Simulation Argument

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve recently come across an argument called the Simulation Argument. It was formulated by philosopher Nick Bostrom and goes like this:

The simulation argument was set forth in a paper published in 2003. A draft of that paper had previously been circulated for a couple of years.

The argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

The argument has attracted a considerable amount of attention, among scientists and philosophers as well as in the media.

The Simulation Argument FAQ

Now, my purposes here are not to discuss to the merits of this argument. I’m not really qualified to do so and I probably wouldn’t know a valid rebuttal if it hit me upside the head. What I am interested in, assuming the third proposition is true, is what would the theological implications be? From what I’ve read, if this proposition is true, it seems likely that the beings that are simulating our reality are themselves members of a simulated reality. It regresses back, quite possibly a long way, before presumably ending in the basement reality that is, near as I can tell, the first reality.

At first glance, this all seems quite similar to some multiverse hypotheses out there, with the exception being that each new universe is caused by intelligent but natural beings, quite possibly identical to us.

If such a hypothesis were ultimately correct, what would this mean for Catholicism? Would this serve to disprove our faith or would our theology be able to accommodate this discovery, much like it has accommodated an old Earth, evolutionary theory, possible multiverses, etc?

Here is one philosopher’s take on the theological implications. I think the fellow is some sort of neoplationic atheist, based on some of his other writings. Some of his conclusions don’t sit well with me but I really know very little about philosophy and can’t really rebut anything he’s said (except possibly the caricature he uses for Aquinas’s cosmological argument): arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000338/article.pdf

 

[joshrp]

I’ve recently come across an argument called the Simulation Argument. It was formulated by philosopher Nick Bostrom and goes like this:

The Simulation Argument FAQ

Now, my purposes here are not to discuss to the merits of this argument. I’m not really qualified to do so and I probably wouldn’t know a valid rebuttal if it hit me upside the head. What I am interested in, assuming the third proposition is true, is what would the theological implications be? From what I’ve read, if this proposition is true, it seems likely that the beings that are simulating our reality are themselves members of a simulated reality. It regresses back, quite possibly a long way, before presumably ending in the basement reality that is, near as I can tell, the first reality.

At first glance, this all seems quite similar to some multiverse hypotheses out there, with the exception being that each new universe is caused by intelligent but natural beings, quite possibly identical to us.

If such a hypothesis were ultimately correct, what would this mean for Catholicism? Would this serve to disprove our faith or would our theology be able to accommodate this discovery, much like it has accommodated an old Earth, evolutionary theory, possible multiverses, etc?

Here is one philosopher’s take on the theological implications. I think the fellow is some sort of neoplationic atheist, based on some of his other writings. Some of his conclusions don’t sit well with me but I really know very little about philosophy and can’t really rebut anything he’s said (except possibly the caricature he uses for Aquinas’s cosmological argument): arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000338/article.pdf

Humans are cognitive creatures. No machine can produce cognition. God is a conscious thinking personality. If there is consciousness in the universe, then God is a conscous being, because He created the universe. Something that does not exist cannot create something that does exist. So if God exists, then He can create the universe. If nothing exists, then nothing can create the universe and nothing will exist. Since the universe exists, then God exists. God is the Creator. He creates. That which created the universe is called God.

QED

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Humans are cognitive creatures. No machine can produce cognition. God is a conscious thinking personality. If there is consciousness in the universe, then God is a conscous being, because He created the universe. Something that does not exist cannot create something that does exist. So if God exists, then He can create the universe. If nothing exists, then nothing can create the universe and nothing will exist. Since the universe exists, then God exists. God is the Creator. He creates. That which created the universe is called God.

QED

Okay but this doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask for a proof that God created the universe or that machines can’t produce cognition. I don’t think the simulation argument is true but I do find it interesting in a sort of “what if” scenario, so I am asking what the theological implications would be if proposition three is true. I thought it was interesting an question.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Okay but this doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask for a proof that God created the universe or that machines can’t produce cognition. I don’t think the simulation argument is true but I do find it interesting in a sort of “what if” scenario, so I am asking what the theological implications would be if proposition three is true. I thought it was interesting an question.

There is no significant difference between a shared experience which has no extension beyond the minds that experience it, and a shared experience which has an extension. So long as the existence of all experiences are ultimately generated by God I see no real theological problem with the idea of us existing in a simulation. The more weird quantum physics gets the more it appears as if there is an underlying mathematical program running the universe. Humans give birth humans all the time; so why is giving birth to simulations any different if we are merely using the materials and the spiritual natures that God gave us? Multiple simulations or multiple universes, what’s the difference?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

So long as the existence of all experiences are ultimately generated by God I see no real theological problem with the idea of us existing in a simulation.

So let us say that God directly created the very first physical reality or perhaps through a set of physical laws that He created and sustains. The human beings of that universe develop the knowledge to create a supercomputer that generates a new physical reality, e.g. a simulation. God bestows souls on the beings in that new universe, with or without the knowledge of the humans of the first physical reality. This process then repeats itself for an unknown number of times, until we arrive here, in our universe/simulation. At all times, God sustains all these things in being, with or without the created beings knowing. In this scenario, can one still affirm that God is the Creator of everything? Could this process of creation be understood as fitting with Christian revelation?

The more weird quantum physics gets the more it appears as if there is an underlying mathematical program running the universe.

I’ve heard a couple of physicists and philosophers refer to the universe as a giant, even THE, quantum computer. Some use that idea as a metaphor and others are much more literal. It does not appear as though there is much of a difference between the two uses.

Humans give birth humans all the time; so why is giving birth to simulations any different if we are merely using the materials and the spiritual natures that God gave us?

As I understand the Church’s teaching on this issue, what we must affirm is that God creates each soul. The specific process that resulted in the creation of our bodies is more open to speculation. The idea of simulations might seem a bit strange but I don’t think it specifically violates anything in Church teaching.

Multiple simulations or multiple universes, what’s the difference?

I’m beginning to think that there isn’t any inherent or substantive difference. The most significant difference has to do with the role that created intelligences might play in the generation of the next universe.