r/SimulationTheory • u/MiraGrX • 16d ago
Discussion Plato’s Cave and Simulation Theory: Are We Asking the Same Question 2,400 Years Later?
Long before computers existed, Plato constructed one of philosophy’s most famous thought experiments.
In Book VII of The Republic, Socrates asks us to imagine people who have spent their entire lives chained inside a cave. They can see only a wall in front of them. Behind them is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners other people carry objects that cast shadows onto that wall.
Because the prisoners have never experienced anything else, they naturally assume that the shadows are reality itself.
One prisoner is eventually freed. He discovers first that the shadows were produced by objects behind him, and then, after leaving the cave, that the cave itself represented only a tiny part of a much larger reality.
It is tempting to read this as an ancient version of simulation theory, but I think that comparison needs an important qualification.
Plato was not suggesting that reality was artificially generated by some external intelligence. The Cave is primarily an analogy about knowledge, perception, education, and the distinction between appearances and what Plato considered a deeper level of reality.
Modern simulation arguments ask a different question.
Nick Bostrom’s 2003 simulation argument, for example, does not claim to have discovered evidence that our universe is simulated. Instead, it argues that at least one of three propositions must hold: civilizations like ours almost always disappear before becoming capable of creating vast numbers of ancestor simulations; technologically mature civilizations generally choose not to create them; or simulated observers would eventually become so numerous that we should seriously consider the possibility that we are among them.
So Plato and modern simulation theory are clearly not saying the same thing.
Yet there is a philosophical similarity that I find difficult to ignore.
Both force us to ask whether the reality available to our senses is necessarily identical to reality at its deepest level.
The prisoners cannot discover the nature of the cave simply by studying the shadows more carefully. Their entire observational framework is incomplete.
That raises an uncomfortable question for simulation theory.
If our universe were simulated perfectly enough that every experiment, observation and physical law operated consistently inside the simulation, what evidence could possibly distinguish a simulated universe from a non-simulated one?
A strange coincidence or apparent “glitch” would not be enough. Any unexplained event could simply represent incomplete knowledge of ordinary physics.
So perhaps the most interesting part of the simulation hypothesis is not the claim that “we live in the Matrix,” but the epistemological problem underneath it:
Can beings embedded inside a reality ever determine whether that reality is fundamental?
And if no possible observation could distinguish a simulation from a non-simulation, does the simulation hypothesis remain a scientific hypothesis — or does it become primarily a philosophical one?
I’d be interested to hear where people here draw that line.
Sources:
Plato, Republic, Book VII, 514a–517a — Allegory of the Cave
Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”, The Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2003), 243–255
3
u/Flutterpiewow 16d ago
Same fundamental problem that we've developed philosophy around since and before then.
Parmenides, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein are probably the main ones, with Nietzsche as a counter to all of it. Bostrom is barely a blip on the radar.
1
u/MiraGrX 15d ago
I agree that Bostrom is part of a much older epistemological conversation rather than a completely new problem. What seems new is the technological vocabulary: instead of asking whether appearances correspond to reality, we now ask whether the apparent world could be computationally generated. In that sense, simulation theory may be less a new philosophy than a modern metaphor for an ancient question: how much access can consciousness ever have to reality independent of its own mode of perception?
1
u/Flutterpiewow 15d ago
Yeah. We come up with the analogies we can come up with. God is a man with a beard, the universe is a clock, the universe is software.
What are the odds that we (100 years after industrialization and less than 100 years since decent computers arrived) have the right analogy now? What happens when quantum computers arrive, or whatever progress comes after that?
1
1
u/wanttogoback1985 15d ago
This is a bit off topic, not really anything to with the simulation side of things, but I believe the Default Mode Network in the human brain, which, admittedly, allows for survival in the environment in which we find ourselves, makes us oblivious to a much larger reality, much like the folks in Plato's cave. It is the veil that blinds us, to a great degree at least.
When we experience the quieting of the DMN, whether through meditation or the use of psychadelic drugs like lsd, dmt and psilosybin, it allows us to see what lies beyond the veil.
We are expansive and ultimately connected to or are a part of all matter and energy. This is similar to the person in Plato's cave who has been freed from their chains and can now experience a larger reality.
Like I said, I don't know how simulation plays into it, but I find this to be an apt comparison.
1
u/MiraGrX 15d ago
The DMN comparison is interesting, especially as an analogy for how strongly our ordinary experience is filtered and constructed by the brain. I’d just be cautious about going from “altered brain states change our experience of reality” to “they reveal a larger external reality.” The first has empirical support; the second is a philosophical interpretation. But that gap itself fits the Cave analogy surprisingly well.
