Why I think we live in a "simulation"

LessWrong argues that we likely live in a "simulation"—not a computer simulation necessarily, but an intentionally created world—based on a convergence of arguments. The case starts with the classic simulation argument: either humanity dies before becoming posthuman, advanced civilizations don't bother running simulations of their history, or we're already in one. But the author finds additional evidence in our world's apparent design: deep ontological problems we can't answer, and a strikingly entertainment-optimized reality where figures like Elon Musk and Sam Bankman-Fried have uncannily perfect names, plus historical patterns of extreme nominative determinism. The essay suggests our current moment—the approach of artificial superintelligence—would be exactly what researchers and philosophers might want to simulate, to study how civilizations navigate AI development and alignment. Each piece of evidence is explainable alone, but taken together they're difficult to dismiss.

Listen to this story

Hear this and more stories in a personalized audio briefing.

Open The Chonkerton