In thinking about the big picture, the multiverse is the thing that makes the most sense to me, but the most sensible thing need not be the true thing. But let’s say the dice is rolled a billions of times–maybe more, maybe an infinite number of times–and you end up with Earth. We have a nice supply of carbon and other building blocks but hurricanes and disease and drought. We’re amazing, but far from ideal. We’re the vivified Frankenstein monster, wonderful and terrible all at once. Perhaps the ideal version is out there somewhere, or not. 

And maybe it’s all a computer simulation. It could be that what’s being run infinitely is a program. God is that woman with the punch cards. The opening of Matthew Francis’ excellent Aeon essay, “Is Life Real?“:

“Our species is not going to last forever. One way or another, humanity will vanish from the Universe, but before it does, it might summon together sufficient computing power to emulate human experience, in all of its rich detail. Some philosophers and physicists have begun to wonder if we’re already there. Maybe we are in a computer simulation, and the reality we experience is just part of the program.

Modern computer technology is extremely sophisticated, and with the advent of quantum computing, it’s likely to become more so. With these more powerful machines, we’ll be able to perform large-scale simulations of more complex physical systems, including, possibly, complete living organisms, maybe even humans. But why stop there?

The idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds. A pair of philosophers recently argued that if we accept the eventual complexity of computer hardware, it’s quite probable we’re already part of an ‘ancestor simulation’, a virtual recreation of humanity’s past. Meanwhile, a trio of nuclear physicists has proposed a way to test this hypothesis, based on the notion that every scientific programme makes simplifying assumptions. If we live in a simulation, the thinking goes, we might be able to use experiments to detect these assumptions.

However, both of these perspectives, logical and empirical, leave open the possibility that we could be living in a simulation without being able to tell the difference. Indeed, the results of the proposed simulation experiment could potentially be explained without us living in a simulated world. And so, the question remains: is there a way to know whether we live a simulated life or not?”