First I don’t believe that god violates any physical laws. I am a big believer that if there is a god then we are likely to be some kind of experimental simulation. Please bear with me for the sake of argument, because I think that this is a very probable outcome. It hasn’t been until recently that we were even able to conceptualize such an idea in a concrete way. Sure, we had Descartes doubting his very existence, but never in a concrete way that is probable. We had no idea of simulation technology until recently.
If we were living in a simulation, then it would be very much possible that there is a god who created the universe and everything and not break any laws at all. Mainly because such a god would have created the laws of the universe. You might say this is giving needless consideration to a complex model of something that needn’t exist. That’s true, but it does prove that god can exist without breaking any laws.
If I were to pick a belief system, that is most likely the one I’d choose it makes the most sense. Honestly, why does a waveform collapse only when we observe it? Sounds like a very convenient way in which a system could simultaneously provide sharp detail when it is important and less detail when it is not. This could be compared with 3d computer graphics in some videogames where from afar the objects would be less complex because the observer couldn’t even see the detail from afar.
And there is some logic to it as well:
from Wikipedia entry on the simulation hypothesis:
I think it’s pretty easy to rule out number 2 as we already do primitive versions of simulation, so I’m pretty sure the desire is there. The question is if it’s possible. And remember that we can use any technology from now until the end of humanity as a technological basis. To rule it out you have to know for a fact that humans will never have the technology or desire. Because if we do have the technology and desire then we will create at least one universe. And if each “real” universe creates more than one “fake” universe, then we have greater chance of being in a “fake” universe than a real one.
So what if we’re in a fake universe, and we never have the ability to leave or have any effect on anything outside? It means we’re in the same boat as before. But it does mean that there is a “god” and that this particular “god” is nothing more than a scientist or a kid playing a souped-up version of Sim-City.
Again, I’m sure you’ll argue that it makes things needlessly complex, and is giving religion special treatment because we never ask if electrons are actually little goblins running in circles around atoms. But at what point does it become a valid question?
I believe that we are certainly going to be able to produce artificial life on a computer. And I don’t think this will be too hard. Obviously we don’t understand AI, but it will be discovered one day, if not through simulating a brain down to the atom. We can simulate anything we can observe, and our simulation powers are only getting better. Computer speed and memory is increasing exponentially. And at some point, we’ll certainly be able to create a life that isn’t aware of the fact that it’s in a simulation. Will it be a valid question then? Will it be a valid question when we get to the point where we can create an entire world, like our own, but maybe less complex? Or will it still be making our universe needlessly more complex than it is?
In the same talk, Ed bravely predicted that some day memory would be sold for as little as a penny a bit. In computer science, 35 years is an eternity, especially considering that he was speaking probably about a decade after the very first simulator was done.