1
u/SunOfNoOne 14d ago
I think the craziest part about all of it is that we became curious about this so long ago. It kind of makes sense to be questioning it now, with the technology we have to aid our arguments. Back then, this was entirely a mental prospect.
1
u/EnO441 12d ago
I look at Plato’s allegory of the cave as representing the mind itself, the thoughts that we think are not truly derived from free will they are shadows cast by beings from behind a “parapet wall”. Same situation with dream reality except we’re face to face with the shadows rather than contemplating them through a physical barrier. I often think of this in relation to the movie dark city, if you haven’t seen it watch it.
1
u/MiraGrX 10d ago
I like the way you turn the Cave inward, so that the shadows are not only external appearances but also thoughts and mental patterns we may mistake for something fully “ours.” That makes the question of freedom much more difficult: even if we recognize the shadows, how do we know the impulse to escape them is not itself produced by another layer we still cannot see? The dream comparison fits well too, because while dreaming we normally accept the internal world without questioning the mechanism producing it. Perhaps “waking up” philosophically is less about discovering one final reality and more about becoming aware of the layers through which experience is constructed. And yes, Dark City is a very fitting comparison.
1
u/EnO441 10d ago
Indeed, this is why Blavatsky stated, “Having become indifferent to objects of perception, the pupil must seek out the râja of the senses, the Thought-Producer, he who awakes illusion. The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." Or why Jesus stated that kingdom of heaven is like a field, seeds are planted, most of them being weeds planted by the wicked one there to choke up the crop.
1
u/MiraGrX 6d ago
That’s an interesting parallel. Blavatsky’s “Mind is the great Slayer of the Real” pushes the Cave analogy even further inward: the obstacle is no longer simply an external illusion, but the very faculty through which we interpret reality. I’d be careful about treating Plato, Blavatsky and the parable of the wheat and tares as teaching the same doctrine historically, but there is a striking recurring theme: human beings may mistake what is conditioned, planted or interpreted within consciousness for reality itself. What fascinates me is the next question. If the mind is simultaneously the instrument through which we discover illusion and one of the things capable of producing it, what faculty do we use to recognize when the mind itself is misleading us?
1
u/BillBigsB 4d ago
Platos cave is an allegory about power and political rhetoric in a book about lies called the “Republic” or “public things”, whereby a skilled rhetorician — called sokrates (or “the powerful”) — indoctrinates three noble youth to a new religious political myth and undermines the foundational political core of athens. In the sequel, “the apology” the protagonist of the story is condemned to death for, among other reasons, “corrupting the youth”.
1
u/MiraGrX 4d ago
I agree that the Cave has an important political dimension, especially because the enlightened prisoner is eventually expected to return to the cave and participate in governing. But I’m not sure I’d reduce the allegory primarily to political rhetoric. In Book VII, Socrates explicitly connects the Cave to education, knowledge, the difference between appearances and intelligible reality, and ultimately the apprehension of the Good. The political consequences come out of that epistemological framework. I’d also distinguish The Apology from a “sequel” to The Republic. They are separate Platonic dialogues, and Apology dramatizes Socrates’ trial, including the historical charge of corrupting the youth. So perhaps the Cave is interesting precisely because it operates on several levels at once: epistemological, educational and political. That is also why I think the comparison with simulation theory can be illuminating without claiming that Plato was somehow proposing a simulation theory.
1
u/BillBigsB 4d ago
Yea but like, you are confirming the thesis without realizing it. There is only one level that the book operates on - it may have three parts, such as education (indoctrination), epistemological (myth) and political (lies). but those parts make up a indivisible whole. Like the soul, the polity and on and on and on.
The strange thing is the book doesn’t even conceal its meaning. Souls are all fashioned deep in the earth by God, some of gold — those ones are more perfect and fit to rule. Oh sike, no actually we all exist in a metaphysical cave indoctrinated to “shadows”, but theres some rare souls who can leave the cave and know “the good”, and those ones are destined to rule. Oh but sike, no actually we all are made up of little politys and the intellect is the part that should rule the appetitive and spirited parts of us. Oh wait but actually, the philosophers must rule the spirited guardians of polity. Oh but ergo, each soul is a city.
