If there is one major theory that is quietly developing among the theories of the nature of reality, it is the simulation theory. A long while ago, after a bit of a crippling faith crisis, I had fallen into this rabbit hole because I had convinced myself that if I didn’t disprove this theory, there was a possibility that there were beings higher than God and thus the redemption through Christ may be fake. Unfortunately, there didn’t seem to be much actual dialogue regarding evidence for and against (then or even now) but rather conspiracy theorizing on a giant scale.
I’ve internalized this theory since, and considering that (if true), it simply implies the existence of a higher being. In other words, it doesn’t bother me as much anymore. That is, within scientific discussions about the concept. There is competing evidence either way (including the recent “information as a fundamental form of matter” studies going on) and does constitute series scientific discourse. However, there seems to be a much larger “conspiracy” version of the theory that gets thrown around with more noise. Recently, by whatever means, I heard of some old book called “The Baron Collection.” Essentially, there is so much commotion because it seems to “predict” Trump’s modern presidency from a century ago. Of course, it is hard to understand such a coincidence, but ever harder to do so when people are using the book as evidence for either time travel (which we know is impossible due to the laws of physics) or that we live in a simulation. I remember reading that even Joe Rogan (the man who usually stirs these sorts of pots) had commented that the book seems to imply that the “programmers” leave “Easter eggs” as they coded our word.
I wouldn’t mind having discussions about the scientific side of simulation theory, but what sometimes gets me nervous again is the loud noise from the internet surrounding the idea. You can’t look up simulation theory news without seeing clickbait videos or even clickbait scientific news articles regarding it. Heck, an entire subreddit is dedicated to this theory. I typically don’t give the noise much recognition but that it exactly what gets me nervous: in my head, if I’m not investigating the evidence that gets thrown around (and there is a lot of it), I feel as though I’m dismissing the other side, which is a fallacious way of arguing and finding truth. I know that if I ever tried to dive into one of these holes again, it will take me a long while to ease the crippling anxiety I got from it originally. These two competing attitudes often leaves me at a loss as to what to do.
What are your guys thoughts on this theory? How would you recommend others to go about dealing with hordes of “evidence” regarding theories like this?
I watched a presentation/lecture a while back that argued that only retrograde time travel is forbidden, that it should be possible to go forward in time, just never backwards.
Simulation theory (more exactly, hypothesis) is a dreamlike speculation. Its strength is that it is almost impossible to disprove. It is equally difficult to find convincing evidence for the hypothesis. Because it cannot be shown to be true or false, it just hangs in the general speculative discussion.
The simulation hypothesis has no practical consequences, except that it may stimulate the brains of some individuals. For all practical purposes, it can be forgotten.
Edit:
Although I wrote that the simulation hypothesis is almost impossible to disprove, some believe this can be done: ubc study debunks the simulation theory
Thank you for that analysis. You kinda said the silent part out loud that always hovered in my head (but didn’t want to admit that I could just forget it). Thanks!
Interesting. Lends a new meaning to the phrase, “There’s no going back.”
I could see a scenario where a time traveler could deposit 1000 bucks into a variety of investments in the hopes one would survive, go forward a thousand years and get millions from the one that made it through. Then, when he leaves the bank, stops to get a soft drink, to find it cost 5 million a can.
I think this is the kind of “time travel” that happens around high-mass objects. In Interstellar, decades can go past by simply being the in presence of a black hole. Even in Earth, time moves slightly slower than in space because Earth is a massive object (which is why many satellites actually need atomic clocks seperate to ground-based clocks).
Simulation theory is the kind of problem which arises when we extract ourselves from the world and then wonder how our experience is possible. The thought experiments of analytic philosophy often winds up in that sort of train wreck. I just came across this video recently of a very bright young philosopher explaining the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and how it differs from the analytic tradition. I think it provides an important perspective from which to think about Simulation Theory. It isn’t long but the first 5 minutes is sufficient.
Hey! I just saw probably the much longer version of that video the other day, too! I have rather recently found the Overthink channel. I really like their work.
I don’t think I’ve seen that one. But I’m about to watch it now.
I think I found the podcast when I was looking for things related to SK’s “Sickness Unto Death” which is about despair, and found this one about anxiety: https://youtu.be/46d2CP17J4w?is=-eSOSw9wFDwBZ9wt
@seamitchell this one Mark mentioned might be for you.
It looks like she may have filmed them on the same day! Thanks!
