The Simulation Argument
The simulation argument recently got a fair amount of press. Basically, it suggests that there is a reasonable likelihood that we are living in a simulation. The basic argument goes something like this: there are likely many advanced civilizations that have enough computing power to create virtual models of worlds and universes such as our own, and the number of advanced simulation worlds is comparable (or even much greater than?) the number of real universes (one?), so it stands to reason that we are part of a simulation (so goes the argument).
It’s certainly interesting to think about, and we certainly can use some logic to consider if that could be true. This makes me think of a common atheistic argument (that Dawkins came up with, or at least popularized): God almost definitely doesn’t exist since He would have to come from somewhere, and the chance that he arose out of chance is not really worth considering. We are told that it is unacceptable to consider that the rules that apply to us don’t apply to God: that is, that He is not bound by time, or that he could have existed from eternity past. Does Dawkins also have to abandon any discussion about the simulation argument? I’d be curious to hear his ideas about it.
Buzz Out Loud Episode 553 (right click to “Save As”) is a fun audio introduction to these ideas.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:21 am
This is fascinating - I listened to the podcast and followed a few of the links on the site http://simulation-argument.com/, which led me finally to this power point thesis out of MIT: http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/ComputersAndGod.ppt. This is all very plausible except for one thing. I find the only thing missing in all of the simulation theories is the concept of the biblical idea of Love. Which confirms what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-39. This is what makes us real.