Skip to content
Blogcritical thinking
What If We Are Living in a Simulation?
9
Misagh Zad's avatarMisagh Zad
đť•Źin

Listen: What If We Are Living in a Simulation?

0:000:00

What If We Are Living in a Simulation?

A Lens, Not an Escape

I have been sitting with a thought that refuses to leave me alone.
What if this is a simulation?

Not as a sci-fi trick. Not as an escape from responsibility. Not as a meme dressed up as philosophy.

But as a serious lens. A lens that, strangely, makes the chaos of the world feel more coherent rather than less.

I am not claiming that we are in a simulation. I am exploring what becomes visible when we allow the question to breathe.

Because when you follow the logic carefully, something unsettling appears.
Not about reality. About us.

Why Anyone Would Run a Simulation at All

Start from first principles: Why does anyone run a simulation?

  • Not to confirm what they already know.
  • Not to admire perfection.
  • Not to freeze a system in stability.

A simulation is run because the outcome is unknown.

You run a model when reality is too complex, too nonlinear, too unpredictable to grasp by intuition. You run it to observe what emerges.

This applies to climate systems, economies, protein folding, traffic flows, or human decision-making.

The purpose of a simulation is discovery.

A model that always behaves as expected becomes useless. It teaches nothing new.

So if we imagine an architect capable of running a universe-scale simulation, their motivation would be the same:

They would not be looking for peace or harmony or moral beauty—
they would be asking: what happens if…

The Uncomfortable Implication of Suffering

Here the thought turns disturbing.

If the purpose is to explore outcomes, then suffering isn’t an anomaly; it’s data.

Wars, collapses, genocides, plagues, disasters, extinctions—these are not “errors.” They are the system expressing itself under certain conditions.

This does not make suffering acceptable or justified. It makes it intelligible.

We want intelligence behind reality to imply benevolence. Yet nothing about the simulations we run works that way:

  • We simulate disease spread and let millions die inside the model.
  • We simulate financial crises and let economies collapse.
  • We simulate war games and let cities burn.

Not because we enjoy it—because we want to know what happens.

Time as Evidence, Not Accident

Consider time.

The universe is ~13.8 billion years old. Humans arrive extremely late; complex societies later; digital networks and AI in the final blink.

Strange, if humans are “the point.”
Perfectly reasonable, if humans are a parameter.

In complex simulations you stage variables:

  • Let systems stabilize.
  • Introduce perturbations.
  • Add agents.
  • Observe re-organization.

Life → consciousness → language → agriculture → empires → money → ideology → technology → AI.
Each layer adds feedback loops, unpredictability, and futures.

From this view, civilization is not a climax; it’s a new phase of testing.

Religions, Governments, and AI as Parameters

Through this lens, human inventions look different:

  • Religions → large-scale coordination engines: trust, sacrifice, obedience, hope, fear.
  • Governments → experiments in organizing millions under shared rules.
  • Markets → decentralized decision machines.

And now artificial intelligence:

AI is not just another tech; it is a meta-parameter.
For the first time, a system inside the simulation creates its own simulations.

We build models to predict behavior, optimize attention, shape desire—models that learn from us faster than we learn from ourselves.

If this were a simulation, AI would be a recursive moment: the model begins modeling itself.

Why Predictability Kills Meaning

In machine learning, a model has value only while it’s improving.
Perfect prediction ends learning—stagnation.

Life echoes this:

  • A perfectly predictable world feels dead.
  • A perfectly safe world feels flat.
  • A perfectly optimized world feels sterile.

Meaning arises at the edge of uncertainty—where choices matter and outcomes aren’t guaranteed.

This may be why history refuses to settle; why every solved problem creates new ones.
Not because reality is broken—because stagnation would end the experiment.

What This Does to the Question of Meaning

Common reaction: “If this is a simulation, nothing matters.”
I think the opposite.

Inside a simulation, your role is not to win; it is to respond.

You’re not here to optimize the system; you’re here to act within it. Your actions are part of the output.

Whether or not this is simulated, this remains true:

  • Every choice changes trajectories.
  • Every value embodied shapes local reality.
  • Every act of cruelty or care propagates through invisible networks.

You are not a spectator. You are a variable with agency.
Not nihilism—responsibility.

The Moral Weight of Being a Parameter

Humbling, and steadying:

  • You are not the center, hero, or final answer.
  • You are a participant.

Your decisions feed the system. Your values alter outcomes. Your consciousness adds texture.

If this is an experiment, then how we behave under uncertainty is the point:

  • Domination or cooperation?
  • Short-term gain or long-term resilience?
  • Tools that amplify wisdom or exploit weakness?
  • Numbness or care in the face of suffering?

These are not luxuries. They are data.

Why This Thought Keeps Returning

This lens explains without oversimplifying:

  • Why intelligence does not guarantee morality.
  • Why progress and catastrophe grow together.
  • Why meaning feels fragile yet urgent.
  • Why the future feels open, not promised.

Most of all, it reframes a quiet truth:

We already live as if the outcome is unknown—
and that is where meaning lives.

A Final Thought

If this is a simulation, it is unfinished.
If unfinished, your presence is not accidental.

The experiment requires participation.

So live accordingly:

  • Not waiting to be rescued.
  • Not optimizing for applause.
  • Not sleepwalking through borrowed beliefs.

Live aware that your attention, choices, and values are part of something larger than you.
Simulation or not, that awareness changes everything—
and perhaps that is the real test.

