I think that if naturalism is true, then the rational view would be to think we're in some kind of simulation, given statistics mixed with the assumption that computer programming power is sufficient to replicate a mind enough that the mind being replicated cannot know it's been programmed. In other words, if such a scenario *can* happen (and on a materialistic view of the soul, most secular philosophers think we are really close) then the odds that we are the REAL universe instead of one of the billions of replicated universes each computer could, in theory, manufacture are so remote that we are virtually guaranteed to be in the simulation.
But at that point, all the problems James Anderson highlights become necessary to grapple with. In many ways it's similar to the problems that arise out of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the universe splits at every possible quantum junction. In such a view, anything that is possible is actual somewhere. Ultimately, you can't know ANYTHING with certainty because there is SOME universe that functions exactly like this one up until...NOW, when it goes crazy wonky, etc. The simulation scenario has the same problems.
But more than that, the arguments for the existence of God would work even if our universe is a simulation--and in fact are probably even stronger if we stipulate that the universe is a simulation. After all, if this is a simulation, SOMEONE programmed it (simulations don't just happen out of the blue) which is a pretty strong argument for God. Not only that, but the argument from Logic, TAG, Kalaam, Beauty, Morality, etc., all remain in full force. So the atheist has traded the inability to adequately explain the universe with something even less adequate to explain it apart from deity of some sort, and thinks it somehow disproves God.
Instead, the arguments for God would prove that God exists in the *BASE* universe from which all other universes would be derived. If we are in a simulation, the universe which houses our computer (or whatever forms the simulation) is necessarily a universe where a Being that matches the classical characteristics of God must exist. And if He exists at that level, He exists even within the simulation, for nothing exists apart from Him.
Well of course we are.
ReplyDelete'For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face' and 'This world is not our home'.
I think that if naturalism is true, then the rational view would be to think we're in some kind of simulation, given statistics mixed with the assumption that computer programming power is sufficient to replicate a mind enough that the mind being replicated cannot know it's been programmed. In other words, if such a scenario *can* happen (and on a materialistic view of the soul, most secular philosophers think we are really close) then the odds that we are the REAL universe instead of one of the billions of replicated universes each computer could, in theory, manufacture are so remote that we are virtually guaranteed to be in the simulation.
ReplyDeleteBut at that point, all the problems James Anderson highlights become necessary to grapple with. In many ways it's similar to the problems that arise out of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the universe splits at every possible quantum junction. In such a view, anything that is possible is actual somewhere. Ultimately, you can't know ANYTHING with certainty because there is SOME universe that functions exactly like this one up until...NOW, when it goes crazy wonky, etc. The simulation scenario has the same problems.
But more than that, the arguments for the existence of God would work even if our universe is a simulation--and in fact are probably even stronger if we stipulate that the universe is a simulation. After all, if this is a simulation, SOMEONE programmed it (simulations don't just happen out of the blue) which is a pretty strong argument for God. Not only that, but the argument from Logic, TAG, Kalaam, Beauty, Morality, etc., all remain in full force. So the atheist has traded the inability to adequately explain the universe with something even less adequate to explain it apart from deity of some sort, and thinks it somehow disproves God.
Instead, the arguments for God would prove that God exists in the *BASE* universe from which all other universes would be derived. If we are in a simulation, the universe which houses our computer (or whatever forms the simulation) is necessarily a universe where a Being that matches the classical characteristics of God must exist. And if He exists at that level, He exists even within the simulation, for nothing exists apart from Him.