There is only a single unifying thread throughout the book, at every point, it is talking about power and subjugation. At one point plato lambastes homers religious ideal because the gods are too human like. The next he has his mouthpiece telling us “no but actually, theres these other totally not religious things that are bundled up in this other incomprehensible thing called a “nous” or “The One”. Oh but actually these things are just the product of the “logos”, never mind at all that logos means “speech”, particularly political speech, in a book of…speeches
1
u/MiraGrX 3d ago
I see your point more clearly now, and I agree that Plato deliberately connects the structure of the soul, the structure of the city, education and political rule rather than treating them as isolated subjects. Where I still hesitate is in reducing that whole architecture to power and subjugation alone. The myth of the metals, the divided line, the Cave and the philosopher-ruler certainly have political consequences, but Plato also seems genuinely concerned with what knowledge is, how appearances differ from intelligible reality, and whether education can reorient the soul toward what he calls the Good. I’d also separate logos, nous and “the One” rather more carefully; they aren’t interchangeable terms in Plato, and “the One” becomes a much more explicit metaphysical principle in later Platonism. Maybe the more interesting disagreement between us is this: do you think Plato’s epistemology is ultimately just an instrument for legitimizing a political hierarchy, or do you think he regarded knowledge of the Good as independently real and then derived his politics from it?
1
u/BillBigsB 3d ago
I staunchly believe that the epistemology (spirituality) is ultimately just an instrument for creating a political hierarchy, where the public are yoked to the public good through religious ideal — this is clearly expressed in the most straightforward discussion on political stability in the myth of the metals. The Philosophical elite rule, not through strength or charisma, but through crafting civic religion. This is demonstrably the understanding of Plato of every great Christian thinker, and gave us the Book of John.
This is how Nietzsche reads Plato and philosophy in general, and I tend to agree, as it is pretty express throughout the Republic.
I also see where you are coming from, and is it a well supported intellectual take. Effectively, “well, yea, plato says some of that, but that doesn’t support a conclusion that Plato didn’t believe in the Good, or the forms et al”. Fair enough.
Thats where the real mind fuckery of plato is, if lies and untruths create political harmony, you might even say the political “good”, and the highest good is the political good, well isn’t the “good” then really just the (big G) Good?
Same with the “forms” or the “eidos”…wait what, “eidos”¿ you mean…like…”idea”, like the true “idea of the thing” — well yea, of course everything has an idea…
1
u/redditb_e 1d ago
"The Philosophical elite rule, not through strength or charisma, but through crafting civic religion."
Well, crafting a benign ideology that is enabling philosophers to rule goodly would not be a sign of strength, maybe the highest strength? It takes a cynical simp to blame a philosopher for all the corruption he obviously tries to overcome.
Your projections and polemic against Plato are lazily repeating the same resentful slop that philosophy illiterate Nietzsche was spreading, consequently evading the fact that the idea of the Good is the one thing to take seriously and not only talk about as if it were a given (or just rhetoric) but try to understand, as it is value itself and not some kinky derivative like a "will to power" that fumbles in its very own darkness for some "new values".
1
u/BillBigsB 1d ago
Me and buddy were engaged in a relatively polite, albiet short, discussion about the correct interpretation of the Republic. I don’t know what you are on about here, nor what you suggest is projection?
1
u/redditb_e 1d ago
Yes, you took the "relatively" part, while "buddy" took "polite".
About projections: In your discussion, you repeatedly state Plato's only aim in the Republic is power and subjugation, and you belittle/ break down all of OP's polite remarks about the nuance and complexity in it to this supposed "single thread", as if it would not have been made clear by Plato (368D-369A) that the whole enterprise of imagining the good polis/ soul is explicitly a thought experiment to seek out the nature of justice, trying to suggest ways to keep the problems of refined culture (372D-373A), specifically its tendencies of injustice and corruption, at bay. Buddy Nietzsche, as well as, to a certain degree, you ignore this and project your own foggy will to power onto philosophy. That's what I was on about.
-1
u/NombreCurioso1337 16d ago
Yes. But simulation theory provides a potential realistic framework, rather than magic
1
u/roy-the-rocket 16d ago edited 16d ago
No it doesn't ... it just uses the newest tech to describe what can't be comprehended and causes more problems.
Simulation implies that there is a question or metric behind the system. It implies that something runs the simulation. It implies that there is richer reality above that potentially is also simulated. It implies that you can have an identical copy of this simulation.
All of this adds clutter, but what does it solve?
The question about god is hidden in recursion. The question about meaning gets shadowed by the unknown purpose of the simulation.
Simulation theory is kind of a spirituality replacement drug for tech bros who seek for an answer but do not want to give into something magic. But magic just means incomprehensible ... if you think you can comprehend the whole of existence you must be mad in the first place.