Picks for you

The AI Race Is Not a Technology Race

The AI Race Is Not a Technology Race

The AI race is often framed as a competition of intelligence, models, and algorithms, but this essay argues that it is fundamentally an energy allocation problem hidden beneath a narrative of innovation. AI scales not like software but like heavy industry, consuming vast amounts of electricity and triggering political, social, and infrastructural constraints that code alone cannot solve. The real bottlenecks are not technical breakthroughs, but governance issues such as permitting, grid capacity, public consent, and price stability. In this context, energy geopolitics matter less for directly powering servers and more for creating political slack, cushioning public backlash, and making controversial reallocations of power socially tolerable. The true strategic challenge is not building smarter machines, but justifying why machines should receive scarce energy before people, and doing so without eroding trust or legitimacy. If the AI era succeeds, it will be because societies align energy, politics, and meaning through a story people can live inside; if it fails, it will be because that bargain is rejected.

Read more
2026 and the Return of the Whole Mind

2026 and the Return of the Whole Mind

As we move toward 2026, many of us are sensing a quiet imbalance. We think faster, consume more information, and rely heavily on analysis, yet feel less grounded, less certain, and more disconnected from ourselves. This essay argues that the problem is not thinking itself, but thinking in isolation. For decades, logic, efficiency, and control have been rewarded while intuition, emotion, imagination, and embodied knowing were sidelined. AI now exposes this imbalance by outperforming humans in pure analysis, making it clear that competing on cognition alone is a dead end. What remains distinctly human is the ability to sense context, notice subtle signals, integrate feeling with reason, and act with timing rather than urgency. Burnout, anxiety, and chronic overthinking are framed not as weaknesses but as signals of misalignment, where inner intelligence has been ignored too long. The future will favor integrated minds, people who can think clearly while also listening inwardly, adapting without panic, and making meaning from lived experience. The return of the whole mind is not nostalgia or softness, but a necessary evolution: a widening of intelligence that allows humans to partner with technology without losing themselves.

Read more
Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is explains how fear can grow even when reality stays relatively stable. Most of what we believe about crime and immigration does not come from direct experience but from repeated images, clips, and headlines designed to capture attention. The human brain uses a shortcut called the availability heuristic, it assumes that what comes to mind easily must be common. In a media environment where rare but extreme incidents are replayed endlessly, exposure replaces frequency, and repetition starts to feel like evidence. Immigration becomes a perfect container for this fear because it is complex, emotional, and easy to turn into a story with faces and villains. Long-term data often shows a calmer picture than our instincts suggest, but fear moves faster than context. The essay argues that critical thinking is not about dismissing fear, but about pausing inside it and asking whether our feelings reflect reality or visibility. When we hold that pause, understanding has room to return, and attention becomes a responsibility rather than a reflex.

Read more
Emotion as Navigation

Emotion as Navigation

Emotion as Navigation argues that emotions are not irrational reactions or inner verdicts, but feedback signals that indicate how our current reality relates to an underlying goal. We do not perceive the world neutrally and then feel about it; perception, emotion, and action form a single system oriented toward movement and adjustment. Positive emotions signal alignment, while negative emotions signal friction, misalignment, or outdated assumptions. Problems arise when we treat emotions as authority instead of information, or when the goals guiding our lives remain unexamined. Critical thinking does not suppress emotion, it interprets it by asking what aim the feeling is responding to and whether that aim still deserves commitment. When emotions are read as data rather than commands, they become a navigational compass rather than a source of confusion. A meaningful life, then, is not emotionally smooth but directionally coherent, guided by alignment rather than by the pursuit or avoidance of feelings themselves.

Read more
Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI argues that the real risk of AI is not incorrect answers, but how its speed, clarity, and confidence interact with human cognitive biases. Our minds rely on shortcuts designed for efficiency, and AI amplifies these shortcuts by making information feel complete, authoritative, and easy to trust. Biases shape what we notice, how we judge probability, how we commit to decisions, and how emotion quietly leads reasoning, often without awareness. Critical thinking today does not mean rejecting AI or eliminating bias, but slowing down enough to recognize when judgment is being bent by familiarity, confidence, framing, or emotional ease. As AI accelerates information flow, human responsibility shifts toward interpretation, verification, and self-awareness. When we notice our own thinking habits, AI remains a tool; when we do not, it quietly becomes the driver.

Read more
Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention argues that we do not experience the world as inherently good or bad, but as helpful or obstructive relative to an often unexamined aim. Our attention, emotions, and moral judgments are shaped by the direction we are moving in, not by neutral facts. What accelerates our path feels “good,” what slows it feels “bad,” even though neither quality exists on its own. This is why people can react morally in opposite ways to the same event, they are oriented toward different goals. The danger arises when the aim itself remains invisible, because alignment then masquerades as virtue and resistance as evil. Critical thinking begins by asking what aim is generating a reaction, not by defending the reaction itself. When we examine direction before judgment, we regain freedom to question whether speed equals progress, whether friction equals harm, and whether what feels urgent actually leads somewhere meaningful.

Read more
Simulation Took Over Reality

Simulation Took Over Reality

Simulation Took Over Reality explores how modern life has quietly shifted from lived experience to representations of experience, a condition Jean Baudrillard called simulation. We no longer relate to reality directly but through signs, images, profiles, brands, and narratives that increasingly reference each other instead of anything real. Photos shape how life should look, information arrives faster than reflection, and meaning collapses under constant immediacy. In this hyperreal world, feeling real replaces being real, performance replaces identity, and symbols become more powerful than substance. Simulation succeeds not because it is false, but because it is optimized for attention, desire, and speed. The essay does not argue for escaping the system, but for awareness within it: noticing moments that do not perform, experiences without an audience, and forms of presence that resist translation into content. The danger is not living inside simulation, but forgetting that we do, and mistaking the copy for life itself.

Read more

Comments

Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…