A new theism: are we in a computer simulation?

[Matthew]

Hello! As an atheist, author, and game developer, I think this site is
thought provoking: http://www.podtycoon.com/shutdown. It explores the
old question of whether we are living in a computer simulation in a
new, interesting, and fairly humorous way. But it opens up a few other
deep issues, one of which is: how is the supposition that we are in a
computer simulation, created and run by a future human, really very
different from the supposition that we are in a universe created and
overseen by God? Is a new intellectual generation, which has been
slowly trending toward atheism, going to be tempted by this new and
provocative theory about what cannot be seen, the truth of which can
only be revealed when this mortal coil is shuffled off?

Further, the site explores the idea of religious afterlife, makes some
backhanded comments about theism, and calls for a kind of vote on the
beliefs and desires of its readers. It's worth checking out, I hope.
There is a discussion group for it at http://groups.google.com/group/pod-tycoon
.

[Harvy Brans]

Matthew,

How interesting, this could be our next paradigm for future
technology. Be sure Bill Gates gets the link to this post.

harvy brans

[Phillip Montgomery]

Haven't people thought of this "new theism" in one form or another for centuries?  I recall hearing of a writer who thought that the ideals for everything in the universe were in the mind of God.

--
Phillip Montgomery
Blog at
http://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/

[Matthew]

Philip, you are probably right, if this can be expanded to say God is
the computer and His thoughts are the program which is running in it.
This matches what I dimly recall about Hindu beliefs that the cosmos
is merely the dream of a god.

I guess what I see new about it is the way it captures the imagination
of hardened atheists like me. As I played with this concept, I started
catching myself wondering if I am seeing the hand of this new
"God" (the simulation creator, who goes by the handle podtycoon, or
pod, in my story). It's the usual kind of trigger that sets off
theists: something happens which is so freakishly coincidental, or so
beautifully ironic, that I wonder if an author is behind it. I find
myself wondering if I have found some inkling that there is a creator,
and he has tweaked the program to see how I respond to his stimuli. In
my story (at http://www.podtycoon.com/shutdown), pod says he does this
very kind of intervention once in a while.

So what is new to me is that I (and I daresay other rationalists) who
otherwise have been free of supernatural thinking can be tempted by
this new construct.

I do not believe this simulation argument in my heart of hearts, but I
can't say I utterly reject it. I am mulling it over in a way I have
not done with any other religious idea for decades.

Does that make sense? This is new territory for me so I may not be
expressing myself clearly enough.

I have a group going at http://groups.google.com/group/pod-tycoon
which can use intelligent discussion, so feel free to start up a topic
there as well, though I am happy to post here.

Also, I see this group as a wonderful locus of people in my target
audience, and know of other sites that might appreciate my story, so
please do spread around the link to my story for further
consideration! :)

[Matthew]

Hi Harvy,

There is a consensus, it seems, in the computer science community that
the complexity of this simulation is quite easy to envision attaining
in the next few decades. It accelerates as increasingly intelligent
computer processes make designs for yet more complex and intelligent
processes. As this snowballs it turns into what is often called The
Singularity: a monumental spike in digital complexity.

What I am not so sure of, and some philosophers (but not many!) are
with me on this, is that human consciousness is many orders of
magnitude more complex to create digitally than even an exceedingly
powerful and well-made computer. I am a materialist and believe that
consciousness rises out of the machine of our brains, and there is no
ineffable magic soul. But I think that what with quantum mechanical
weirdness and the incredible complexity of even our individual
neurons, there is far more interaction happening in our brains than
even a conceivable future computer can create. So I don't really think
artificial consciousness is in fact possible, even in the age of the
Singularity.

[Matthew]

There is developing quite a nice discussion of all this at
http://groups.google.com/group/pod-tycoon/ so check it out and join in
the fun there!

