I've been working on this blog for a few days in my downtime. I'll probably edit it some more in the near future to clarify my points.
I'll be honest, I've got very little respect for the notion, but as a Christian I think I have an obligation to take worldview propositions seriously. So, I'm going to give this theory my best shot at a glance. Consider this an early arrival to what may eventually become a legitimate philosophical battleground.
It's an interesting video, though. There are other articles attempting to propose "statistical odds" that we're living in a simulation, which articles I had an especially hard time taking seriously, because my experience tells me that statistical probabilities for unprovable propositions about metaphysics tend to reduce to lists of opinions about what possible outcomes have what probabilistic weight.
That said, the video I first mentioned proposed the best summary of the argument that I've found so far. Here it is:
"There are three possibilities:
1. Humans go extinct before we're able to run a simulation this big.
2. Humans don't run simulations because it's wrong or boring
3. We're living in a simulation.
Elon Musk thinks that there's only a tiny chance that we're in scenario one or two."
The video then cites another fellow who proposes that the simulation theory "suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions." I have a sort of problem with the common distinction between natural and supernatural; God clearly acts according to His own nature... This is definitely a topic for another day, but basically I disagree with the idea that the simulation theory is more "naturalistic" than Christianity. Nonetheless, that notion becomes relevant to a later point I'm going to make.
Now, let's examine the argument at hand. It's pretty solid, right? I mean, it's got more than two options, so I guess it can't technically be classified as a "false dichotomy". I looked through my book on logical fallacies and didn't see any mention of a "false trichotomy", so it must be ok.
I've formulated two counter arguments to Elon's position. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong; these are prototype arguments.
Argument 1:
If we're in a simulation, then there is a computing mechanism hosting the simulation. I'll call it "the matrix" for fun.
Every computing mechanism has limited computing power. It might be incredibly huge, but it's limited nonetheless. The video proposes an army of self-replicating computing robots to make a big enough simulation; it's still limited.
Should we produce a simulation, its computing power will necessarily be smaller than the computing power of the matrix, because the matrix must process both us and our nested simulation. Eventually, nested simulations must end in a place where the bandwidth is so limited that it cannot produce intelligences capable of making their own simulations. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that the laws of physics necessitate against an infinite chain of simulations with equal simulating power, which seems to be what is being hinted at here.
Therefore, a fourth and fifth option must be proposed in the above list:
4. We are the unsimulated simulators, and we won't necessarily all die off the way that he says.
5. We're at the bottom of the chain; too stupid to make a simulation that can reasonably be called sentient, really.
So, summarily, the logical steps taken in the video are insufficient to lead us to assume that we are not the first "unsimulated" simulators. In fact, none of the 5 options seem to hold much more weight than the others so that we could make any such assumption, one way or the other.
Argument 2:
This one is a bit less concrete, but I want to bring it up as, perhaps, the beginnings of a demonstration that Christianity is fundamentally superior to simulation theory.
In order for us to conclude that we are in a simulation, we must employ our knowledge of logic and probability. So, in order for us to assert that our conclusions are true and valid, the logical and probabilistic rules must be valid. Therefore, the proposed worldview must include some foundation allowing for us to know that our logical and probabilistic rules are valid.
In past blogs I've spent a lot of time and text attempting to distill a set of preconditions necessary for intelligibility in a worldview. Maybe I'll reiterate it later, but for now I want to focus on three that apply particularly to the argument against simulation theory:
1. The beings who programmed our simulation have communicated knowledge of the logical and probabilistic laws to us in a way that enables us to know that these laws are valid. I.e. the method of communication must not be contingent on humanity's fallible interpretive faculties.
2. The beings who programmed our simulation have similarly infallible knowledge of the applicable logical and probabilistic laws in order to communicate them.
3. The beings who programmed our simulation must be trustworthy.
Now, in order for us to know these things about our programmers, we would have to know about the existence of our programmers. We can't use the logical rules alone as the initial method to attain this knowledge, or else we're using logic to prove its own validity prior to being certain that logic is a valid means of proving things. Our knowledge of the programmers and of their revelation must serve as the ultimate foundation for the worldview, or else there must be another viable ultimate beneath them which satisfies the above conditions among others. Without further explanation from proponents of simulation theory explaining their ultimate source of truth, I figure the knowledge of the programmers is the only apparently viable candidate.
(I also wrote a few consecutive blogs detailing at length why logic itself cannot function as an ultimate foundation. I'll go find them later and link them at the bottom of this blog if I get some time.)
That said, given that simulation theory is a recent development which follows our understanding of computing and simulation, and given my premise that a true worldview must be able to account for logic and intelligibility, the people before us who also utilized logic must also have known about the programmers. Now, to be clear, I do not mean that the consciously knew about the programmers; the only way I've been able to work this out (happens to be the Biblical view, and) requires that everyone who has ever been capable of utilizing logic also knew about the ultimate source, though they may suppress the knowledge, whether consciously or subconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly, because it is knowledge that precedes the knowledge of logic.
Now, recall that the statement was made to the effect that simulation theory enables naturalistic analogies with traditional religious conceptions. I subscribe (with some differences) to Bavinck's argument from human history and the history of religions toward the validity and superiority of Christianity's claims to truth. I won't go into detail about Bavinck's arguments here. Go read Bavinck. I'm going to use his arguments as a premise for my conclusion. I'm also partially representing a fuller argument by Bahnsen to the effect that someone (Christians) must know the truth about the ultimate source of knowledge; I would like to utilize his arguments as a premise as well.
So, granting without describing a bunch of steps that Bavinck and Bahnsen have aptly taken before me, (let's accept, even for the sake of argument, that) Christianity is the superior religion in history leading up to simulation theory, and it proposes accurate information about the interactions between man and the programmer(s). (One point of importance here is that if we pick apart Christianity and say "I agree with this but not that", simply on the grounds that "this but not that" supports the worldview that we're trying to affirm, then we've committed an egregious intellectual failure; there should be better grounds than preference for the partial acceptance of a set of connected ideas).
If simulation theory is to account for the religious experiences of Biblical characters, then God's statements to the effect that he has ALL power both in our universe and in the heavenly realm where He exists, and that He has always existed and will always continue to exist, even eternally prior to our existence, would be lies. Following the above logic from the video, which allows no option wherein we are the unsimulated simulators; I see, within the specific reasoning method employed by the video, no possibility to say that our programmers are unsimulated either, and much less by way of secular naturalism to suppose that they are eternally self-existent, or are infinite sources of energy.
If our simulators are liars, then they don't satisfy condition 3 for intelligible ultimacy, and the worldview fails. If they are not liars and we simply misunderstood them terribly, then I think they don't satisfy condition 1 and the worldview fails.
That's it. I'm really interested to read arguments against this, so that I can refine or even change my perspective on the matter. Maybe I'll try to shorten it down a bit to make a YouTube video in order to spark some commentary.
"But on the real I think I need another witness"
