On whether we live in a computer simulation and God’s existence

[IWantGod]

I don’t believe that Jimmy Akin made much of an effort at all to refute the simulation hypothesis.

I don’t think he needs to. While we all could be a brain in a vat, there is not a good enough reason to think that we are. And like you said, how could we tell the difference, and therefore how could it possibly be a reasonable scientific hypothesis.

It’s true that we could all be the victims of a grand deception, but at this point the idea equates to nothing more than a curiosity or a paranoid delusion.

There certainly isn’t good enough reason here to doubt the message of Jesus Christ anymore than there is reason to think that Jesus is a product of alien technology, and it is in no way a refutation of God’s existence.

 

[Lee1]

The computer may share some very basic similarities with some aspects of reality and the real world but it shouldn’t be mistaken for the real world.

A computer may then be a bit like the universe, but the universe is not like the computer.

We cleave to ideas which suit our philosophies so you cleave to yours and I’ll cleave to mine.

 

[Roguish]

Akin and anyone who entertains the idea that we are living in a computer simulation is practicing amateur pop-science. It is crystal clear that we are not inside a computer simulation, for the simple fact that computers are entirely deterministic machines (see note 1 below) that operate on rational numbers, while the physics of our universe is clearly non-deterministic and the values of many quantities in it are not at all limited to rational numbers. A computer simulation cannot “produce” this kind of universe.

Why do Akin and so many believe in it? Because they are dabbling in sciences that they only half understand: theoretical physics, mathematics, computation theory, etc. As long as you dabble, you can overlook the incongruencies, inconsistencies, and impossibilities in your own fancy fantasies.

Note 1: To the possible objection that “quantum computers” aren’t deterministic, we counter that that’s true, but working quantum computers don’t actually exist. So as far as actual, working computers are concerned, the term “computer” refers to an entirely deterministic machine. Besides, even if realized a working quantum computer wouldn’t quite be what amateur com-scientists think it would be. It would be more like a computer capable of making large numbers of guesses all at the same time in order to solve complex mathematical problems, rather than a platform for more spectacular versions of Fortnite.

 

[IWantGod]

Fortnite.

Is fornite a good game?

 

[Roguish]

Is fornite a good game?

I’m an old man now, so I don’t play games anymore, except maybe Crawl (“DCSS”) when the urge to game resurfaces for a day or so (which is rare by now). As for Fortnite, I’ve watched my friend’s kids play it a lot, and I liked it better than any other first-person shooter I’ve seen. I can’t stand the grimness of realistic war-games such as Call of Duty, and it pains me to see kids play games like that. So I was happy to see Fortnite, which is just as action-packed but with much gentler theming. If you like an FP-multiplayer-shooter in a fantasy setting, you’ll probably like it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Akin and anyone who entertains the idea that we are living in a computer simulation is practicing amateur pop-science. It is crystal clear that we are not inside a computer simulation, for the simple fact that computers are entirely deterministic machines (see note 1 below) that operate on rational numbers, while the physics of our universe is clearly non-deterministic and the values of many quantities in it are not at all limited to rational numbers. A computer simulation cannot “produce” this kind of universe.

Why do Akin and so many believe in it? Because they are dabbling in sciences that they only half understand: theoretical physics, mathematics, computation theory, etc. As long as you dabble, you can overlook the incongruencies, inconsistencies, and impossibilities in your own fancy fantasies.

Note 1: To the possible objection that “quantum computers” aren’t deterministic, we counter that that’s true, but working quantum computers don’t actually exist. So as far as actual, working computers are concerned, the term “computer” refers to an entirely deterministic machine. Besides, even if realized a working quantum computer wouldn’t quite be what amateur com-scientists think it would be. It would be more like a computer capable of making large numbers of guesses all at the same time in order to solve complex mathematical problems, rather than a platform for more spectacular versions of Fortnite.

Around 37:17 in the podcast on youtube Jimmy Akin says, “I don’t believe in the simulation hypothesis”.

In the ncregister post he’s responding to someone’s question about it. I think it’s interesting to see a Catholic apologist approach to the simulation hypothesis and I think it’s worth looking at questions or concerns or to have a conversation about it no matter how outlandish the simulation hypothesis may seem.

 

[Lee1]

If it has all the hallmarks of a simulation, then its reasonable to conjecture that it may actually be a simulation.

If any simulation approximated reality it would by necessity have similarities with reality or it wouldn’t be a simulation of that reality. Doesn’t prove anything.

Since reality is subjective bearing in mind that we have no yardstick other than experience with which to compare it we have no way of knowing if it is or isnt. We know actually through the Church that our reality on earth is not the whole of reality, it’s simply a part. But that’s not the same as saying that it’s a simulation, it’s possibly more accurate to say that it’s an illusion, as we were told by Jesus in many different ways.

 

[Lee1]

I’m saying that Jesus told us about heaven and God and is believed by the Church and Christians that He told the truth. That being so I msaying that we have already been told that our ideas about reality are missing the crucial element of the dimension where heaven and God exists, the spiritual dimension we might call it. That being so our ideas about reality are missing that element and would satisfy the idea that you have but I wouldn’t call it a simulation.

We differ on that aspect only perhaps. I’m not a dogmatic person and I’ve tried to understand your point of view. I am also ignorant and uneducated and I’ve tried my best to describe my thoughts on the subject. I like dialectics but not if they become simply an argument, so if I’ve given you the impression that I am arguing I do apologise.

As we say, peace be with you sincerely.

