More Questions on Simulation Theory

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

Some of you may remember that my math teacher made the claim that we have a 50-50 chance of being in a simulation. I recently tried to fact check the claim again and came across this claim, spread across several different scientific news sources:

According to the article, if we eventually make simulations, it would theoretically increase the likelihood that we currently live in a simulation. I guess my fear is that, since science is meant to be impartial and objective, those simulations will probably be secular and thus godless. If so, does that mean we live in a godless simulation, so the people who theoretically came before our simulation also try to make a secular simulation to study? Thinking about it, how does God fit into our world now?

To me, this very difficult thing to ponder opens up a whole can of worms. What would such a hypothesis mean for the Resurrection? Is there actually an afterlife? How can I know what is or isn’t real or can be trusted? I know this is deeply philosophical and hard to answer, but does anyone have any insight?

2

The simulation hypothesis sounds dramatic, but it explains everything equally well, which means it actually explains nothing.

1 Like
3

How am I to make sense of their statistics here?

4

Whose statistics?

5

I dunno. I guess the math that these folks say is legitimate? The thing is, it’s so confusing to find any actual substance on this topic because every “hot shot” scientist wants a piece of this tasty pie. I mean, if anyone has any actual scientific journal or other professional discussion on this matter, I’m all hears.

6
7

Alright. It was actually an interesting read, especially the bits on morality and religious implications.

8

Two weeks ago some scientists asserted that the simulation conjecture had been shown to fail. This morning my inbox had a link to an article where some other scientists are 98% sure we live in a simulation.
Que será, será.

1 Like
9

Before we react to Bostrom’s paper, it helps to classify it correctly. This is not an experimental physics paper, and it is not a report that scientists have discovered evidence that we live in a simulation. It is a philosophical argument in probability form. So the first question is not, “Is this true?” but, “What exactly is the argument, and where do its assumptions enter?”

1 Like
10

If it were true, what do you suspect the implications for our faith would be?

11

Bostrom argues that at least one of three claims must be true:

  1. Almost no civilizations reach a stage where they can run ancestor simulations.
  2. Civilizations that reach that stage almost never choose to run them.
  3. We are probably living in a simulation.
1 Like
12

The whole paper stands or falls on whether that trilemma is well constructed and whether its assumptions are justified. P.S. Look up the word “trilemma” and commit its meaning to memory.

1 Like
13

I’m not sure the question isn’t frivolous, but . . .
Have you seen the Tron movies? I’d say that if Creation is a simulation, Jesus was the User, and He gave us a way Out.

1 Like
14

Bostrom is not proving that we live in a simulation.
He is not presenting laboratory evidence.
He is not showing that Christianity is false.
He is arguing that if certain assumptions about future civilizations are true, then a simulation conclusion becomes probabilistically strong.

1 Like
15

Now look at each of the assumptions in Bostrom’s argument. (Write them down on a sheet of paper.)

  • Advanced civilizations like ours are possible
  • They survive long enough to become enormously powerful
  • They develop the ability to simulate conscious beings
  • Simulated consciousness is possible
  • They choose to run many such simulations
  • Simulated observers are relevantly comparable to us
  • Numerical abundance affects the probability that we are simulated

That gives you a checklist. Once you see how many assumptions are stacked together, the paper becomes much less mystical.

A paper can be logically interesting without being existentially threatening. First analyze the reasoning. Later ask what, if anything, would follow metaphysically or theologically.

1 Like
16

Now read the paper slowly, paragraph by paragraph, and as you read, ask yourself these questions:

  • What is Bostrom claiming here?
  • Is this a definition, an assumption, or a conclusion?
  • What would have to be true for this step to work?
  • Could a reasonable person deny this step without contradiction

Focus especially on the transition from possibility to probability. One of the main questions in the paper is whether Bostrom has really shown a probability claim, or whether he has only described a possibility and then given it a mathematical costume.

Save theology for the end. Don’t begin with: “What does this mean for God?” Begin with: “Does the argument even work on its own terms?”

1 Like
17

It does have a massive amount of assumptions, though they seem to be hidden under layers of confidence.

18
  • The first sentence of the Introduction says: “Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future.”
  • So what?
  • Bostrom begins with a sociological observation: many futurists and science-fiction writers expect enormous future computing power. That statement is true, but it is not evidence that such computing power will actually exist. It merely tells us In other words, the sentence is factually correct but logically weak. It only tells us that some people believe it will. In other words, the sentence is factually correct but logically weak. It merely sets the stage for assumptions that follow later in the paper.
1 Like