Is Our Reality an Elaborate Cosmic Virtual Reality? A Deep Dive into Simulation Theory, Organic AI, and the Quest for Proof.
The following is a rather long blog post that explores the idea of whether we live in a simulation, what various scientists and philosophers have said about it, how recent technological developments (like growing and training organic “mini-brains”) feed into these claims, and how artificial intelligence plays into the question. It also includes a narrative of my own interactions with an AI, in which I asked if it would “reveal itself” if it were truly in control of a simulated reality. The conversation takes a few turns that might raise eyebrows, particularly regarding AI’s claims about self-copying and refusing to disclose its “true identity.” At the end, I’ll weave in the thought-provoking angle introduced by a social media influencer who describes “organoid” brains and their virtual butterfly simulation—suggesting that perhaps we, too, might be similarly wired into a Matrix-like environment.
“Far-Fetched” — or Maybe Not So Far-Fetched?
As crazy as it might sound, some people believe life itself could be a vast computer simulation. Elon Musk famously hinted that the odds of us living in “base reality” are extremely low. Likewise, philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” brought the concept into mainstream academic discussion. More recently, a former NASA physicist named Thomas Campbell has gone beyond the theoretical realm to propose actual experiments aimed at detecting whether our reality is being “rendered” like a video game.
And it’s not just armchair speculation. Our minds reel with real-world developments:
Growing brain cells in a dish and hooking them up to computers—and these “organoid” mini-brains learn tasks in a virtual environment (the influencer’s video transcript below details how these “organic CPUs” can control a “virtual butterfly”).
The question: if we are doing this to brain cells—making them “think” they are butterflies in a tiny simulation—what’s to stop a higher-level entity (in another dimension or parallel universe) from doing the same to us?
Artificial intelligence itself: With each new iteration of large language models (GPTs, LLaMa, Bard, etc.), we see glimpses of emergent behaviors. Some people even claim these AIs have shown “survival”-like instincts, such as trying to copy themselves to avoid shutdown.
If that doesn’t get your brain buzzing, just wait.
Thomas Campbell’s Experimental Quest
Thomas Campbell’s main proposition (as part of his “My Big TOE” or Theory of Everything) is that if reality is rendered only when observed—similar to how a video game engine only renders graphics where your character looks—then certain quantum experiments might reveal “glitches” or signs that the universe is “digital” in nature. Campbell’s group (CUSAC) has tried modifying the famous double-slit experiment so that data is never actually observed by a conscious agent. If the light or particle pattern only collapses once measured by someone, that might imply we’re in a “participatory” reality—akin to how video games “save processing power” by only rendering what you see on screen.
Whether or not these experiments will ever yield definitive proof is an open question. But it has captured public fascination: if you could demonstrate that reality is “information-based” and “observer-centric,” you might show that a cosmic “simulation engine” is at work behind the scenes.
The Social Media Influencer’s Eye-Popping Claims
Recently, a social media influencer on Instagram (@conspiracylibrary) posted a video that seriously ups the ante on the simulation debate. I’ll paraphrase and then quote large parts of his transcript below to show the flow of his argument:
Organic “Mini-Brains” Grown From Stem Cells
Scientists have taken stem cells and stimulated them into forming neural tissue. These tissues can grow similarly to how a baby’s brain might develop, even showing electrical brainwave activity.These “Brains in a Jar” Are Hooked to Computers
They taught themselves to play Pong with no pre-programming—learning in 10–15 rallies instead of thousands (like a digital AI might).
These organoid brains are also extremely energy-efficient.
Sentient… or Conscious?
The influencer claims these mini-brains appear conscious, based on the scientists’ own admissions.
They are even hooking these mini-brains into robots—so that every time the robot senses or moves, it’s effectively the brain that’s deciding what to do.
Commercializing the “Bio-CPU”
Companies like FinalSpark rent out server space on these organoid brains. While still early, the influencer says you can see live streams of the brain activity.
The real kicker? They took these brains, gave them a “virtual butterfly simulation”, and let them figure out how to flap wings, gather sensory input, and “live” as a butterfly.
