Glitch in the Matrix: Discussing Perceptual Anomalies in Simulated Humans
Crawling, squinting, the dweller of Plato’s cave ambles out of a crevice and into the light. As he examines this newly discovered domain, his mind is for the first time confronted with a vaguely tense of absurd tension; a question – an unconscious, nagging question – was beginning to arise in him: what is the difference between the world I’ve been experiencing and the real world? Society’s outpouring of historical attempts to answer this question comprise a major portion of the academic literature on metaphysics and epistemology. One new way this tension presents itself in the 21st century is the growing fascination with the possibility that the human race inhabits an artificial computer simulation. In popular culture, films like those in the Matrix franchise have popularized the notion that the world around us could be manufactured by a futuristic supercomputer. As technology and artificial intelligence experience rapid innovation, the concept has become more and more plausible for the general public. In 2003, Oxford Philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” in which he proposes a fascinating assertion that it is likely that most human experience exists inside a simulation. I outline below a very specific selected passage from the introduction to “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”:
“[What is needed] to get a realistic simulation of human experience” is only “whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities … should any error occur [on the part of the super computer] before it spoils the simulation” (Bostrom p.5, 2003).
This passage alone could give birth to a thousand different philosophy papers; however, my research focuses on the concept of ‘irregularities’ or ‘anomalies’ with the potential to ‘spoil’ the simulation by making the simulated human suspicious that its universe may be artificial. These anomalies could be anything from noticing an inconsistent microscopic arrangement in a cell mechanism to realizing the moon should be in a different phase, to an unlimited list of others.
Bostrom sees such irregularities as a non-issue because of the processing power of future computers. Specifically, he remarks that the director of the simulation could simply rewind and edit the experience to exclude the anomaly. What still concerns us here, though, is the question of whether such irregularities that would trigger awareness in a simulated human actually exist; additionally, if they do exist, how can we conduct a philosophical study of these experiences? History is full of examples of people and groups agreeing to replace one system of values for another: religious conversions, scientific paradigm shifts like the adoption of the Copernican model of the solar system, metaphysical arguments like Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, etc…; therefore, it is incumbent upon us to investigate what the wholesale exchange looks like from human belief in an earthly existence to human belief in a simulated existence.
My instinct inclines me to believe that the human mind does a mountain of work every moment to turn our singular, meaningless perceptions into a systematic world that makes sense. All of this work endows us with a continuous personal identity and turns the absurdity of the lived world into an ordered existence. Thus, I assert that when confronted with any of a series of perceptual irregularities, the simulated human mind will always work to make the anomaly make sense. The mechanisms at work in the mind manifest themselves in the creation of scientific methods of inquiry, religious beliefs, and beliefs strengthened by repeated demonstration. From this we see that when I am confronted with an anomaly, my mind will find an explanation that consists of my worldly experiences, stopping short of the conclusion that I must be in a simulation. I might simply ignore an anomaly. I might submit it to a rigorous scientific method where it has the chance to be duplicated, verified and become a part of reality or else be dismissed. My religious faith may grow stronger or weaker after experiencing a given anomaly; however, it is relatively unlikely that I conclude from a perceptual anomaly that I am simulated.
Let me illustrate this claim by examining four hypothetical classes of anomalies and running them against the logic of some major works of philosophy. Here’s how we can quickly define these four categories: run them through the logic of some major works of Western philosophy. The proposed classes of anomaly are still in development, but they will be roughly as follows:
Unobserved Anomalies: many anomalies in a simulation would surely go unnoticed. This could include a shadow of a building forming at a slightly incorrect angle in relation to the sun, or any number of irregularities at the microscopic, macroscopic or otherwise improbably observed level. This could also be something as simple as a person’s fingerprint pattern changing slightly on one finger at some point in time, or ashes coming off of a log in a family fireplace landing in a pile arranged in a way which doesn’t reflect the accepted theorems of calculus and physics. It is impossible for Unobserved Anomalies to trigger awareness in a simulated human, but they will still be necessary to mention and admit to the system of anomalies because they are among the most numerous types one would expect in a realistic simulation of mankind.