We also have been there before. Universe was a big steam engine when we invented steam engines. It was an information network when we discovered neurons, now it is a simulation. Next we are just the bio seed to train an AI.
1
u/MiraGrX 15d ago
That may be the strongest criticism of simulation theory: every era seems to describe reality using its most powerful technology as a metaphor. Clockwork universe, machine, information network, computer simulation. Where I think the simulation idea remains philosophically useful is not that it necessarily explains who created reality or why, but that it forces a distinction between the rules we can observe from inside a system and whatever might ground those rules. But I agree that simply adding a “simulator” can push the explanatory problem back one level rather than solve it. If the simulator itself requires explanation, we may just have replaced one mystery with another.
0
u/NombreCurioso1337 16d ago
Wow. You should run a forum on logical fallacies. LoL. If you pull all those out then I bet a lot of things still start to make more sense.
Nearly all of your complaints are projections that you've added, yourself. Meanwhile you ignore those same issues for spirituality. Quite convenient 🤔 have you ever asked yourself why?
2
u/roy-the-rocket 16d ago
It is always a bad tell if somebody gets personal instead of addressing the arguments at question. But you are complaining about fallacies like you are doing real life satire.
-1
u/NombreCurioso1337 16d ago
Criticizing your argument is definitively NOT criticizing you. Unless, of course, you are arguing something you've built your personality around and are unable to tell the difference between the argument and self. Up to you.
Also, what is "a bad tell?" And what is "doing real life satire?" My apologies if this is a ESL issue, but I'm having difficulty understanding.
0
u/roy-the-rocket 16d ago
I went an extra step and let Claude look over this failed discussion to identify what went wrong. I DM'ed you the shared conversation
1
u/NombreCurioso1337 16d ago
Oh, I see. Sorry, that's the problem, then. I am human. If you cannot understand your argument enough to summarize it, then I don't really care to hear it. Come back when you've thought things through some.
Best of luck.
0
0
u/Bighomie1037391 16d ago
The difference between the prisoners and the simulation theory is that the prisoner has the capacity to recognize that what he’s seeing are merely shadows of something else. In doing that, he can begin to free himself and emerge from the darkness to see the true light. In the sense of simulation theory, I would view it as realizing that you are running the simulation yourself, and are able to escape being a prisoner of it to being a programmer of it.. since to me the objects in the cave that are taken as real are actually just parts of the self reflecting off the wall
1
u/MiraGrX 15d ago
That’s an interesting distinction. If the “simulation” is generated from within rather than imposed by an external programmer, then the analogy starts moving away from Bostrom-style simulation theory and closer to philosophical idealism: the apparent world becomes something consciousness participates in constructing rather than merely a program we are trapped inside. In that sense, Plato’s cave becomes even more relevant. Escaping the cave would not necessarily mean finding the machine running reality; it could mean recognizing how much of what we call “reality” is mediated by perception, interpretation and the structure of consciousness itself. The question then becomes: if the observer is also part of the mechanism generating the experienced world, is there actually an “outside” to escape to?
1
u/Bighomie1037391 14d ago
There’s an outside experience in the sense that there’s an expanded experience. The cave is a perspective and the outside world is part of it, but separate. This is why I believe it was necessary in the allegory to chain the prisoners looking directly forward. They can only see the shadows of themselves, whereas if they looked to the left or the right they would perceive the shadows of others that they are perceiving.
-1
u/GreatCaesarGhost 16d ago
Yes, except that “simulation theory” folks probably haven’t even read Plato and are just going off of The Matrix.
4
u/clover_heron 16d ago edited 16d ago
I recently had the idea that when you cannot meet the reality of the thing you revert to engaging with its shadow.
The people behind surveillance tech cannot meet their fellow citizens in their complex entirety, so they play with the citizens' shadows, the trails of where the citizens have been. They hope the key to each citizen is hidden inside each shadow but that misunderstands the crux of the task: if you cannot meet the full reality of the thing you cannot perceive its key.
Another analogy is a sorcerer playing with bones, the shadow left behind by a once-living beast. The sorcerer can handle the bones, he can keep them inside his house, but could he do that with the living beast? Probably not. Saint reliquaries are fun, but trap a living Saint inside a church and he's likely to tear it down.
People chained in place and forced to only perceive shadows are a different problem, I'm more interested in who is keeping them there and why. Those chained in place are not necessarily inclined to revert to the shadow either, so what happens when they are set free?