If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then games will eventually be indistinguishable from reality.

We are almost certainly living in a simulation, because if civilizations ever reach the point of creating simulations, they will create many more simulated beings than real ones.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

If we are in a simulation, then the laws of physics are just the source code.

What if our universe is just an experiment running on some teenager's computer in a higher dimension?

The glitches in reality are not bugs - they're features reminding us of our true nature.

If we are simulated beings, then consciousness is just an emergent property of complex information processing.

The question is not whether we can create simulations, but whether we can prove we're not in one already.

In a simulation, free will might just be an illusion of complex decision trees.

If this is a simulation, then death might just be logging out.

The fine-tuning of the universe's constants looks suspiciously like someone set the parameters for life to emerge.

Quantum mechanics makes perfect sense if our reality is running on a quantum computer.

If we're in a simulation, the speed of light might just be the processor speed of the universe.

The Mandela Effect might be evidence of version updates in the simulation.

In an infinite multiverse, there would be infinite simulations, making it statistically likely we're in one.

If consciousness can be simulated, then how can we be sure ours isn't?

The universe behaves mathematically because it is mathematical at its core - literally code.

Deja vu might be the simulation reusing assets to save memory.

If we create realistic simulations ourselves, we become the gods of those worlds - which suggests our creators might be just like us.

The simulation hypothesis doesn't answer why we're here, it just pushes the question up one level.

If this is a simulation, then prayer might just be submitting a support ticket.

The fact that we can even conceive of simulation theory suggests we might be close to creating our own - or recognizing we're in one.

In a simulation, miracles might just be admin overrides.

If reality is simulated, then the only thing that's real is information.

The simulation argument isn't about proving we're in a simulation, but about recognizing we can't prove we're not.

If we're characters in a simulation, do we have any moral obligation to simulated beings we might create?

The beauty of simulation theory is that it makes both atheism and religion seem equally plausible.

Whether we're in a simulation or not, our experience of reality is what matters - the code is irrelevant to the qualia.