BTW, Thanks, Glenn! With all the political and international messes going on right now, sometimes it is nice to think about something else for a while!
Ever since I first heard of the "computer simulation" idea, it struck me that it is just another Creation Myth. I do find it ironic that so many who are inclined to the idea have been opposed to the idea of a divine Creator. Personally, I am a Christian, and I believe that we were created by God. I am not a "young earth" Creationist--I know how that 4004 BC date found in some old Bibles was cooked up, and the problems with it. I also can deal with the idea that the Genesis account is a poetic summary rather than scientifically detailed history. Even C. S. Lewis didn't take the early chapters of Genesis as literal history. And the Genesis account is simpler and more laid-back than most of the ancient Creation stories--the myths of the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks were much weirder than Genesis. Even Methuselah living for 969 years is not as outlandish as the Babylonian King Lists, which claimed their earliest rulers lived for 10,000 years and more.
There is quite a bit of speculation anymore, about "computer simulation" and "multiple universes" and other stuff. But it is all speculation, not real science. Science is about examining the physical world--what is here and what works or doesn't work. It has no way to go beyond the physical world, or to find any other physical worlds--because the methods it works with are for use in our physical world.
The area of Cosmology historically was considered one area of Philosophy. Our modern scientists are often lacking in knowledge of Philosophy, and usually don't realize when their thoughts have strayed outside the limits of Physical Science and into the realm of Philosophy. But when they do so, they are just as ignorant as anybody else who starts pontificating in areas outside their field.
In principle, I guess you could have a whole hierarchy of simulated worlds...our world, Level 4, might be a simulation created by beings living in Level 4. But Level 4 is itself as simulation, created by beings in Level 3. And so on up.
And if we implemented a simulated world, Level 5, it could eventually extend the meta-universe down to Level 6...
None of which helps resolve the problem of where Level 1 came from.
Interesting how it's always Christian Intellect design, yet Hindus and Moslems also believe in creationism. Do they ID too?
On another note, what was once accepted as evolution is now considered ID? I know the catholic school I attended long ago taught evolution with a guiding hand, which is now considered ID. On,y randomness and atheists need apply. Poor De Chardin be damned.
"what was once accepted as evolution is now considered ID?"
They are not at all the same.
ID us an attempt to provide an alternative to evolution as an explanation for how thing came to be this way.
Science has rules for which items are permitted to be counted as evidence. Creationism begins with the assumption that a potent deity created all of existence but " Then BAM! A miracle occurs." isn't evidence that can be admitted in science. After that, it unfolds under guidance, a la The Abrahamic God, or freely, for whatever purpose.
ID seeks to keep all the unfolding trapping as explanation for what happens after the first moments while ignoring the absence of evidence for the creator, without which none of this would be possible.
More, though, evolution and Creation aren't really even addressing the questions, at least not directly.
Creationism is a How We Got Started story but Evolution is more of a How Did We Get Here story. Evolution makes no claims about origins per se and has no stance against deities or the faithful. Any conflict that exists occurs when one reaches far enough back in history to reach Scopes level scrutiny. I'm completely unfaithful but would caution BigEvolution to extrapolate with incomplete data.
Better that we acknowledge that ID is not science and should not be presented as such. If it has a place academic ally, it belongs in Social Studies.
Teachers of History and Philosophy and Economics and Psychology must constantly weigh the impact of technology (essentially applied science) on their studies so it is reasonable to examine the claims of every creation myth against and alongside such evidence.
Chemistry and Microbiology and Physics and Geology have no need to account for assuming any fact not admitted into evidence. In fact, the scientist is tasked with ignoring any such information in their formulations.
I think I'm going to steal some of these thoughts the next time I teach seminarians on the problem of evil. One of the classic responses to the existence of evil is an aesthetic one: the overall beauty of the universe is enhanced by what we see as moral evil, the black velvet essential for enhancing the shine of the diamond. If there is one thing we can all agree on about human history, it is that it is fascinating. The rise of the internet and now social media has gone a long way towards showing just how fascinating we actually are. While I wouldn't want my kids to grow up to be Florida Man, if I'm honest I'm glad that he exists. It's sort of like the end of Flannery O'Connor's "Revelation" in which ultra-moral and judgmental Ruby Turpin receives a vision of the march to heaven. Leading the parade are all the people to whom she was condescending in life. There is a beauty to them that she spent most of her time missing. Not sure what the implications would be for Christian ethics, but it certainly helps theodicy; all this craziness makes us infinitely--and I use that word intentionally--watchable.
A powerful post with some very interesting strands.
