If we're in a simulation, its creator is our god

A few days ago I wrote about one of the central notions in David Chalmers' new book, "Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. Namely, that if we're in a simulation, our world is still real. 

In this post I'll talk about a chapter in the book with a compelling title: Is God a hacker in the next universe up? 

What I'm enjoying most about Reality+, aside from how clearly Chalmers writes and reasons, is how he integrates basic philosophical questions with the specific issue of us being in a simulation.

Does God exist? The question has been asked since the dawn of human history. The most convincing answer is No, since there's no demonstrable evidence for God.

Chalmers summarizes the usual arguments in favor of God. For example, the cosmological argument that he says goes something like this:

Everything has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That cause must be God.

That argument is easily refuted, something I've done many times on this blog. If God is the cause of the cosmos, everything that exists, which may be much more than our universe, then what caused God? Religions have an answer. God doesn't need a cause, having existed eternally.

The obvious response is, then why not assume the cosmos has existed eternally? The advantage to this is that the cosmos can be perceived, at least the portion we're familiar with, while God can't.

Now, if we're in a simulation, everything changes.

The entity doing the simulating -- such as a being with unlimited computing capacity in a galaxy far, far away -- still may wonder what brought the cosmos into existence (unless this question isn't of interest to them), but obviously they know who created us and our universe.

They did. Chalmers says:

If we create simulated worlds ourselves, we'll be the gods of those worlds. We'll be the creators of those worlds. We'll be all-powerful and all-knowing with respect to those worlds. As the simulated worlds we create grow more complex and come to include simulated beings who may be conscious in their own right, being the god of a simulated world will be an awesome responsibility.

If the simulation hypothesis is true and we're in a simulated world, then the creator of the simulation is our god. The simulator may well be all-knowing and all-powerful. What happens in our world depends on what the simulator wants. We may respect and fear the simulator. At the same time, our simulator may not resemble a traditional god. Perhaps our creator is a mad scientist, like Rick -- or perhaps it's a child, like my nephew.

The transhumanist philosopher David Pearce has observed that the simulation argument is the most interesting argument for the existence of God in a long time. He may be right.

I've considered myself an atheist for as long as I can remember. My family wasn't religious, and religious rituals always seemed a bit quaint to me. I didn't see much evidence for the existence of a god. God seemed supernatural, whereas I was drawn to the natural world of science. Still, the simulation hypothesis has made me take the existence of a god more seriously than I ever had before.

Of course, the god whose existence Chalmers now takes more seriously isn't anything like the gods assumed by most of the world's religions.

The simulation route leads to a distinctive sort of god. The simulator is a natural god, one who is part of nature. The ontological, cosmological, and design arguments are often used to argue for a supernatural god, one who stands outside nature. The simulator is beyond our own physical universe but not beyond nature as a cosmic whole. In principle, the simulator can be explained by the natural laws of the cosmos.

As a result, the simulation hypothesis is compatible with naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophical movement that, at a minimum, rejects the supernatural. It holds that everything is a part of nature and can be explained by natural laws. Many have thought that naturalism and God are hard to reconcile, so that naturalism should lead to atheism. The simulation hypothesis offers a path to reconciliation: a god that even a naturalist can believe in.

He says that the problem of evil, which is difficult to explain if God is good, is easily understood if we're in a simulation: "A simulator need not be all-good. She may well tolerate some evils in the simulation."

Chalmers doesn't see any need for worship if we're in a simulation.

Should we worship our simulator? It's hard to see why. The simulator may simply be a scientist or a decision-maker in the next universe up. We may be grateful to her for creating our world. We may be in awe of the power she has over our world. But gratitude and awe alone are not worship.

...I find myself thinking that even if our simulator is our creator, is all-powerful, is all-knowing, and is all-good, I still don't think of her as a god. The reason is that the simulator is not worthy of worship. And to be a god in the genuine sense, one must be worthy of worship.

For me, this is helpful in understanding why I'm not religious and why I consider myself an atheist. It turns out that I'm open to the idea of a creator who is close to all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. I had once thought that this idea is inconsistent with a naturalistic view of the world, but the simulation idea makes it consistent. There remains a more fundamental reason for my atheism, however: I do not think any being is worthy of worship.

The point here goes beyond simulation. Even if the Abrahamic God exists, with all those godlike qualities of perfection, I will respect, admire, and even be in awe of him, but I won't feel bound to worship him. If Aslan, the lion-god of Narnia, exists as the embodiment of all goodness and wisdom, I won't feel bound to worship him.

Being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and entirely wise aren't sufficient reasons for worship. Generalizing the point, I don't think any qualities can make a being worthy of worship. As a result, we never have good reason to worship any being. No possible being is worthy of worship.

Comments

[Dungeness]

@ Chalmers [ Being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and entirely wise aren't sufficient reasons for worship. Generalizing the point, I don't think any qualities can make a being worthy of worship. ]

Oh, I think gratitude for a GPS wielding godman in unfamiliar terrain is
is reason enough. A one-minute explanation by Sadhguru:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZpmdQsULR4

[Ron E.]

