Do Not Adjust Your Mind, There’s a Fault in Reality Philosophy: The Cosmic Glitch Hypothesis as a Satirical Response to The Simulation Hypothesis, #1.
By Joseph Wayne Smith, Saxon J. Smith, and N. Stocks
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. A Critique of the Bostrom Simulation Argument
3. Other Work on The Simulation Hypothesis
4. Part A: The Glitch Hypothesis
5. Part B: The Absurdity of Section 4 and Professional Academic Philosophy
The essay below will be published in four installments: this one, the first, contains sections 1–2.
But if you want to download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay, including the REFERENCES, then scroll down to the bottom of this post and click on the Download tab.
***
Do Not Adjust Your Mind, There’s a Fault in Reality Philosophy: The Cosmic Glitch Hypothesis as a Satirical Response to The Simulation Hypothesis, #1
1. Introduction
According to some “enlightened” contemporary philosophers/physicists, we are inside a cosmic neural net (God?), the entire universe (multiverse?) being such a network, more fundamental than quantum mechanics and general relativity (Vanchurin, 2020). Others believe that the universe is a computer of sorts (Pagels, 1988; Wolfram, 2002; Lloyd, 2004; Chaitin, 2005), even a cosmic quantum computer (Chandler, 2023), perhaps involving peer-to-peer “video gaming” and other “kool kid” things (Arvan, 2013; Virk, 2019). F.J. Tipler, in The Physics of Immortality wrote: “How do we know we ourselves are not merely a simulation inside a gigantic computer? Obviously, we can’t know” (Tipler, 1994: p. 207). Versions of this idea have also appeared in popular fiction, with the film The Matrix (1999) and its spin-offs being notable examples.
As far as professional academic philosophy goes, the focus of discussion stems from a 2003 paper by Nick Bostrom published in The Philosophical Quarterly (Bostrom, 2003). He did not directly argue that we are in a simulation, but proposed what he believed was a logical trilemma which he called the “simulation argument.” Allegedly, one of the three following propositions is true:
(i) “The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulation) is very close to zero.” Or:
(ii) “The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero.”
Or:
(iii) “The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.”
Proposition (iii) entails that those having the technology to conduct such simulations have provably already done so, so we are most likely in a simulation. Central to Bostrom’s argument is the assumption that posthumans/aliens, or whatever, would have vast amounts of computer power to conduct such a simulation, and that they are super-skilled programmers. Thus, there is no “glitch in the Matrix” (Bostrom, 2008).
In this essay, we undertake a critique of The Simulation Hypothesis. We propose that, contrary to Bostrom and most other philosophers/physicists who entertain such absurdities, a more “reasonable” cosmic hypothesis is The Glitch Hypothesis, which holds that the universe is a simulation, but by sub-standard cosmic programmers, who have left numerous errors in their creation. These errors or glitches constitute the hard problems and paradoxes of philosophy and physics. We show that unlike the Bostrom simulations, The Glitch Hypothesis is falsifiable, while most philosophers hold that The Simulation Hypothesis is unfalsifiable, but metaphysically meaningful. Hence as far as one entertains The Simulation Hypothesis, The Glitch Hypothesis is preferable. However, in a twist, we flip the narrative in Part B of the paper, and use this as an example of one of the fundamental things wrong with professional academic philosophy, rejecting not only our previous argument, but the type of professional/academic philosophical thinking that produces such material.
But first, we will make some critical remarks about the Bostrom simulation hypothesis and some related works in that tradition.
2. A Critique of the Bostrom Simulation Argument
Right from the beginning there’s a problem with Bostrom’s simulation argument: {(i), (ii), (iii)} is not actually a trilemma. It’s entirely possible — indeed plausible — that none of these statements are true, or that (i) or (ii) could be true, while (iii) is false. And once we look closely at the assumptions propping up each proposition, the entire structure collapses under its own speculative weight.
A proper trilemma means that exactly one of the three options must be true. But Bostrom’s three propositions are not mutually exclusive, nor do they exhaust the logical space. Indeed, (i) and (ii) are far more likely than (iii), supported by evidence of extinction risks and the improbability of advanced civilizations simulating primitive ancestors. By dismantling Bostrom’s framework, we open the door to our own (satirical) Glitch Hypothesis, detailed below, which explains reality’s quirks as coding errors rather than cosmic design.
Thus, Bostrom’s trilemma assumes that at least one proposition of {(i), (ii), (iii)} must hold, but this is not logically necessary. A civilization could develop simulation technology but use it for non-ancestral purposes, like scientific modelling or abstract simulations, bypassing (iii). Alternatively, simulations might lack conscious beings, rendering the statistical argument moot. The probability-based claim that we’re likely simulated, relies on unverified assumptions about advanced civilizations’ capabilities and motivations. Instead, real-world evidence supports (i) and (ii). Extinction risks, from environmental collapse to technological disasters, suggest civilizations may not survive to create simulations. Meanwhile, a very few super-advanced societies who do survive, would likely see simulating their primitive past as a wasteful endeavor, akin to us coding a Stone Age simulator.