How does prayer work in a simulation created by an Intelligent Designer? Does He or She (or It) respond to a prayer by tweaking the weighting of the various “good” and “evil” elements in the program?
We can speculate and imagine all we want to. But we need to remember one thing: if we are living in some kind of created universe, the One who has the Final Say is the Intelligent Creator. If you decide to build a storage shed in your backyard, you have the say over where it sits, what materials you use, how big or how small, what color paint and everything else. But no matter what, the garden tools and supplies you store in it do not get to over-rule your decisions! Some of us may need to remember that!
I think the best take is, as noted - does it matter?
Philosophically? Yeah. A lot.
Tactically and Operationally? Hardly at all.
We keep eating and playing and sleeping and fighting and working hoping we're doing the best we can and whether The Creator exists for our purposes or Their own is of little consequence to those ends.
I think the most difficult part, philosophically, is the After part. We fear the unknown and Death is a super duper unknown so we have created all manner of stories to help us make sense of things we don't understand and literally inserting our own explanations and attributing them retroactively to The Creator.
Fun and interesting column. There's a YouTuber called Ridddle. He does lots of well-made, well-informed conjectural videos on exoplanets (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOJjc0XhItw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18rARy8g4Hc). (Other Ridddle videos include ludicrous alien-civilization/pyramids stuff.) But he did a really intriguing little piece in 2017 called "What If the Earth Does Not Exist?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CyN8rYdX6g). It asks whether we might be a simulation and then proceeds to explore how this could explain quantum mechanics, the two slit experiment, quantum entanglement, space-time, the Big Bang, dark matter, Fermi Paradox, etc. It's quite entertaining and, at least in the eyes of this reasonably informed this layman, well-versed in physics. And yes, he does deal with Elon Musk's take on the whole thing. I've always wondered what a trained cosmologist would think of the video. (Bob--https://graboyes.substack.com)
This is just another avoidance of the fundamental question of how the universe began. A simulation has to be written by someone who was created in some manner. At some point, you still end up with a creator being the first cause of everything. God is that creator. We are all fallen and sinful, including our simulations and AI. Christ offers salvation and redemption through His sacrifice. Accept that, and everything starts to make sense.
How can anyone be so certain that they god they worship is The Creator?
Everyone hopes their God is the Real God and that they're following the Real Rules but, given the topic at hand, I'd say Frankie and Benjy asking Deep Thought to answer The Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is just as likely.
The thing that gets me is that materialists can grok science fiction, yet they can’t grok a triune (like a hive mind, but smaller) God who created this universe (perhaps one of many), and has intervened on Earth. Why viewed through a science fiction lens is all of that impossible? Seems to track with Clarke’s third law that sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic. Or miracles. Could be simulated, but not necessarily. Could be real. Sufficient tech enabling manipulation of matter, energy, and time would explain much.
Some of you might be interested in Neal Stephenson's novel "Fall". In that book, not only is "the world" simulated, there are hints that it's recursive -- a simulation in a simulation (in a simulation)? Plus, the simulation being followed *very* strongly recapitulates Genesis. How could it not?
Buddhists and mystics from other mystical and contemplative traditions all point to the phenomenal world as “illusion.” But in a special sense, namely that it is not separate from consciousness. Consciousness is not a feature or product of the material world. The apparently material world, the entire phenomenal world, is itself the lively aspect of ever present awareness.
The notion of living in a “simulation” intuits something like this, but proceeds from the assumption that there is a material “computer” somewhere, and that consciousness is somehow matter doing something, or in this case physical computers computing ones and zeros. Or at least the language used to describe and discuss the “computer simulation” idea sure sounds like that. It therefore gets things precisely backwards. Computers, simulations and everything else are manifestations of consciousness, not the reverse. This is not a new idea. Even Western philosophy figured this out by the 19th Century, and the contemplative/meditative traditions have known this for millennia. Materialism itself (everything, including thoughts and consciousness are just matter doing things) was seen through in the West before Socrates and in the East far before that.
BTW, Thanks, Glenn! With all the political and international messes going on right now, sometimes it is nice to think about something else for a while!
I'm trying to use Substack as an outlet for talking about other stuff.
Ever since I first heard of the "computer simulation" idea, it struck me that it is just another Creation Myth. I do find it ironic that so many who are inclined to the idea have been opposed to the idea of a divine Creator. Personally, I am a Christian, and I believe that we were created by God. I am not a "young earth" Creationist--I know how that 4004 BC date found in some old Bibles was cooked up, and the problems with it. I also can deal with the idea that the Genesis account is a poetic summary rather than scientifically detailed history. Even C. S. Lewis didn't take the early chapters of Genesis as literal history. And the Genesis account is simpler and more laid-back than most of the ancient Creation stories--the myths of the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks were much weirder than Genesis. Even Methuselah living for 969 years is not as outlandish as the Babylonian King Lists, which claimed their earliest rulers lived for 10,000 years and more.