It seems to me that the simulated universe idea incorporates a no-win situation – much the same as the God concept. Questions that attempt to contradict a simulation theory would be met by saying that the contradiction is built into the simulation. It’s rather like a believer in God stating atheism is part of God’s plan – you just can’t win this game.

I’m quite happy with the fact that the world is an illusion constructed in our heads. We know that there is no smell, colour or taste etc. Brains interpret the world in a way that only equips us to survive, not how it actually is (whatever that is) – and it’s probably the same for all sentient creatures. The world is real enough but not in the way we think it is. David Eagleman in his book and T.V. series ‘The Brain’ explains this well.

I like physicist Brian Cox’s theory of the origins of the universe which he termed the "science creation story". He said: "In the beginning there was an ocean of energy that drove a rapid expansion of space known as inflation. There were ripples in the ocean. As inflation ended, the ocean of energy was converted into matter by the Big Bang. The denser regions of gas collapsed to form the first stars and the first galaxies.”

We could call this ‘ocean of energy’ The Simulator or God I suppose – seeing as though energy can neither be created or destroyed!

[TENDZIN]

I'd counter that the "what caused God?" argument is a mystery, but not an answer, and definitely not a proof. The blaringly pertinent question of "what caused all this?" isn't resolved by suppositions on a quirk of physics (by the way, what caused the laws of physics?) or sci-fi theories about alien beings and simulation (what caused that?)

Creation is itself the proof of God (as something that created life and the universe). Science has as yet no answers on that subject.

[TENDZIN]

Moreover, if we hold that God can't exist because something or someone would have to have created God, then how can we hold that life and the universe came into being ex nihilo? If a created God is illogical, then why is a created from nothing life and universe logical?

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ We could call this ‘ocean of energy’ The Simulator or God I suppose – seeing as though energy can neither be created or destroyed! ]

Who unleashed or what is responsible for energy then...
Suppose someone posits Alpha-Woo is the actual
primal force that can't be created or destroyed. But it
manifests as energy at this level. Why not... aside from
the hard core materialist's disdain for the supernatural
tenor of the name itself...

Mired as our thoughts are in space-time, we'll never
unravel this. We can't conceive of what it means to
step outside it. We're stumbling on unknown terrain...
the limits imposed by our own thinking. The answers
to this quandary have to come from inside conscious-
ness, from emancipation from thought via an inward
path IMO.

[Ron E]

D'ness. @Who unleashed or what is responsible for energy then...@

Well obviously it came from nothing!

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ Well obviously it came from nothing! ]

Fair enough.. but whether pristine 'god-like' energy or 'Alpha-Woo',
why not probe consciousness for a clearer understanding of this
"nothing".

[Ro E.]

When you start looking into this simulation idea, there seems to be a number of opinions either for and against. Its something we may never truly find out – similar to how the universe came about. Reading some of the ideas can be interesting – and some funny like this one: -

It was suggested that a group of youngsters are messing with the system introducing things like Trump being president, Brexit etc. And having a good laugh at the resulting mayhem. Let’s hope some adult corrects the glitch.

And D'ness. Understanding nothing becomes something - and who's doing the probing?

[Dungeness]

@ Ro E. [ Understanding nothing becomes something - and who's doing the probing? ]

Consciousness itself. It's the great unknown yet can understand by direct perception.
It apprehends "nothing" without leaving a footprint.

[Appreciative Reader]

"If we're in a simulation, its creator is our god"

..........Or gods, plural. I mean, no reason at all to posit just the one, is there?

It might well be a whole team, comprising ten people. Or, if this were some cutting edge simulation, something hugely complex compared to the kind of thing they've done before, then it might even be a very much larger team.

In fact, here's an extreme scenario: They put up this simulation so that paying customers can log in into our simulated world and either simply watch or, if they pay premium rates, then actually participate. Literally hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of customers do this, and pay good money for the entertainment. And so, this is big business, very big business indeed. So that there's a whole huge organization that's basically engaged with just this major project. Maybe even such a successful organization that they're one of the Fortune-10 of that world. So that conceivably there's literally thousands of people who're keeping this simulation --- us --- up and running, and literally hundreds who've directly helped create it (that is, create us) and to keep it (that is, keep us) up and running. Maybe even spanning many generations, if this thing (meaning us) has been going on for very many years of that world.

In short, there's no reason at all to posit just the one creator. There might well be two, or ten, or a hundred, maybe even thousands. And, whether because it spans generations, or whether due to simple everyday employee attrition, the gods may even keep changing!

----------

(Present-day inheritors of Aquinas's logical fallacies can chew on that. It cuts many ways, that analogy. And shows up yet another flaw in Aquinas. Over and above the very many other flaws in his thoughts and ideas.)

[777]

True

-
Swami Ji said it, Kabir, Nanak, Jesus

Myriads of hackers ( Brahmas, Yahwehs ) all God in what the produce(d)
plus the Para Hackers

777

[777]

TENDZIN :
"what caused God?"

me : YOU DO

777