’t explain everything. The theories that clarify the most phenomena and leave the fewest unexplained are the best and form the paradigm in the field. The paradigm of your knowledge of swans is that swans can be black or white. It is better than your previous belief that they are all white. When you discovered a black swan, your paradigm shifted. You changed your opinion.
Unexplained phenomena, such as unexpected instrument readings, might indicate that the paradigm is incorrect. As long as no better explanation is available, most scientists attribute them to errors. At some point, the evidence accumulates that the theory is erroneous. Then a scientist develops a better hypothesis, and out of the confusion, a new paradigm emerges. Newton’s laws have long been the paradigm in physics. However, when scientists developed more precise instruments in the 19th century, they gave readings that Newton’s laws couldn’t explain. Initially, most scientists disregarded the evidence. It took a while before a fellow named Einstein could explain them. From then on, Einstein’s theories became part of the new scientific paradigm, quantum physics.
Paradigms in science affect how we see the world. Five centuries ago, most people in Europe believed the Earth was flat, a few thousand years old, and at the centre of the universe. Only a few educated people were aware that the ancient Greeks had discovered evidence of the Earth being a sphere. Despite the efforts of flat-earthers and creationists, most people today believe the Earth is a sphere, billions of years old, and an insignificant dot in the universe. And we may soon believe we live in a simulation.
Existing religions and ideologies, or the so-called Big Stories, are all wrong. It gave rise to post-modernism. Post-modernists claim that great stories like religions and ideologies are dead, and absolute knowledge is impossible. Words like ‘reality’ and ‘truth’ are totalitarian concepts, they argue. There is only room for small stories, lived experiences, and perspectives. A great source of inspiration was Friedrich Nietzsche. He proclaimed the death of God and heralded the end of the Christian story of God’s people on the road to Paradise, which gives meaning to our existence. And suddenly, we were out there, without God, condemned to give meaning to our petty existences ourselves. Post-modernism is not much more than relativism with a new marketing campaign. This view was, not surprisingly, criticised by those who claimed the truth is out there somewhere.
So, we are more or less back to where Socrates refuted the sophists. The truth is out there. Believing something doesn’t make it the truth. And if there is a truth, we might be able to find it. With the simulation hypothesis, speculation about the nature of reality or metaphysics re-emerged. We could all live as mindless figures in a computer simulation of an advanced post-human civilisation. It seems that knowledge theory remains stuck. At least, it is clear that while our knowledge has grown dramatically over the last 2,500 years, the theory of knowledge has not progressed accordingly.
Data, information, knowledge and wisdom
Having more data does not make us better informed, and having more facts does not make us wiser. The DIKW pyramid (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom) shows how human understanding can go off track as we amass more facts rather than seek better understanding, which requires getting the relative importance of facts and the nature of their relationships. Data is raw facts, numbers, or observations. Data does not have meaning. A noise you hear is data. Information is data that has been organised and structured into a context that gives it meaning, so we can use it for a purpose. You have information once you can identify the noise as coming from a car engine.
To acquire knowledge, you need information, and it needs to be correct. Maybe there was a car on television because your husband was watching his favourite show. If you were waiting for a taxi and knew the noise was coming from the television, you wouldn’t go outside. Knowledge is our understanding of information. It concerns correlative, causal, and logical relationships. Wisdom is understanding gained through study and experience, which allows you to select the appropriate knowledge to deal with a situation. It is about seeing the relevant facts, their relationships, their relative importance, and the limits of that knowledge, including ways to deal with them.
Proof and evidence
There is a difference between proof and evidence, even though we use these words interchangeably. Proof is a final verdict that removes all doubt, whereas evidence supports a particular explanation. Proving is typically done through deduction, while induction involves using evidence. Proof requires the premises to be correct, which is problematic because the premises used in deductive reasoning, such as the relationship between height and fall time, are often attained by induction. In mathematics, proving is possible. It is pure deductive reasoning without applying it to reality. So, 1 + 1 = 2 is always true. However, if you think you see two trees, someone else may disagree. Perhaps the other person sees three trees or only bushes.
We don’t know everything. With a limited sample of swans and induction, you could conclude that all swans are white. We support claims with evidence, such as experiments, but we can never be certain that relationships like those between height and fall time are always the same. There is no proof, not even in science, but scientific evidence meets the quality standards of the scientific method. They involve careful observation and rigorous criticism, as we can be wrong about what we observe or think. A scientist may use observations to formulate a theory about the fall time of objects and then check it with experiments.
