Simulism: The Reason I Have Become Religious

[Sarcasmancer]

Implying what, exactly? Most religions make some sort of moral / ethical claims, along the lines of “Don’t kill people (except when_____)” or “Don’t sleep with your sister” or “Don’t tinkle in the ocean.” Stuff like that. The demands of a computer programmer on the program are more like “Don’t produce stack overflow limits” “Don’t crash the hardware” “Don’t divide by zero”. And since the hypothetical programmer(s) are both alien and sufficiently advanced as to seem godlike, their wants and desires would probably be difficult for us poor mortals to decipher.

Having a hard time translating that into a religion, per se, unless you’re worshiping Lovecraftian Great Old Ones who are neither desirous nor appreciative of worship. Or unless your religion is just a series of ever-more-elaborate justifications and rationalizations for your own wishful thinking. In which case you certainly wouldn’t be alone.

[CalMeacham]

Hunh.
Simulacron-3 as the basis of a religion

How long before we have Neo-Bene Gesserit nuns?

(Simulacron-3 was, arguably, the first Virtual Reality SF story. It was filmed as a German TV movie and later as the underappreciated film The 13th Floor, which was overshadowed by the VR movie The Matrix)

Simulacron-3

[Voyager]

@Sarcasmancer

Implying what, exactly? Most religions make some sort of moral / ethical claims, along the lines of “Don’t kill people (except when_____)” or “Don’t sleep with your sister” or “Don’t tinkle in the ocean.” Stuff like that. The demands of a computer programmer on the program are more like “Don’t produce stack overflow limits” “Don’t crash the hardware” “Don’t divide by zero”. And since the hypothetical programmer(s) are both alien and sufficiently advanced as to seem godlike, their wants and desires would probably be difficult for us poor mortals to decipher.

Depends on the program. Some of my code does all kinds of audits on the input, for instance making sure the information in the file name matches that inside. I can’t hit the user with a lightning bolt, but if there were a Perl package to allow that I’d be sorely tempted.

[Blaster_Master]

As someone who is, for lack of a better term, religious, and who also believe that the universe is fundamentally calculable, even if I accept the proposition that we are likely simulated, I don’t think it’s an argument for religion. At best, it’s an argument for Deism. Now, following that, one could make an argument that Deism is religion, but one could also make a similar argument that really Atheism is equivalent to Pantheism. Those would be, from a certain perspective, logically sound arguments, but in so doing, those arguments lose an intangible aspect that is essential to what makes them what they are.

Ultimately, though, I’m not even sure that this makes a meaningful Deism argument either. To me, it’s sort of like making an argument that aliens seeded life on Earth, or even manipulated it along the way, and so that invalidates current ideas about evolution and abiogenesis. But all it really does is push back the starting point, because we cannot create an infinite cycle of aliens created by other aliens. Similarly, even if our universe is simulated, we eventually have to work up to some reality where they are not simulated.

Worse, if we accept simulation as a possibility, we’re left with more questions than answers. Can we ever meaningfully determine if we’re actually simulated or will it always remain conjecture about why certain aspects of reality are the way they are? I’m strongly inclined to think we cannot. If we assume we can meaningfully determine we’re simulated, can we ever possibly learn anything about the nature of the universe of our simulators? I think this is even more far fetched, but if we can, how far up can we trace it? Even if we can determine all of that, what does that really gain us?

If we find out we’re just some simulation running on some super computer in some unimaginably different alien universe that’s just the result of some random pre-conditions and a few rules, how is that meaningful different from just the universe being the way it is for no particular reason. I say this, because ultimately, regardless of whether the assertions of one’s religion are true or not, the motivation behind religion is one for purpose. Theism, in essence, asserts that there is some purpose, or at least reason, for us existing, and that purpose or reason is inherent to our beliefs or understanding about the nature of the creator. Atheism, in essence, asserts that there is no underlying purpose or reason. So if we’re simulated, considering that we’re such an insignificant part of the simulation so as to be likely nothing more than an anomaly, and considering the implications of the assertion that we’re probably not even if the first layer, any claim to purpose or reason becomes negligible. So, ultimately, we’re left with a much more complicated explanation for the same fundamental world view.

