Simulation Hypothesis VS Atheism
During a Q and A with Vox Media, Elon Musk was asked the question that’s probably been occupying your mind as well as mine.
“Is this a game? Are we living in simulated reality?”-Elon Musk
After the roaring laughter from the audience had settled, Musk laid down an argument that seems hard to refute.
“If you assume any rate of technological improvement at all, then our games will become indistinguishable from reality.”-Elon Musk
He continues with an example of the legendary tennis game Pong and underlines the fact that in forty years we’ve gone from two blocks on a screen, bouncing a ball back and forth, to contemporary high-quality Virtual Reality.
Within that metric of improvement, it won’t be long until games are no different from reality.
If we have a game that is as real as our physical reality, how do we know that this has not already occurred in the past? He concludes that it’s a one in a billion chance we are not in a simulation.
The Simulation Hypothesis originated from the Swedish Philosopher Nick Bostrom that wrote a paper that laid the foundation for future head-scratching in the scientific milieu.
Bostrom’s simulation trilemma posits that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:
1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero.
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero.
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.-Nick Bostrom
The hypothesis was perhaps not considered equally relevant back then as a grand narrative for our existence; other than in Hollywood, producing films like The Matrix and The Thirteenth floor, stories about characters that find themselves living in a simulated world.
However, the theory that has been considered one of the more compelling grand narratives around, String Theory, is seemingly failing to prove itself in its attempt to provide a complete, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe, leaving many scientists to turn away from it.
Brian Green, the renowned superstring theorist, and astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has on many occasions discussed their fascination of Simulation hypothesis as a grand narrative.
In an interview with Larry King, Tyson proclaimed that he finds it hard to argue against it. He’s also been recorded in a panel debate stating that he believes the odds for us living in a simulation is more than fifty percent.
We might not need to speculate much longer.
This year a group of scientists started a Kickstarter campaign to perform an experiment which they believe may prove if we live in simulation or not.
The experiment relies on using supercomputers using a technique called Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics, to emulate a universe, and in term look for signatures, limitations or weaknesses in the possible simulation.
The campaign needed 150.000 for the experiment and managed to receive 236,590 dollars.
What if we manage to prove the hypothesis?
Tyson concludes that if we are living in a simulation, it is actually irrelevant to us. It might be beneficial when it comes to experimenting on things such as alternative resources, but for most people, the earth keeps spinning, and we still need toilet paper.
What would this mean for atheism?
Regardless of the possibility that our universe may have been created in a basement by some prepubescent teenager with an inclination for heavy metal. This person will in this scenario be the creator of our universe, aka, God.
Within the idea of a creator, one must assume that one has a purpose, a set plan for our existence, and an objective for the simulation itself.
This would be the death of atheism. But what would be the repercussions?
Would it deflate other possible characteristics of an idiosyncratic atheistic belief template? If yes, what are those exactly?
Dare one claim that atheism shares many of the same attributes as Postmodernism? Skepticism, Irony and the non-acceptance of Modernistic ideologies.
Regardless, one of the more fascinating aspects of this situation to me is the fact that scientists are exploring these options, and some are collapsing into the variable of the existence of an actual possible creator.
Might this suggest a state of disarray or at least a development out of stasis for the scientific world that might benefit us?
This might provide us a “thinking out of the box” mentality that could be crucial in discovering our new grand narrative.
And as our self-awareness grows, so will our connection between each other, and everything in existence.