Words like ‘establish’ and ‘conclude’ bridge the gap between proof and evidence. Science aims for the best clarification of the observations. A hypothesis needs evidence and must explain the observations better than the alternatives. Assuming this universe is a simulation, we can explain phenomena that are currently unexplained, such as paranormal events. Rigorous scepticism could be filtering out paranormal events that don’t have multiple credible witnesses or other plausible explanations. However, we can’t test the hypothesis with experiments, so the simulation hypothesis is not scientific.
Scientific proof means that all the experiments confirm the theory. The problem with that is the same as with the swans. If you believe all swans are white, it is scientifically proven until you run into a black swan. That is why all our present knowledge about our existence, the age of the universe, and the laws of nature would suddenly become void if we discovered that we live inside a simulation. The simulation hypothesis can explain the unexplained and is closer to the truth, much like the theory that most swans are white, with some being black. Even so, there could still be a red swan out there we don’t know about.
Takeaways
Science can’t prove this universe is a virtual reality, but the evidence could be strong enough to establish that we do. It is, however, metaphysical speculation, not much different from saying that Sir Isaac Newton’s imaginary invisible friend, gravity, causes a ball to fall to the ground. The only difference is that gravity is predictable, so you can do experiments and check this friend’s existence. The computer we exist in could be less imaginary than Newton’s friend. You can only make that argument if you understand what knowledge is. So, here are some considerations:
We can always question assertions because the methods to arrive at knowledge, induction and deduction, can lead to wrong conclusions.
The validity of a statement depends on its accurately describing (some part of) reality. You can verify it with observations and induction. If anything occurs that violates the statement, it must be wrong.
The truth or falsity of a system of statements depends on its logical consistency. You can check a system of statements using logic and deduction. Contradictions point to errors.
A claim is plausible when sufficient evidence supports it, while no credible evidence contradicts it. Contradicting evidence nullifies it. In science, that is the falsification principle.
For survival, usefulness is more important than the truth. Religions help us cooperate, and that allows us to survive, which is their primary function.
Exotic explanations, such as a flying object being Superman, make sense only if common explanations don’t. When dealing with unexplained phenomena, you may have to consider them.
Minimalism argues for using as few assumptions as possible to establish a point. Assumptions are always questionable. It prompts us not to engage in unnecessary speculation or to use irrelevant data. That is why this booklet is thin.
Contradicting arguments can be correct in their own right, as there could be a higher truth or synthesis. Evolution and creation can both be correct if we live in a simulation. The simulation hypothesis resolves the question.
Proof means the absence of doubt, which is impossible in dealing with reality. Evidence can still support a particular explanation or theory. You can still look for the best explanation for the observations.
Latest revision: 2 September 2026
Featured image: Owl eyes. Brocken Inaglory (2006). Public domain.
Other images: Brain-in-a-vat. Alexander Wivel (2008). Public domain.
In April 2020, the Pentagon declassified videos showing pilots running into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). These disclosures vindicated those who believe extraterrestrials visit us. Former Senator Harry Reid tweeted that the videos only scratch the surface of the available research and materials. Now, think of crop circles. Not all may have been the work of pranksters trying to poke fun at the UFO crowd. The Pentagon claims it doesn’t have evidence of UFOs being extraterrestrial. A few months later, Netflix revived the once-popular documentary series Unsolved Mysteries. Most episodes are not particularly mysterious, and many so-called mysteries can’t be dubbed unsolved. But one particular creepy story is keeping people awake at night. It is about the Berkshire UFO encounters of 1 September 1969.
Four families claim to have been picked up by a UFO and transported by a beam of light on that fateful day. Apart from a few personal accounts, there is little to no recorded evidence that this happened. Not even a local newspaper reported it. The documentary compensates for the omission. Indeed, this is a mystery worthy of being labelled unsolved. The stories of the people involved appear credible because they confirm each other. Thomas Reed, who was nine when it happened, claimed he and his family missed more than two hours of their lives while driving in their car. Reed said his family saw an amber glow on both sides of the road. Then everything got calm. After that, they found themselves back inside the car, but his mother and grandmother had changed places.1
Reed also noted that he saw the then-14-year-old Melanie Kirchdorfer aboard the UFO. She confirms his story. Tommy Warner was a child when the incident occurred. He also claimed to have been abducted that evening. His babysitter, Debbie, confirms his account, saying that she saw him vanish into a bright ray of light. The people involved were not eager to tell their stories, which could have made them a laughingstock. This Unsolved Mysteries episode has left many viewers feeling anxious.2 Is it safe to go outside? Or is a starship lurking out there that could beam us up anytime?