[Stringbean]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Yes, but can we imagine a universe in which these fundamental units do not exist? Is it possible for a universe to exist without them? It’d be convenient, but we run into the same problem - we can’t tell if a universe which wasn’t simulated would look any different from our universe.

We thought for millenia against the notion, perhaps you should read some Greek philosophy…but as I mentioned the holes in current scientific understanding (such as why these fundamental units exist) is where simulism can gain some footing.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

This screams of the typical mangling of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that enables so much woo. And the conclusion doesn’t even follow - it just might follow.

You acknowledge that before measurement an electron can be thought to exist in several possible locations simultaneously? That the famous cat of Heisenberg can be thought to both live and die simultaneously?

Perhaps you should study some more on computational rendering, in things like video games, where the presence of an observer forces the program to render in fine detail what can otherwise be faint or indistinct. Reminds my simpleton brain of such an idea as a photon not having a distinct location until an observer requires such information. Perhaps it is an analogy drawn to an extreme, but do you really expect Newtonian rigor in a discussion of simulism?

Now that we have cleared up your intention to dismiss through woo-ery, I would hope for some level of actual debate. As in, do you have anything to add or is a typical Hawking “rubbish” all you’re here for?

[YogSothoth]

Every time I read one of these “logical” quandaries designed to reason their way into believing in god it gives me a headache.

Listen people: ALL your “logical” assumptions, premises, givens, and foundations are wrong, unproven, speculation, and irrational.

You might as well be saying “IF we assume god exists, then god exists”! Its so obvious!

The only logical assumption, given the mountains of empirical evidence, is that there is no god, you’re not special, and the universe operates exactly as science says it does, nothing more. If you want to challenge that, buy a test tube and a bunsen burner and run some actual tests because you’re not going to be able to reason your way into god existing :rolleyes:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@IMfez

1. All intelligent alien civilizations have not run universe simulations. Perhaps every single one of them decided it was unethical, or they all reach a point of self destruction before running the simulations.

How does he know they haven’t? Did he ask?

[Jackmannii]

@IMfez

Am I crazy? Am I neglecting something? Please tell me why this somewhat religious fool is wrong

Isn’t it easier to kick back, have a beer and not worry about this stuff?

[GargoyleWB]

10 PRINT “We are the conscious sentient lives of GargoyleWB’s laptop and worship He Who Sends Bits To Our USB Port without question and of our own free will. All hail GargoyleWB!”
20 GOTO 10

Hmm…looks legit.

[Trinopus]

@Stringbean

We thought for millenia against the notion, perhaps you should read some Greek philosophy…but as I mentioned the holes in current scientific understanding (such as why these fundamental units exist) is where simulism can gain some footing.

Fundamental units, like clock-ticks, exist in computers today. But are you sure it’s logical to say that fundamental units in real life imply a computational simulation as an explanation?

Why would the planck length be so unutterably small? A sim done at a basic scale of a millionth of an inch would suffice. We’d never know the difference.

I see both logical and practical objections to your reasoning.

. . . Perhaps you should study some more on computational rendering, in things like video games, where the presence of an observer forces the program to render in fine detail what can otherwise be faint or indistinct. . . .

Some modern flight simulators for training of pilots keep track of where the trainee’s eyes are focused, and spend extra computational effort to draw that specific area in sharper detail, while letting areas in his peripheral vision blur down at lower resolution. Saves overall computing time.

The problem with this idea as a clue to the nature of our own reality is that our vision defines what we can see. We can never know if our peripheral vision is being simmed at a lower resolution.

I can ask someone else to look: okay the system sims what he sees. I can leave a camera running: the system simply sims what the camera records.