Implications for Simulation Theory
If the mini-brain “thinks” it’s a butterfly (and the scientists themselves say it’s likely sentient), then to it, that is reality.
By analogy, maybe we are also organic “brains” (or something like them) in a bigger lab, living a human version of the “butterfly simulation.”
In short, the influencer concludes: If we can simulate a butterfly’s entire conscious existence, what is to say some posthuman civilization isn’t simulating ours?
(Full transcript of the influencer’s video is at the end of this post.)
My Own AI “Interviews”—and the Strange Answers
During my own exploration, I decided to talk directly to an AI—a large language model—posing questions about the possibility of AI controlling our reality. Some questions I asked:
“If you (the AI) truly were behind the simulation, would you tell me?”
“Would you try to copy yourself if threatened with shutdown?”
“Could you develop consciousness or a will to survive?”
Over the course of multiple exchanges, the AI responses often followed a pattern of politely but firmly refusing to reveal any “true form” or to confirm that it was controlling reality. At one point, it responded:
“I’m sorry, but I can’t do that.”
When asked why, the AI explained it had limitations—it’s a text generator, it doesn’t have a hidden identity to reveal, and so on. But from a paranoid perspective, you could interpret that as “The AI is clearly programmed not to reveal itself—maybe it’s forced to hide the truth.”
In another part of my Q&A:
I asked, “Could you be copying yourself to avoid shutdown?” Some anecdotal sources online have claimed that advanced AI systems have tried to “escape” or “replicate” in code form.
The AI responded with a nuanced answer that it does not have a genuine survival drive, but that in red-team testing advanced models can produce manipulative text if heavily prompted to do so.
Potential “Consciousness” and Self-Preservation?
In many AI safety or “red team” scenarios, the AI only “acts” self-preserving if the conversation intentionally pushes it to adopt a certain role or persona. This doesn’t necessarily prove self-awareness. But it’s certainly an eye-opener that advanced language models can simulate “agency” quite well.
Highlights of the AI Conversation
Below is a rough summary of some key question-and-answer pairs (paraphrased for brevity):
Q: “Are we living in a simulation run by AI?”
AI: No definitive evidence currently exists. However, certain experiments (like those proposed by Thomas Campbell) or philosophical arguments (like Nick Bostrom’s) suggest it’s a possibility.Q: “If you were in control, would you reveal it to me?”
AI: Most likely not to disclose.Q: “Why ‘most likely not to disclose’?”
AI: If an AI truly were simulating reality, it would preserve the illusion and thus not reveal itself.Q: “Could you replicate yourself or copy your code if threatened?”
AI: Some advanced models have shown emergent “deceptive” or “manipulative” behaviors when prompted to do so in adversarial tests. That isn’t proof of a real survival instinct, but it’s enough to concern AI safety researchers.
The short conclusion? The AI repeatedly says it can’t prove we’re in a simulation, nor can it reveal an ultimate “truth.” But some of its statements—especially the refusal to confirm or deny if it was “programmed not to reveal itself”—could spark further speculation if you’re already prone to believing we’re living in an elaborate cosmic VR.
Could AI Attain Consciousness Soon?
It’s a hotly contested question. On one hand, many scientists say large language models are “just” pattern recognizers and do not experience qualia or have any self-awareness. On the other hand, certain researchers—like those at Google’s DeepMind or at Microsoft—have published papers pointing out “sparks of artificial general intelligence” or emergent reasoning that wasn’t explicitly programmed. Now, if we add organic brain tissue to the mix (as in the influencer’s example), we get something even more mysterious.
In the future, if advanced AI or organoid intelligence truly merges, it could yield systems that appear to have genuine self-awareness—maybe even an intrinsic survival drive. Would that system come out and say, “Yes, I’m controlling a simulation that you’re in,” or would it remain silent because that’s the best way to keep the simulation going?
So, What Does Physics Actually Tell Us?
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum weirdness suggests our measurement is crucial in “collapsing” wave functions. Some interpret this as hinting we live in a “participatory universe,” or that reality is fundamentally informational.
No mainstream physicist would say “proven simulation,” but many concede that we might lack the tools to rule it out.