2. Amateur-Observed Anomalies: Amateur-Observed Anomalies are named this way because they are scientific or mathematical irregularities experienced by a subject who lacks the scientific, mathematical or philosophical expertise to adequately investigate the anomaly according to the established laws of science. To take the example from above, this could include a person who works as a telephone salesman noticing that the ashes in his fireplace are piling up in a sort of strange way. He might have some instinct that there is something not right about the arrangement of the ashes, but he lacks the adequate knowledge, tools, and interest needed to conduct an adequate investigation of the anomaly he has observed. Another example is when a mother rocking her child to sleep looks out the window and recognizes that the sun is setting a little more slowly than it ought to be at this time of year. Alternatively, one could consider a student in grade seven looking at a plant cell in a microscope and noticing that one of the cell membranes is not arranged in the way that it is depicted in the models and textbooks, or that the chlorophyll is oval-shaped, rather than spherical. The student would most likely neither be equipped nor inspired to do anything with this observation, and it is even less likely that such an observation would arouse suspicion that the seventh-grader lives in a simulated universe.
3. Expert-Observed Anomalies: Expert-Observed Anomalies differ from Amateur-Observed Anomalies only in the coincidence of their observer, i.e. the simulated subject experiencing the irregularity. In these cases, an expert in a field of science, mathematics or logic experiences the anomaly, and submits it to what the modern world will deem an ‘adequate investigation’ by submitting the anomaly to the rigors of the scientific method. The amount of attention and validation subsequently given to that anomaly corresponds with the amount of success the anomaly has in the scientific community. Can it be duplicated? How well can it be explained in a way that fits our picture of science and reason? An astrophysicist beholding the same slow sunset as the above example has a lot more power to investigate the anomaly than the non-physicist mother rocking her baby to sleep. The key here is that the people with the most power to investigate perceptual anomalies are also the people with the strongest drive to incorporate those anomalies into a logical system. Both the expert and the amateur have an equal capacity to ignore an anomaly, but certain scientific anomalies may challenge the worldview of an expert more than that of an amateur. Thus, the expert may have to do more before discharging an anomaly as unimportant. If the anomaly is thoroughly investigated, duplicated and able to be predicted, then it may enter the highest ranks of modern reality: scientific fact. The anomaly becomes a paradigm-shifting discovery on which future systems of science and truth will be built. In the more likely outcomes the inquiry into the anomaly will end up buried in the ever-growing pile of discontinued scientific investigations. It is unlikely that the expert will conclude -- after adequate investigation -- that he has found himself to be in a simulation. The likelihood of an anomaly being investigated by an expert in such a way that the conclusion is the universe’s simulated nature, then, seems quite small. This conclusion illuminates one of the central philosophical claims of my research: that our perceptions of reality form from our physical and scientific worldviews, and these worldviews are conditioned by innumerous theoretical presuppositions.
4. Absurd/Total Anomalies: Absurd/Total Anomalies can be understood as irregularities which go past the mathematical or scientific. Total Anomalies violate the perceptual laws that our minds build in an attempt to combat the absurdity of lived existence. A Total or Absurd Anomaly is something that goes against the law of cause and effect that allows us to draw comfort from the repetition of things we perceive. Examples would include waking in the morning to find that the sun is rising in the west, finding that the pure H₂O in your pot boils at 20°C rather than 100°C, or that the ashes from the log in the family fire begin floating in mid air rather than falling in a mathematically curious pattern. While anomalies of this kind instinctually seem the most likely to trigger awareness of a simulated environment, it is also instinctual that most such anomalies would still have some rational or scientific explanation in our world; that’s not all: even if there is not a rational or scientific explanation available, both amateurs and experts would search passionately for one. They would do whatever it takes to make it make sense. Rather than conclude that all of reality leading up to the moment of the anomaly has been false, the simulated subject will most likely remark, “Ah, so this is reality now”
Since they don’t fit our ordered picture of the universe, people who don’t experience Absurd Anomalies firsthand will always label them as hallucinations, lies or the results of misremembering. The social tolerance for experiences which do not fit the ordered picture of existence is very low. Thus, the chances that someone would be able to adequately investigate any Absurd/Total Anomaly in a simulated environment are quite low. Why? Because Absurd/Total Anomalies have no reasonable explanation except the truth: an error occurred in the computer simulating the world. Any investigation which doesn’t reach this conclusion will be conducted with a flawed understanding; further, the conclusion that some previously unexplained phenomenon is the result of an error in our computer code will never be an adequately rational one in our social or scientific world. When considering these two facts together, it seems no investigation into a simulated anomaly could be called ‘adequate.’