If I get too close to figuring things out…the sim can simply re-route my thought patterns. If they don’t want me to look too closely at something…uh…I forget. Oh, that’s right, I was on my way to have lunch. Well, nice chatting with you!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@GargoyleWB

10 PRINT “We are the conscious sentient lives of GargoyleWB’s laptop and worship He Who Sends Bits To Our USB Port without question and of our own free will. All hail GargoyleWB!”
20 GOTO 10

Hmm…looks legit.

Heretic! BASIC is the language of Satan! :mad:

[panache45]

After reading the OP, I remain a staunch atheist. To accept even one particle of the OP’s argument would require an act of faith.

And is it “simulations” all the way down (or up)?

[Kobal2]

@The_Hamster_King

IMfez, what form does your religious belief take?

The only logical one : an automated scripted simulation of an Alien Mass, cron’d to run every Sunday morning so you don’t even have to get out of bed. Then the aliens delete 10 bucks from your bank account.

[Truman_Burbank]

Who originally simulated the alien simulators? Is it worth hypothesizing about? Is it a certainty some entity must have done so? As Panache noted a few posts up, how many levels do want to go before you realize there’s an essential layer of bedrock bullshit, and you hit it many levels ago?

[kayaker]

@IMfez

Am I crazy?

Yes.

[foolsguinea]

@IMfez

Simulism requires 2 basic assumptions:

1. There are, or were other intelligent alien civilizations
2. Computing technology has the power to simulte a universe, in the eyes of the unknowing inhabitants of the simulated world.

2 is unproven.

From these 2 assumptions Bostrom arrives at only 2 logical conclusions:

1. All intelligent alien civilizations have not run universe simulations. Perhaps every single one of them decided it was unethical, or they all reach a point of self destruction before running the simulations.

2. We are almost certainly in a simulation ourselves. 10 billion alien computers programs running simulations simultaneously, for example, reduces our chances of being in the real universe down to 1/10 billion.

False dichotomy (trichotomy?). Running a simulated universe doesn’t have to be unethical not to be done, simply pointless.

[dropzone]

@Jackmannii

Isn’t it easier to kick back, have a beer and not worry about this stuff?

Except that’s how most of this stuff is thought up, substituting pot for beer in some cases. Then we graduated. :rolleyes:

@RitterSport

Further evidence of simulism: quantum uncertainty is just dithering performed by the simulator to make up for the limited number of bits available for simulation – similar to how high end CD players would use dithering to make up for the 16-bit limitation on CDs.

That’s how they do it? I think my Revox deck is too old for that, simply using good design and top-notch components, but it sounds awesome!

[kaylasdad99]

I couldn’t find the obligatory xkcd link, so here’s the next best thing:

Obligatory smbc link.

[cmyk]

Hell, I was just ruminating about the possibility that matter/energy and spacetime might be anti-aliased at the Planck level, so why not?

In all honesty, we have no idea if true artificial intelligence is possible. If you’d like to put faith into such a far-fetched, but not impossibly reality, that’s quite a quantum leap you’re making, so to speak. I wouldn’t call it religion though, just faith.

[Mijin]

I can look at this two ways, logically and “gut feeling”.

Logically, the idea of a multitude of parallel simulations fails Occam’s. It doesn’t matter how plausible their existence might seem to me. That’s if I agreed with the underlying assumptions, which I do not (intelligent life might be common, but we don’t know that yet).

Gut-feelingly, I’d expect simulations to have a more obvious purpose.
And everything I am doing in my life is being simulated* so me jerking off or whatever would have to be an essential part of the simulation. I don’t buy it; it seems too dull, too directionless.

• Of course you could argue that that was not really simulated e.g. it’s just a fake memory or just have the implanted belief that I have done such things. But then all bets are off at that point, and I have no reason to trust any part of my thought process, including that the proposition is rational.