On 16 September 1994, 62 schoolchildren aged between six and twelve saw a UFO outside Ruwa, Zimbabwe. Some children claimed to have seen aliens dressed in black, who allegedly gave them a telepathic message, advising them to respect the planet and not rely too heavily on technology. Dozens of other children who were also present stated they had not seen a UFO or anything unusual. Sceptics argue it was a mass delusion. However, the children who saw the UFO consistently told the same story, differing only in the details. Many children believed the beings were not aliens but tikoloshes, creatures of local folklore.3 If it was not a delusion, then you can say goodbye to objective reality, as many children saw the UFO while many did not. Two realities in one place at the same time? That should make you think. This world could be fake.
For five months after October 2007, hundreds of people saw UFOs over Texas. On 8 January 2008, 19 witnesses saw a massive UFO speeding from Dublin to Stephenville, pursued by F-16 fighter jets. One witness estimated the object to be 1,600 metres (a mile) long and 800 metres (half a mile) wide. It hovered and then sped away at 5,000 kilometres per hour without causing any disturbance like a gust of wind, suggesting the object was not material. However, radar data confirmed what witnesses had reported, indicating that the object was material. Again, this should make you wonder. The local newspaper, Empire-Tribune (ET), was the first to report on the object. Steven Spielberg, the director of ET, made a documentary about it.4 That is a noteworthy coincidence.
The psychiatrist John Edward Mack investigated the mental state of those who claimed to have seen aliens. He initially suspected these persons had mental illnesses. Mack interviewed them and came to believe that was not the case. Many of those he interviewed said their encounters had affected their views, creating a sense of spirituality and environmental concern. Mack was cautious about explaining these experiences, but believed there was a powerful phenomenon causing them. There is a rich history of visionary experiences worldwide. Mack noted that alien abduction accounts can be part of this tradition.5 That didn’t agree with some of his fellow scientists, who subsequently grew keen on excommunicating him from the science religion, claiming that telling someone who has reported a close encounter with an alien that this experience might have been real is professionally irresponsible.
Many UFO sightings lack a credible explanation. In other words, they aren’t evidence of aliens visiting us. A few people have claimed to have seen aliens, but there is no objective evidence of their presence. They never broadcast a message saying, ‘Hello Earthlings, we come from the planet Ploc.’ Not even simply ‘ploc’ did they say. What is also suspicious about these aliens is that they resemble humans. They stand upright and have arms, legs, and heads with eyes. Alien life, if it exists, likely differs from Earth life, and aliens could take any form, for instance, jellyfish or plants, or, more likely, something we can’t think of, suggesting human imagination created the aliens people saw. They are either the imagination of the people who saw them or of those who created this world. And an advanced species warning us of advanced technology? They could have shared it with us. Okay, these aliens may not have a high opinion of us. And what about telepathy if we are beings made of carbon and water, and our minds are just brain chemistry? Something doesn’t add up here if science is correct and these experiences are real.
And so, unidentified flying objects can be anything. Another US government report claims most UFO sightings are weather balloons, surveillance drones, airborne clutter, or optical illusions. Nevertheless, many sightings remain unexplained. The UFO incidents in Berkshire, Zimbabwe and Texas, amongst them. They aren’t mere delusions, nor can a weather balloon be 1600 metres long and 800 metres wide and all of a sudden fly off at 5,000 kilometres per hour, leaving the F-16 pilots chasing them, biting the dust. UFOs and alien abduction stories are part of an array of mysteries, including evidence suggesting reincarnation, ghosts, meaningful coincidences, and premonitions. There is, however, an explanation that doesn’t involve aliens. This universe could be a simulation created by an advanced civilisation, and that civilisation is likely humanoid rather than alien.
Latest revision: 21 July 2025
Featured image: Declassified Pentagon UFO footage
1. 1969 Berkshire UFO Event Gains Recognition. Jim Levulis (2015). WAMC. [link] 2. Berkshire UFO sightings: Unsolved Mysteries episode is spooking viewers – but what happened next? Jacob Stol (2020). The Guardian. [link] 3. Ariel School UFO incident. Wikipedia. [link] 4. Spielberg-produced UFO doc has more than 300 witnesses for a mile-long spaceship. Lauren Sarner (2023). New York Post. [link] 5. John E. Mack. Wikipedia. [link]
The Plan For The Future 