 

[IWantGod]

All that one really needs is the ability to think objectively, and to understand that there are certain things that are simply impossible to prove. Among them are the simulation hypothesis,

It’s impossible to disprove either, and there is no objective means of scientifically observing evidence of the idea that we are living in a simulation, none that have been accepted by the scientific community. What you have presented so far is philosophical conjecture. So this idea that it is a genuine scientific hypothesis is just your belief shared by those who like to entertain fringe ideas. Such a hypothesis is no more valid than the intelligent design theory.

The fundamental principle of the scientific method is methodological naturalism. What makes you think that your beliefs have any relevance to real science?

You are free to prove me wrong. Nobody is perfect.

 

[IWantGod]

With all due respect to your metaphysical arguments to the contrary, the existence of a personal God is unprovable.

Loooool

You have never refuted any of my arguments. And any time that you have been backed in to a corner you have thrown out reason altogether in order to avoid the conclusion. Your point of view is pure and utter sophistry and has no intellectual value whatsoever. It’s just another excuse to plead ignorance of God.

You are willing to throw God out, but at the same time you are willing to entertain an intelligent design theory regarding quantum computers and simulations. As long as God is not involved it seems you are quite happy with that.

Simulation theory: Intelligent design for atheists LOOOOOL

 

[IWantGod]

Because I have dozens of different personas on these forums. Lately it seems as if they’re constantly getting suspended, for what seem to be the most trivial of reasons. I have a few under suspension right now. But not to worry, I always have others. Management seems to be averse to actually blocking IP addresses.

I think they are working with an honour system. They would rather you change and become an Honorable person rather than block you out forever. At least that is what i would like to think.

Perhaps you should think about why they are blocking you and not do that thing anymore.

 

[IWantGod]

it’s just that you’re too close-minded

If being stubborn is about sticking to the principles and rules of reason and exposing fallacies and errors in somebody else’s argument or lack there of, i would say i am doing a good job. And if that is the case, what does it matter if you have an opinion to the contrary.

 

[Richca]

God created all the variety of beings in the natural world with particular natures by which they act. The fundamental structure of all the variety of creatures in the physical world of nature, animate or inanimate, is form and matter as I hold to the Aristotlelian/Thomistic hylemorphic structure of corporeal/physical reality. By studying the various natures of things and their behavior, we reason to laws of nature which are nothing other than the way various things act by nature and according to their natures. And the reason why various things act according to the way they do is simply because that is how God created them as He is the author of all nature. It is possible for a computer to be programmed by various patterns of letters and numbers or symbols of some kind to simulate the natures of various things of nature and their pattern or ‘law’ of behavior or action. For example, if we combine two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom we come up with water and nothing else. A computer programmer could probably simulate this in a computer using patterns of letters, numbers, or symbols. However, it is clear that the computer itself and its simulation of letters, numbers, symbols and such like are not the same thing as water and its parts such as the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the parts of atoms such as the neutrons, protons, and electrons. God created the form of water to be of such a nature that it is composed of two elements and three atoms which he also created, namely, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

 

[Exoplanets]

We do live in something like a computer in that all the constants of the universe are so fine tuned so that it can work properly. I don’t know for sure all I know is that God put us here for a reason. To know love and serve Him.
God Bless

 

[tafan2]

So based upon appearance alone, it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that we are indeed living in a simulation.

I do not believe this statement to be true. Or at least I do not think your argument for it is convincing. I think it would take quite a scientific/mathematical endeavor to show a simulation would be undetectable. My gut feeling is it eventually would be. But it’s a recursive problem, since part of the simulation itself, us, would be trying to detect it.

Never the less, I certainly feel you have not shown the statement to be true with your argument.

 

[tafan2]

But if you’ll reread what I posted, I said that it’s impossible to prove that we’re NOT living in a simulation. No matter what experiment you run, it’ll never be able to prove conclusively that we’re not living in a simulation. That would be trying to prove a negative.

There is no such law of math or logic which says you cannot prove a negative. Certainly some negatives can be proven. For example, I can prove “there does not exist an odd number divisible by 2”. Indeed, “you cannot prove a negative” is a negative statement. So it cannot be proved by your own assertion.

 

[Lee1]

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot and was a genius. He had a vision one day having written many books and after the vision he stated that all he had written was nothing but straw, he stopped writing immediately and died three months later.

Mankind isn’t bright enough to understand God, what He is and what He knows or thinks. I’m not even sure that we have total free will, so I’m not swayed by any arguments involving that.

If we are in a computer simulation then that computer is far beyond our capabilities now or ever. To think otherwise in my humble opinion is to court self pride and delusion. The film the matrix has a lot to answer for, but was a fiction.

 

[tafan2]

I agree, learn to think. Pointing out flaws is others logic is not being closed minded, it is thinking.

 

[Aquinas11]

If we’re in computer simulation then so was Jesus (son of God), so now we’re supposed to think God (Jesus) was fooled by the computer simulation too?

 

[Lee1]

I think that our experience of reality is a simulation because our senses are limited to those needed for survival and take no account of forces and energies which science has shown do actually exist.

In that respect what we experience is a small part of what exists and we aren’t capable of directly experiencing much at all of anything from an objective viewpoint. For example I recall being advised that when we touch an object there exists a miniscule gap between our fingers and the surface of the object. Not only are we unaware of that but we also don’t conceptualise reality in that way either. We are biased. Even our bodies consist of 43% microbes and bacteria, we aren’t aware of that either.

I think simulation is an inaccurate term for the world we perceive because that’s implying that there’s is a objective reality to compare it with. Having said that, that objective reality is no doubt constantly perceived by God.

Just some thoughts.