I want to continue with my exploration of the dangers faced by the Church brought about by the rapid technological advances in our society. In this article I want to discuss the idea that we are living in a simulation.
The idea that we might be living in a simulation has philosophical roots that stretch back centuries, though it has been formalized and popularized in its current form relatively recently. The simulation hypothesis, as it's often called today, suggests that our reality could be a simulated environment created by some advanced civilization.
Historically, you can trace similar lines of thought back to ancient philosophical skepticism. For example, Zhuang Zhou, a Chinese philosopher from the 4th century BCE, questioned the nature of reality with his "Butterfly Dream" parable, wondering whether he was a man who dreamed of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. This parable touches on the unreliability of our senses and the nature of reality. Zhuangzi's dream argument has been influential in various philosophical discussions, particularly in those concerning epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). It resonates with themes in Western philosophical skepticism, such as those presented by Descartes, and has been cited in modern discussions about the nature of reality and the simulation hypothesis.
In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, presented in his work Republic, touches on the concept of a simulated reality. In this allegory, prisoners are chained in a cave, only able to see shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them. The prisoners believe the shadows to be reality, not realizing that they are merely a representation of the real world.
In Western philosophy, René Descartes's 17th-century meditations introduced the notion of a powerful demon that could be deceiving him about the existence of the external world, his physical body, and the empirical world's physics. This is a metaphysical skepticism that questions the nature of reality and our ability to truly know it. In the First Meditation, Descartes introduces the idea of a powerful and deceitful demon who has employed all his energies to deceive him. This demon, he imagines, could manipulate his perceptions and thoughts to such an extent that all his experiences of the external world, including the physical laws that seem to govern it, might be illusions. The demon could make him believe in the existence of a physical world when, in fact, none exists. This radical skepticism includes doubting the truths of arithmetic and geometry, as the demon could be making him believe that 2+3 equals 5, or a square has more or less than four sides, for instance. Descartes uses this extreme scenario to illustrate that all sensory perceptions and rational inferences based on them could be in doubt. However, he famously concludes that the very act of doubting one's own existence serves as proof of the reality of one's own mind.
A modern version of the demon argument is the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, suggesting that one's brain could be removed from the body and connected to a computer that provides electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. This would create a simulated reality indistinguishable from the "real" world. This thought experiment was the core of The Matrix movies in which the entire human race has been placed into giant vats and fed a virtual reality at the hands of malignant artificial intelligence, which, of course, was initially created by humans.
The modern formulation of the simulation argument is attributed to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford and the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. In 2003, he published a paper titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?", where he presents a trilemma: either (1) most civilizations go extinct before they are technologically advanced enough to create reality-simulating computers; (2) if they can reach this point, they are not interested in creating such simulations; or (3) we are almost certainly living in a simulation. His argument is built on the assumption that if it's possible to create realistic simulations of entire universes, it's likely that we're living in one of the many simulations rather than in the base reality. He argued that if future civilizations could run highly detailed simulations of their ancestors, the number of simulated realities would greatly outnumber the one "real" reality. This leads to the statistical likelihood that we are currently living in a simulation.
Most recently, the book "Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy" (2022), by David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University, as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness and who posed the hard problem of consciousness, explores the philosophical implications of virtual reality and the simulation hypothesis. While he doesn't argue that we are in a simulation, he presents several arguments suggesting that we cannot know for certain whether we are in a simulated reality or not:
1. The Indistinguishability Argument: Chalmers argues that a sufficiently advanced simulation would be indistinguishable from non-simulated reality. If the simulation is perfect, there would be no way for inhabitants of the simulation to discern that they are in a simulated reality.
2. The Simulation Argument: Drawing from Nick Bostrom's work, Chalmers presents the idea that if advanced civilizations can run many simulations, the odds are greater that we are in a simulated reality rather than the one "base" reality.
3. The Virtual Reality Argument: Chalmers suggests that as virtual reality technology advances, it may become so immersive and convincing that it will be difficult to distinguish from non-virtual reality. If we accept virtual reality as "real," the distinction between simulated and non-simulated reality becomes blurred.
4. The Mind-Body Problem: Chalmers is known for his work on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective experiences arise from physical processes in the brain. He argues that this problem persists whether we are in a simulated or non-simulated reality, as the nature of consciousness remains uncertain.