There is quite a bit of speculation anymore, about "computer simulation" and "multiple universes" and other stuff. But it is all speculation, not real science. Science is about examining the physical world--what is here and what works or doesn't work. It has no way to go beyond the physical world, or to find any other physical worlds--because the methods it works with are for use in our physical world.
The area of Cosmology historically was considered one area of Philosophy. Our modern scientists are often lacking in knowledge of Philosophy, and usually don't realize when their thoughts have strayed outside the limits of Physical Science and into the realm of Philosophy. But when they do so, they are just as ignorant as anybody else who starts pontificating in areas outside their field.
In principle, I guess you could have a whole hierarchy of simulated worlds...our world, Level 4, might be a simulation created by beings living in Level 4. But Level 4 is itself as simulation, created by beings in Level 3. And so on up.
And if we implemented a simulated world, Level 5, it could eventually extend the meta-universe down to Level 6...
None of which helps resolve the problem of where Level 1 came from.
"None of which helps resolve the problem of where Level 1 came from."
I wrote a much larger screed here a few minutes ago to say what you sum up in a single sentence. Thank you.
That is the difference between Evolution and Creation. They're not really in conflict - they don't even overlap - except at, as you say, Level 1.
"It's turtles all the way down!"
Interesting how it's always Christian Intellect design, yet Hindus and Moslems also believe in creationism. Do they ID too?
On another note, what was once accepted as evolution is now considered ID? I know the catholic school I attended long ago taught evolution with a guiding hand, which is now considered ID. On,y randomness and atheists need apply. Poor De Chardin be damned.
"what was once accepted as evolution is now considered ID?"
They are not at all the same.
ID us an attempt to provide an alternative to evolution as an explanation for how thing came to be this way.
Science has rules for which items are permitted to be counted as evidence. Creationism begins with the assumption that a potent deity created all of existence but " Then BAM! A miracle occurs." isn't evidence that can be admitted in science. After that, it unfolds under guidance, a la The Abrahamic God, or freely, for whatever purpose.
ID seeks to keep all the unfolding trapping as explanation for what happens after the first moments while ignoring the absence of evidence for the creator, without which none of this would be possible.
More, though, evolution and Creation aren't really even addressing the questions, at least not directly.
Creationism is a How We Got Started story but Evolution is more of a How Did We Get Here story. Evolution makes no claims about origins per se and has no stance against deities or the faithful. Any conflict that exists occurs when one reaches far enough back in history to reach Scopes level scrutiny. I'm completely unfaithful but would caution BigEvolution to extrapolate with incomplete data.
Better that we acknowledge that ID is not science and should not be presented as such. If it has a place academic ally, it belongs in Social Studies.
Teachers of History and Philosophy and Economics and Psychology must constantly weigh the impact of technology (essentially applied science) on their studies so it is reasonable to examine the claims of every creation myth against and alongside such evidence.
Chemistry and Microbiology and Physics and Geology have no need to account for assuming any fact not admitted into evidence. In fact, the scientist is tasked with ignoring any such information in their formulations.
I think I'm going to steal some of these thoughts the next time I teach seminarians on the problem of evil. One of the classic responses to the existence of evil is an aesthetic one: the overall beauty of the universe is enhanced by what we see as moral evil, the black velvet essential for enhancing the shine of the diamond. If there is one thing we can all agree on about human history, it is that it is fascinating. The rise of the internet and now social media has gone a long way towards showing just how fascinating we actually are. While I wouldn't want my kids to grow up to be Florida Man, if I'm honest I'm glad that he exists. It's sort of like the end of Flannery O'Connor's "Revelation" in which ultra-moral and judgmental Ruby Turpin receives a vision of the march to heaven. Leading the parade are all the people to whom she was condescending in life. There is a beauty to them that she spent most of her time missing. Not sure what the implications would be for Christian ethics, but it certainly helps theodicy; all this craziness makes us infinitely--and I use that word intentionally--watchable.
A powerful post with some very interesting strands.
How does prayer work in a simulation created by an Intelligent Designer? Does He or She (or It) respond to a prayer by tweaking the weighting of the various “good” and “evil” elements in the program?
If it's in the code!
In that case, I guess that everyone is free to imagine how their specific Simulation(tm) is programmed!
Is the Master Simulation put together with an all-powerful CRISPR-like super engine that has various Cut, Paste, and Edit functions?