Ta ta,
Matthew

[Turner Hayes]

I regard this idea the same way I regard determinism, which is essentially "So what"? I mean, what difference does it make if true? It can be fun to think about as a kind of a thing-to-ponder-when-stoned, but I don't see how it could have any effect on our lives.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Matthew <Matthe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Matthew]

Hi Turner--

Actually your question "so what?" taps into quite a deep vein of
philosophy. You are quite apt to equate it with determinism.

One deep question is: CAN we figure out if this scenario is true or
not? That is one tricky one.

The other deep question is: Even if it is true, should it affect our
behaviour? On one hand, if one thinks that artificial consciousnesses
(ACs) are not really beings deserving of human rights, and one is
certain that our world has no real future, it could be a license to
immediately start behaving in an extremely selfish way that purely
seeks pleasure and new fun experiences, no matter who else gets hurt,
because none of it matters. On the other hand, if one sees ACs as
being who deserve human rights, then one cannot justify making them
suffer, especially considering that they might have the afterlife
described in the Very Special Shutdown Notice (at http://www.podtycoon.com/shutdown).
So we should not behave any differently than we did when we thought we
were real. The middle path is: if I used to believe in a judged
afterlife, where I would go to heaven or hell depending on how well I
follow a religion's moral code, and this revelation convinces me that
there is no such afterlife-- that I will get a good afterlife no
matter what I do-- I might not feel justified in being evil and
inflicting suffering, but I feel OK about breaking those laws in my
religion that I don't see causing any real harm to others. So,
depending on my religion, I could feel free to smoke, drink alcohol,
eat pork and shellfish, work on the Sabbath, stop praying, have
extramarital and taboo forms of sex, and so on. So that is one way to
answer "so what". :)

On the group discussion board at
http://groups.google.com/group/pod-tycoon/browse_thread/thread/b97273e8a48b7d8e#
there is an exploration of this; jump there or read below.

Thanks for keeping the discussion going, Turner!

>>>>>>>>
So to apply the same logic, what is the better life for me to live?
One that assumes I am in a real world with no afterlife, one that
assumes I am in a simulated world with an uncertain afterlife, or
something else? For the same reason it's more fun to play Chess when
everyone knows and follow the rules than it is to play when one
changes the rules, I think I'd prefer a life lived as if it were real,
full of people who believe the same. But am I simply falling into the
same trap Pascal did? Or put another way, am I like Pascal in every
way except for what I believe the true nature of reality is, and
therefore I cannot blame him for filling in the blanks in a way
different from me? If so, all I can and should do is try to convince
the ghost of Pascal and others alive with me today that my belief is
the better one, but accept that there is no foolproof argument.

It also has been argued that if I am really in a simulation, being
watched by someone like podtycoon, I had better act like a normal
human. If I do not, Pod will regard me as buggy and unhelpful to his
studies of normal humans, and remove me unceremoniously, or restart
the simulation with a few fixes that discourage me from believing I am
in a simulation. Perhaps this has already happened...

The flip side is that I should act exciting and interesting and
engaged and dynamic, because otherwise the sim's admin may get bored
and wipe the whole thing like a Sims savegame that has gotten
dreary.... :)

<<<<<<<<<<<<

On Dec 13, 2:25 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I regard this idea the same way I regard determinism, which is essentially
> "So what"? I mean, what difference does it make if true? It can be fun to
> think about as a kind of a thing-to-ponder-when-stoned, but I don't see how
> it could have any effect on our lives.
>

[basem mohamed]

i think this movie discuss the topic here

http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=8904

What is real? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about your senses—what you feel, taste, smell, or see—then all you're talking about are electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

[Matthew]

Thanks for that, Basem, I should check that out.

In fact there is a rich vein of philosophy and religion which asks if
all this is not an illusion, and if it were, how could we tell.
Buddhism and Hinduism make this explicit, and the question was asked
by the ancient Greeks.

On Dec 16, 10:36 pm, "basem mohamed" <bibleis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think this movie discuss the topic here
>

> http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectI...

>
> What is real? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about your
> senses—what you feel, taste, smell, or see—then all you're talking about are
> electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/pod-tycoon/browse_thread/thread/b97273...