I’ve been enjoying all the recent “we’re living in a simulation” conversations, but notice that this idea has two distinct interpretations, only one of which seems remotely plausible to me. One suggests that some advanced civilization in some universe has mastered the art of virtual reality, and that, since virtual universes could be created by the billions, it’s probable that we actually live in one. This is a fun thought experiment, which would make a good movie, and which has, by my calculations, approximately zero chance of being true. To me, the far simpler and more believable interpretation is that the “real” universe is the simulation.
Folks keep trying to shoehorn the simulation theory into our present concept of virtual reality – thinking that everything must be reducible to ones and zeros on some kind of circuit board, and that behind this fake reality is a “base reality” which is really real. They seem reluctant to imagine that base reality itself could be a kind of simulation – though Indian philosophers have been teaching this for millennia. It’s amazing how the Hindu concept of maya dovetails neatly with our modern understanding of the universe. The more we learn, the more the universe seems like a kind of holographic projection – appearing substantial, but in truth being more of an idea than a thing.
It’s not that hard to imagine that our entire universe is the product of some sort of “reality generator” that deals not in ones and zeros, but in algorithms of fields and photons – a “base reality” that is at once very real, and an illusion.
However we interpret the idea of simulation, they all require one feature: a Simulator. Who or what this simulator is is anybody’s guess, but many people call it God. But God is just a placeholder word, representing a necessary but unknown creative force or entity existing outside the simulation, beyond our view. Imagining this God as an alien being playing with a facsimile universe seems like a way to limit his/her/its creative capacities – which is kind of illogical, since we have no knowledge of God’s limits.
So what do we know about God? That she is one awesome programmer, with one awesome computer, for starters. People worry about whether she has the coding chops and computing power to sustain such a vast simulation, and whether she might be cutting corners regarding peripheral features – but no, every detail is perfectly rendered, down to the last spinning electron. Damn she’s good.
With the concept of simulation, we’ve maybe reached a point where science and religion can be friends and hold hands again. There are many contending ideas about the nature of this simulation, and its creator, and our part in the scheme of things; and we’re all motivated to understand. And mostly, we’re all just wondering if God can be trusted.
So again, what do we know about God? One, that she is really, really, … smart. Just look at what she put together. Two, that she seems committed to fairness – her rules apply impartially, unbendingly, “universally”. Various philosophers have ascribed lists of other virtues to our creator, and these may be harder to prove, but my sense is that God is as kind and caring as she is smart and fair.
.
.
.
.
.