We can speculate and imagine all we want to. But we need to remember one thing: if we are living in some kind of created universe, the One who has the Final Say is the Intelligent Creator. If you decide to build a storage shed in your backyard, you have the say over where it sits, what materials you use, how big or how small, what color paint and everything else. But no matter what, the garden tools and supplies you store in it do not get to over-rule your decisions! Some of us may need to remember that!
"I guess that everyone is free to imagine how their specific Simulation(tm) is programmed!"
So, essentially, Pascal's Wager for everyone!
I think the best take is, as noted - does it matter?
Philosophically? Yeah. A lot.
Tactically and Operationally? Hardly at all.
We keep eating and playing and sleeping and fighting and working hoping we're doing the best we can and whether The Creator exists for our purposes or Their own is of little consequence to those ends.
I think the most difficult part, philosophically, is the After part. We fear the unknown and Death is a super duper unknown so we have created all manner of stories to help us make sense of things we don't understand and literally inserting our own explanations and attributing them retroactively to The Creator.
Fun and interesting column. There's a YouTuber called Ridddle. He does lots of well-made, well-informed conjectural videos on exoplanets (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOJjc0XhItw, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18rARy8g4Hc). (Other Ridddle videos include ludicrous alien-civilization/pyramids stuff.) But he did a really intriguing little piece in 2017 called "What If the Earth Does Not Exist?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CyN8rYdX6g). It asks whether we might be a simulation and then proceeds to explore how this could explain quantum mechanics, the two slit experiment, quantum entanglement, space-time, the Big Bang, dark matter, Fermi Paradox, etc. It's quite entertaining and, at least in the eyes of this reasonably informed this layman, well-versed in physics. And yes, he does deal with Elon Musk's take on the whole thing. I've always wondered what a trained cosmologist would think of the video. (Bob--https://graboyes.substack.com)
This is just another avoidance of the fundamental question of how the universe began. A simulation has to be written by someone who was created in some manner. At some point, you still end up with a creator being the first cause of everything. God is that creator. We are all fallen and sinful, including our simulations and AI. Christ offers salvation and redemption through His sacrifice. Accept that, and everything starts to make sense.
How can anyone be so certain that they god they worship is The Creator?
Everyone hopes their God is the Real God and that they're following the Real Rules but, given the topic at hand, I'd say Frankie and Benjy asking Deep Thought to answer The Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is just as likely.
And they imposed no rules at all.
2 x 10^12 galaxies times 10^11 stars per average galaxy is a current estimate = 2 x 10^23 stars. Simulation? Reductio ad absurdum.
Naw, man. You should see the server farm they've got set up in the Sagittarius region.
I agree Professor; Simulation Theory is Intelligent Design Theory, only with God deliberately left out.
The thing that gets me is that materialists can grok science fiction, yet they can’t grok a triune (like a hive mind, but smaller) God who created this universe (perhaps one of many), and has intervened on Earth. Why viewed through a science fiction lens is all of that impossible? Seems to track with Clarke’s third law that sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic. Or miracles. Could be simulated, but not necessarily. Could be real. Sufficient tech enabling manipulation of matter, energy, and time would explain much.
Ps. (Edit doesn't seem to be working) I attribute all the turmoil in our lives to an infestation of emotional vampires. They seem to be everywhere.
Heh™, my life has been feature-filled of late, yet I consider myself lucky compared to most. A thought-provoking essay, thanks.
Ps. Still, I attribute all the turmoil in our lives to an infestation of emotional vampires. They're everywhere.
Some of you might be interested in Neal Stephenson's novel "Fall". In that book, not only is "the world" simulated, there are hints that it's recursive -- a simulation in a simulation (in a simulation)? Plus, the simulation being followed *very* strongly recapitulates Genesis. How could it not?
Buddhists and mystics from other mystical and contemplative traditions all point to the phenomenal world as “illusion.” But in a special sense, namely that it is not separate from consciousness. Consciousness is not a feature or product of the material world. The apparently material world, the entire phenomenal world, is itself the lively aspect of ever present awareness.
The notion of living in a “simulation” intuits something like this, but proceeds from the assumption that there is a material “computer” somewhere, and that consciousness is somehow matter doing something, or in this case physical computers computing ones and zeros. Or at least the language used to describe and discuss the “computer simulation” idea sure sounds like that. It therefore gets things precisely backwards. Computers, simulations and everything else are manifestations of consciousness, not the reverse. This is not a new idea. Even Western philosophy figured this out by the 19th Century, and the contemplative/meditative traditions have known this for millennia. Materialism itself (everything, including thoughts and consciousness are just matter doing things) was seen through in the West before Socrates and in the East far before that.