The real reason I make all these references is because life as we know it is a simulation. No, I don’t mean we’re a matrix style computer-generated reality. Though it’s possible, that’s not what was meant the first time it was said, and that’s not what I mean now. I mean to imply exactly what was meant the first time. An unarguable point that we are a simulation. We live in an echo chamber of other’s lives. Almost everything we’ve ever heard or been told comes from another's lips and experiences. Often, we don't have any real evidence we discovered ourselves. Even more to the detail, how often are we sure the evidence gathered is acquired through proper techniques? What's the highest reference you've looked at in the last month? Maybe an article with a half second "okay" because it was on google scholar, at best. Are we sure this causation and correlation are tied together and not just both pointing to the magnetic north the scientist was heading towards? Most of us don’t conduct double-blind experiments in our spare time to gather unbiased evidence and show true un-anecdotal evidence that is falsifiable. This is probably well understood by you by now, or it was before, or it'll come in ten seconds. *Michael reaches for a high five after his favorite catch phrase, and mutters under his breath T.W.S.S.*
So as we are now debating in our heads how often we actually get "true" evidence. The stuff we don't have to attribute to one cause or another. The answers without any existing sides we’ve constructed for bias, for even the most scientific person, is closer to zero than it is one percent of the time.
I’m not saying the evidence we hear from others is always wrong. When your mother told you the stove was hot, don’t touch, she wasn’t lying. This happens for most common sense knowledge. Most of our realities overlap enough for this to be true for almost all of us. However, thanks to a study by Marian Diamond and many to follow, we know the spectators don't acquire everything the "super" or participant does. So how do we really learn if we don't have the time to map our neurons for each individual task? How do we keep our life as little of a simulation as possible? That's kinda the thing, we don't. We can't.
One of the great western philosophers said "there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep", and goes on to conclude that "It is possible that I am dreaming right now and that all of my perceptions are false". When Descartes said this it was long before computing was discussed in the microchip style it's best known for today. He meant the fact that because we can never see through one another's eyes, that we can never tell if our reality is a lie struck against comparisons like we would in any other form of science, the best thing to assume was in-provably false. Once they became a thing, before the Matrix movie, that's where people added computers in.
Believe in science, religion, stars, yourself, or nothing. They all overlap here. They overlap with energy, frequency, and vibrations. We have proven in one experiment that the universe is sewn together by an unseen observable energy. In the same experiment, we have proven that a single particle or particles can change the way it’s supposed to behave or predicted to behave just by being observed (Double slit experiment). So with the Uncertainty principle (Thanks Heisenberg) we know what is being observed is changed behavior and what we observe is not nature. So how do we expect ourselves to react? How do we expect be held to, react accordingly, react accordingly whilst being observed by oneself and by others? How do we react in line with our astrology signs, what others have implied, your own thoughts, religion, or the energy that surrounds you in your setting? Truth is we don't. Truth is we can't. Truth is this is where we can start.
People wanna pretend like we have a lot of differences. Humans are just overlapping bell curves. Anyone who says humans are doing”___” Has never met a human. Humans are mostly the same but always different, and forever changing. See meta study starting in 1950's for a group in Sweden. They show personality changes in everyone's eyes, even our own, over the time frame of our lives. (Also shits on most psych studies.) The stuff that aligns all sorts of shit like this. The stuff that will have been labeled quantum and metaphysics by people who can't really grasp. We're unpredictable to a degree as any individual, yet, we are predictable to any degree as part of a large enough population. The stuff we don't even kind of understand. So we can't prove that life isn't a simulation, that we haven't been created by a computer, a god, or something with a higher purpose. Evidence for, or against, may all be relative, as it all is. The point is all we have in common in our inert definition of what reality is. Even for the most different humans on the planet, they still have all but two percent of the things that same. With this known, with this being the underlying factor in all of life, we can just imagine in how many different directions one could grow from the small starting point of what we do know. What we do know is we will never interpret something exactly the same as another. We know that all of the unpredictability in life is the difference in this two percent*. We know we can start by understanding we won't understand everything. We can't. We can only move forward, for no matter what our beliefs we must understand that everyone see's it differently. This difference is what makes life a simulation. It's a simulation as it was originally described, for sure. The other forms or kinds of simulations it may or may not be, you must understand, we're all different. That's up to the individuals interpretation.
* There is two percent delta in the total number of DNA sequences at the largest measurable difference in humans. The largest difference is all within Africa in its different parts.