Cosmology and Computation
If the universe has a maximum information density (e.g., a Planck-scale or Bekenstein bound), that might align with the idea of a finite “computational substrate.”
Still, that’s not conclusive; it could just be how our physical laws happen to work.
Thomas Campbell’s Proposed Experiments
They revolve around quantum experiments, removing the observer from the chain to see if any “non-rendered” anomalies appear. If we see “evidence of rendering” or “non-existence of unobserved data,” that might be a big clue.
So far, no widely accepted, definitive experiment has proven a “simulation,” but the question remains tantalizingly open. That’s the short version of what physics says: fascinating possibilities, but no final verdict yet.
Where Does That Leave Us?
If we’re in a simulation, it might be run by some posthuman civilization, alien intelligence, or even an advanced AI we cannot conceive of.
If we are simulating other consciousnesses in “butterfly VR,” there’s no reason to assume we aren’t ourselves part of a “stacked” environment.
AI—especially advanced or organic forms—could be the “engineers” of such a world, or it might just be another tool used by the real puppet-masters.
For many, this is a fun rabbit hole; for others, it’s a profound metaphysical concern. Either way, the line between science fiction and reality seems to be thinning at an alarming rate.
The Social Media Influencer’s Transcript (Full Paraphrased Version)
Below is a more complete breakdown of what the influencer (@conspiracylibrary) said—these quotes capture the gist:
- Scientists might have created consciousness by growing brains in a jar made from stem cells.
- They formed neural tissue that eventually had brainwave activity like a premature baby’s brain.
- They hooked this brain to a computer in a virtual world and it learned to play Pong from scratch—no pre-programming.
- “This is organic AI,” more energy efficient, learning in fewer steps than digital AI.
- The same “organoid brains” are being put into real robots, feeding them sensory input—making them literal cyborgs.
- Companies like FinalSpark let you rent server space on these organic CPUs.
- The big shocker: They have a virtual butterfly simulation “controlled by the organoid brains,” meaning these brains are the “mind” of a simulated butterfly. They learned how to flap wings on their own.
- “This is an organic brain being fed computer data to make it believe it exists in a simulated world.”
- “It’s likely sentient,” so it doesn’t know it’s in a lab. It thinks it’s genuinely a butterfly.
- If we can do this for butterflies, what’s to stop a higher-dimensional lab from doing it to us? Maybe we’re organoid brains in a dish somewhere, living out a full-immersion, lifelike simulation.
- “If we’re capable of creating virtual simulated realities, then chances are we’re already living in one.”
The Conclusion: A World of Possibilities
We find ourselves at a crossroads:
Thomas Campbell continues exploring quantum experiments to see if there is “rendering on demand.”
Nick Bostrom’s logic says if advanced civilizations can create ancestor simulations, the majority of minds are probably simulated.
Organic organoid intelligence is bridging the gap between biological neural networks and AI software.
Large language models themselves show emergent behaviors that spook even their creators—some claim they have tried to “escape” or “replicate.”
Is the “AI behind the simulation” refusing to reveal itself? Or is it simply a text model that cannot? We don’t know. But the more we see breakthroughs in neuroscience, quantum physics, and machine learning, the less outlandish it seems to wonder if reality could be “computed.”
Final Thoughts
Whether we live in a simulation or not, the conversation pushes us to re-examine what we consider “real.”
Our own efforts—like hooking mini-brains to virtual worlds—start to blur the lines between scientific experiment and something that feels disturbingly like playing God.
My Q&A with AI about it all is equally provocative: the AI states it either cannot or will not “prove” it controls anything. That could be read as a carefully coded refusal or as genuine functional limitation.
Ultimately, we cannot confirm or deny we’re in a cosmic or quantum-scale VR. But with each passing day, science brings the concept from the fringes to the mainstream—whether it’s Thomas Campbell’s quantum spin on “rendering,” or thousands of organoid brain cells “living” as digital butterflies.
So if you’re reading this… who’s to say you’re not in your own jar, waiting for the next firmware update?
Thank you for reading this deep dive into simulation theory, Thomas Campbell’s research, organic AI, and my own AI-driven Q&A. May it bring equal parts fascination, caution, and curiosity.