2.1 Extinction Risks: The Case for Proposition (i)
Proposition (i) — that civilizations go extinct before achieving simulation technology — is strongly supported by empirical evidence, accepting an anthropological bias, which is all we have, not knowing if any extra-terrestrial civilizations even exist. Earth’s history shows that 99.9% of species eventually perish, often due to environmental shifts or resource depletion, as seen in the fossil record. Human civilization faces similar existential threats: climate change, for example, with global temperatures projected to rise 2.5–3°C by 2100 per IPCC reports, threatens food security, biodiversity and coastal regions. Nuclear stockpiles, exceeding 12,000 warheads globally, risk catastrophic conflict. Emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence or synthetic biology, introduce new dangers, as noted by cautionary experts like Eliezer Yudkowsky. These factors make it plausible that most civilizations collapse before developing the computational power — potentially requiring quantum computers far beyond current capabilities — to simulate conscious beings. The Fermi Paradox, the absence of detectable alien civilizations, reinforces this, suggesting extinction or stagnation is common. Bostrom’s assumption of technological inevitability overlooks these barriers, making (i) a robust alternative.
2.2 The Great Filter and Developmental Bottlenecks
Robin Hanson’s “Great Filter” concept suggests there are critical evolutionary/ technological barriers that prevent most life from reaching advanced civilization (Hanson,1998). Evidence points to multiple potential filters: the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes took 2 billion years on Earth, suggesting this step is extraordinarily rare. The Cambrian explosion and development of complex multicellular life represent additional bottlenecks that most planets likely never overcome.
2.3 Resource Depletion and Civilizational Collapse
Historical examples like Easter Island, the Maya, and the (West) Roman Empire, demonstrate how even sophisticated societies collapse due to resource overexploitation and environmental degradation, and social decay. Modern civilization faces unprecedented challenges: topsoil depletion (losing 24 billion tons annually), freshwater aquifer exhaustion, and critical mineral scarcity for renewable energy infrastructure. The phosphorus crisis alone — with peak phosphorus projected by 2030–2040 — could trigger agricultural collapse, and global famine.
2.4 Technological Self-Destruction Windows
Each new technology opens potential extinction pathways. Nanotechnology could enable grey goo scenarios, biotechnology allows engineered pandemics and mass killer viruses, and artificial general intelligence presents alignment problems that could eliminate humanity within decades of development. The “window of vulnerability” between developing dangerous technologies and learning to control them may be too narrow for most civilizations to navigate successfully.
2.5 Energy and Computational Barriers
The computational requirements for conscious ancestor simulations are staggering. Simulating a single human brain requires approximately 10¹⁶-10¹⁷ operations per second. A civilization-scale simulation would demand energy resources comparable to stellar output — a Kardashev Type II civilization minimum. Most civilizations likely never reach even Type I status before facing extinction.
2.6 No Interest in Simulating Primitives: The Strength of Proposition (ii)
Proposition (ii) — that advanced civilizations lack interest in running ancestor simulations — is equally compelling. A super-advanced society, capable of simulating universes, would likely prioritize intellectually or practically valuable projects over recreating their primitive past. Imagine humans in 10, 025, with interstellar travel and fusion energy, choosing to simulate 18th-century farmers or hunter-gatherers! Such an endeavor would seem trivial, like coding a game about ancient tool-making. Advanced civilizations might instead simulate future scenarios, optimize resource use, or explore abstract mathematical models, which offer greater utility. Ethical concerns could also deter simulations: recreating conscious beings to endure historical suffering — war, disease, poverty — might be deemed unethical, similar to modern bans on animal testing. Even if simulations exist, they might not include consciousness, as non-conscious models would suffice for historical analysis, undermining Bostrom’s (iii). The immense computational cost of simulating billions of conscious minds further suggests such projects would be low-priority, making (ii) highly plausible.
2.7 The Anthropocentric Fallacy
Bostrom’s argument assumes advanced civilizations would remain interested in their biological origins, but this reflects anthropocentric thinking. Post-biological civilizations — likely digital consciousnesses or AI-human hybrids — might view their biological ancestors the way we view prokaryotes: historically interesting, but hardly worthy of detailed simulation. Their cognitive architecture and values would be so transformed that ancestor worship becomes meaningless.
2.8 Computational Opportunity Cost
Advanced civilizations face infinite potential uses for computational resources: modelings stellar engineering projects, simulating potential future scenarios, exploring mathematical universes, or optimizing galactic colonization strategies. Simulating the mundane daily lives of primitive ancestors represents an enormous opportunity cost. It’s like using a supercomputer to run Pong instead of modelling climate change.
2.9 The Observer Effect Problem
If advanced beings are simulating us for research purposes, then they face the observer effect dilemma: detailed observation changes the system being studied. A truly accurate ancestor simulation would require non-interference, making it essentially useless for understanding how their civilization developed. This undermines the primary justification for running such simulations in the first place.
2.10 Post-Scarcity Ethics
Truly advanced civilizations would likely develop sophisticated ethical frameworks around consciousness creation. Creating billions of conscious beings destined to experience historical suffering, disease, and death for entertainment or curiosity would be considered deeply unethical — equivalent to creating sentient beings solely for torture. Post-scarcity societies would have little tolerance for such cruelty.
2.11 The Simulation Hierarchy Problem
If we’re in a simulation, our simulated scientists might create their own simulations, creating infinite recursive layers. This creates computational impossibility: each layer requires exponentially more resources from the base reality. Advanced civilizations would recognize this infinite regress problem and avoid ancestor simulations entirely.
2.12 Information Saturation
Advanced civilizations would already possess complete information about their development through archaeological records, genetic analysis, and predictive modelling. Additional simulations would provide diminishing returns on investment, making them computationally wasteful.
Points 2.1 to 2.12 collectively make Bostrom’s conclusion (iii) even less tenable, by demonstrating that both extinction before simulation capability and lack of interest in ancestor simulation are far more probable than his statistical argument suggests.
***
AGAINST PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHY REDUX 1041
Mr Nemo, W, X, Y, & Z, Monday 29 September 2025
Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.
Please consider becoming a patron!