5. The Philosophical Zombie Argument: Chalmers has famously argued that we can conceive of philosophical zombies - beings physically identical to humans but lacking conscious experience. If such zombies are possible, it raises questions about the nature of consciousness and whether we can truly know if others (or ourselves) are "real" or simulated.
Another perspective is from Donald Hoffman’s in his book "The Case Against Reality". Hoffman, who is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine and popular author, presents an argument that our perceptions are not a direct reflection of objective reality but rather an interface shaped by evolution to help us survive and thrive. He extends this idea to all aspects of our perception, including space, time, and objects. Hoffman argues that even our perception of three-dimensional space may not reflect the true nature of objective reality. He suggests that reality may be vastly more complex and multidimensional than our limited perceptions can grasp.
Rizwan Virk also discusses the current state and future of gaming technology, including the development of VR (Virtual Reality) and AR (Augmented Reality), which are seen as steps towards achieving a simulation point where virtual experiences are indistinguishable from real life. He believes the potential for future technologies, such as mind interfaces, could further blur the lines between reality and simulation. As more humans use VR only, they are living in a simulation only. This is just the first step for us to create high fidelity simulated worlds. Civilizations more advanced than us might be able to achieve large-scale simulations.
While these arguments don't conclusively prove that we are in a simulation, they suggest that the possibility cannot be ruled out based on our current understanding of reality and consciousness.
If this were a philosophical inquiry only then the simulation hypothesis would be just that, grist for journal articles and speculation amongst a small group, maybe late at night in a pub. However, many in the technology field, especially in AI, believe or strongly believe that we are living in a simulation. Peter Diamandis, the creator of the X-Prize and the Singularity University, has stated unequivocally that he is 99.9% certain we are living in a simulation. Elon Musk hopes that we are living in a simulation. Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there is a 50-50 change we are living in a simulation. These are people publicly pushing these ideas and are highly influential. Many technologists truly believe that they will eventually be able to upload their brains and consciousness, since the latter is a just a program running on a biological substrate, into an advanced cloud and then live forever. There are many lines of thoughts and beliefs that either explicitly or implicitly advocate for a simulated existence. To them, God is just the entity running the simulation. Also, God could be a simulation inside of a greater simulation.
Reflecting on these arguments, I have scientific and technological reasons for doubting the simulation hypothesis. I can discuss why belief in our brains as being computers is flawed, why simulating human consciousness on a digital substrate is problematic, or to quote Sabine Hossenfelder, ” The problematic part of Boström’s argument is that he assumes it is possible to reproduce all our observations using not the natural laws that physicists have confirmed to extremely high precision, but using a different, underlying algorithm, which the programmer is running.”. These and many other arguments from scientists make the whole idea of a simulation problematic.
Let me put my Catholic technologist hat on and describe how I cannot square these arguments with Catholic theology. Here are my conclusions:
The existence of God: Catholic theology asserts the existence of a singular, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God who created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). This belief is incompatible with the idea that our reality is a simulation created by an advanced civilization, as it would imply the existence of a higher power above God.
The nature of the soul: Catholic doctrine holds that human beings possess an immortal soul, which is not merely a product of physical processes. The simulation argument, however, implies that consciousness is a result of computational processes, which a Catholic theologian would reject.
Free will: Catholicism emphasizes the importance of free will, as it is necessary for moral responsibility. In a simulated reality, it could be argued that free will is an illusion, as all decisions and actions would be predetermined by the simulation's code. This contradicts the Catholic understanding of human agency and moral choice.
The problem of evil: The existence of suffering and evil in the world is a central concern in Catholic theology, addressed through the concept of theodicy. If reality were a simulation, it would raise questions about the moral nature of the creator of the simulation, as they would be responsible for allowing or causing suffering. This conflicts with the Catholic view of a loving and just God.
The Incarnation and Resurrection: The central beliefs of Christianity, such as the Incarnation (God becoming human in Jesus Christ) and the Resurrection, would lose their theological significance if reality were a simulation. These events are understood as God's intervention in human history, which would be meaningless if history itself were a simulated construct.
The sacredness of reality: Catholic theology views the created world as a reflection of God's goodness and love. The simulation argument, by suggesting that reality is an artificial construct, would undermine the sacredness and inherent value of the world as created by God.
This belief in a simulation will evolve with time and is becoming more palatable to the technologists creating our future world. This cries out for the need for us to evangelize them, in a concerted and overt manner. They are an influential group and will embed their secular humanist beliefs in their technological creations.