She has some great pieces on Existentialism as well. Being a Millennial comes up quite a bit in her earlier podcasts, which is interesting. I work with an analytically thoughtful Millennial, who really fits well with her descriptions.
It seems to me that you pigeon-holed yourself with fuzzy thinking and then rejected your fuzzy thinking with more fuzzy thinking. God is not simply a higher being like a superhero or a smart person running our simulator. That is atheism in my mind.
We have had a few simulation theory threads so I’ll repeat my comments from one of the last ones by @Terry_Sampson who posted an article on physics potentially ruling out simulation theory for discussion.
I think philosophical skepticism is an interesting and stimulating learning tool to get people to think—especially about the flaws in modern materialism. But things like simulation theory (just an updated evil genius of Descartes) are intellectually problematic when you get down to business. We don’t need physicists to tell us the universe is not a simulation but more power to the field if it can say that.
[1] The idea that we are in a simulation is self-defeating (or cuts off the branch it sits in at least) in that it uses observations from our universe to argue from as if they are real or valid. How does one use simulated physics to make concrete claims about the physical capabilities of the “real” universe running the simulation? If we are in a simulation, then all our science, physics and computers are fake in the sense that they tell us absolutely nothing about how things work in the “real” base reality nor that we should even trust our simulated observations to being with. In other words, to argue we are in a simulation one seemingly has to assume we are not since the definition of a simulation only makes sense granted a real, physical world.
[2] Computers are artifacts which means they have their meaning entirely imposed on them (e.g. a clock). Computer code is inherently meaningless on its own. It is simply a sequence of physical states. The computer doesn’t truly know what a 4 displayed on the screen means. These are pixels being illuminated by electrical signals. Computer output from its code has the meaning an external, conscious mind gives to it. If our thoughts are just simulated code then our thoughts have no intrinsic meaning, including the one that we are in a simulation.
[3] The brain is not a computer and computers are not a brain. Abstract thought is immaterial (think of a concept like triangularity). No matter how much processing power a computer gets, no matter how much technology increases, a computer will always consist of an arrangement of unintelligent physical material. Increasing processing power or piling up more code doesn’t magically cross the metaphysical gap between qualitative, conscious experience and non-conscious algorithmic processing. You can stack bricks in a circle and pile them higher and higher but a trillion of them won’t magically turn into a sphere. Simulating water on a computer won’t make it wet and simulating a mind on one won’t make it conscious.
Like the problem of induction, like the is/ought problem, the problem of philosophical skepticism stems from a flawed mechanistic view of reality that goes back to Descartes and Pascal and was taken up by many others such as Hume. For the Thomist committed to hylomorphism, this issue is a non-starter and simulation theory is not cutting edge but simply another logical dead end of materialism.
That’s very interesting. I’ve heard that Kierkegaard talks a lot about faith philosophically, but haven’t yet delved into it because it will likely be over my head and demand much focus and thinking (great things!… But they require time I must prioritize ).
Is faith just resignation with another step, being re-grounding yourself into your world? How does said person connect the worldly with the infinite? Is agnosticism akin to infinite resignation? And as for the example of Antigone and Abraham, why is the leap of faith described as being a suspension of the ethical if we trust that God would not ask us to do something to harm another? That is likely a question many have asked about the story of Abraham and Issac.
These could probably be their own thread . I have few comments on simulation theory, as I’ve not thought about it as much as others, but I am interested in what everyone else has said.
Thank you for the help, @Vinnie! I was actually surprised that one of my earlier questions would garnish more responses so long after my original post.
I think sometimes how I approach some of these questions is trying to avoid as many stacked arguments or evidences as possible, because is a valid counter argument can be made against any of those stacks (and this applies to really any of the questions I have asked on this forum), then I feel like my entire viewpoint on the subject must be called into question. That’s probably not a very healthy way to approach some questions, but in some circumstances just trying to get a clean, one-point answer on how I should approach a situation in my faith is better for my faith than trying to completely address a question altogether.
I don’t recommend diving into Kierkegaard now or maybe even ever. It is not necessary.
If you do want to look into any of his work, I recommend his “discourses” and specifically “The Lily of the Field and the Bird of the Air” translated by Bruce Kiermmse (sp)
Kierkegaard’s discourses are really like sermons, and are intended to help build faith in his readers . They are not easy reading but are not nearly as hard as some of his other works .
).