The inefficacy of anomalies to trigger simulation awareness is supported implicitly by the skeptical argumentation of David Hume. He claims there is a flaw in the way humans construct beliefs: We perceive that there are reliable, causal relationships between observations of past outcomes and expectations of future outcomes. Why is this a flaw? According to Hume, we put unwarranted trust in results which have simply been habitually repeated over time. There is seemingly nothing barring our habitual physical and perceptual phenomena from becoming completely different at some point in the future. There is no reason that just because the sun has always risen in the east, we should feel assured that it won’t rise in the west tomorrow. If it did rise in the west tomorrow, would a natural law have been violated? Now we see that our perceptual reality is constructed through the decision to trust a flawed axiom: that there is a truly causal relationship between what has usually happened and what will happen. By understanding this, we can understand that Absurd/Total Anomalies would disrupt our experience in a different way than we might expect. The experience of a Total Anomaly would not dissolve the entire construct of our existence; instead, it might initiate a moment in time during which our law of cause and effect in nature was challenged. In other words, the experience might lead simulated subjects to realize that they were mistaken to have put so much trust in the habitually repeated events of the past. The implications of such a realization would necessarily alter the human understanding of what is possible in our reality rather than what our reality could be. Thus, it is unlikely that a member of our species would conclude that he/she is simulated simply because her previous notion of cause and effect was proven inadequate. The turnover and replacement of one belief with another is the mechanism of progress in our world. Thus, she may be led to believe that she now needs to establish an entire new system of beliefs based on a different truth value, but what she won’t conclude is that this new system should include the belief that her universe is simulated.
Having established a set of hypothetical anomalies, readers and philosophers alike can put these anomalies through the belief-system of whatever metaphysical authority they choose. The truth is that while many people experience strong inclinations that their experience is simulated, very few will provide experience-based evidence that can’t be explained by reason. We see this in the way that public figures and social media have taken hold of the simulation conversation. Controversial Tesla CEO and notable tech futurist Elon Musk has said many times that the odds of our civilization existing within the original human reality are close to zero. Mass phenomena like the “Mandela Effect,” in which a great many people with no apparent connections all share common flawed memories, have led many individuals to assert that their existence is simulated by a super computer. Even with experiences like these, from which so many people infer that their experience may be simulated, the rational mind attributes this easily to confirmation bias, a solid psychological phenomenon. Thus, even an anomaly experienced by millions of people, in this case a vivid but false memory of Nelson Mandela, can be explained by the basic socio-psychological constructs that come with human experience.
So, if we can never come to meaningful awareness that we live in a simulation, what is the import of my investigation? Well, the fact remains that we have ample reason to doubt key features of our worldview: our perceptions of the nature of things, the reliability of scientific inquiry to yield knowledge of reality, and the innumerous psychological biases in human experience all give rise to reasonable uncertainty. It would be an important step toward meaningful understanding of our universe if we came to understand the power that these psychological and metaphysical biases have over our perceptions. Plus, if you have an inkling that you may be living in a computer simulation, wouldn’t you like to know whether or not you could ever prove it? Conversely, if you’re sick of hearing about the simulation hypothesis, wouldn’t you like to be able to effectively argue that nobody could ever prove it? In the face of these momentous doubts, what, if anything, can we point to and call “real”? I, for one, would like to find out.
