"O," cries Hamlet in the depth of angst, "that this too, too solid flesh would melt / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!"
The Prince o' Danes should'a stuck around. Today, he would have been relieved to find that science, achieving ever finer resolution, has indeed turned solid flesh into dew. Quantum dew. And not just flesh: any solid, we now know, is nearly all emptiness, and the few bits of matter within its atoms, when you get right down to them, are, well, bits. That is to say, the electrons and subatomic nuclear particles (or strings, if that's the you swing) are elusive little buggers who can only be pinned down via quantum numbers.
Now, there is a lot of superheated woo-woo wackadoodle written about quantum physics these days, some of it right here in these esteemed pages. (For a hint about why the linked essay is moonshine, go here.) As a science writer I decline to add to the steaming heap, so let me pledge here and now to make no quantum claim before its time. Here's the rub: Quantum theory is incomplete. It predicts physical behavior with exquisite statistical precision, yet it lacks a settled explanatory framework -- especially one that coheres with that other great physical theory, general relativity. So, let's put QM back on the ontological rack for now.
But hang on, Hamlet. Maybe there is another way to escape the flesh. And, lo, from the pen of New York Times columnist John Tierney, it doth appear:
Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else's hobby. I hadn't imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.
But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.
Bostrom, I should note, is at once more serious and less confident about this conclusion than is Tierney. Bostrom rates its probability at about 20 percent. All the same, his idea is catching on. The, ahem, philosophers who have had the greatest success in spreading the Gospel of the Sims are the Wachowski brothers. Their trio of Matrix movies lofted razzmatazz sci-fi into a kind of pop theology, with Keanu Reeves as its messiah. Even as I write, new "papers" are being published on Matrix theology -- though somehow I doubt this example went through peer review.
The Demurrage [sic], the creator, is in the shadow land, the world he created, his own personal matrix. In the gnostic tradition, the savior comes from the real world, into the darkness, then returns to it. This is the largest gnostic idea in the film: two worlds, one being a mear [sic] reflection of the other. ...
The truth can be a frightening thing, especially dedendingon [sic] the nature of the truth. When comes to our perception of everyday activities, it seems to be so real. The truth is, we don't know what's out there, but how things will turn out, or how that began.
Deep thoughts, to be sure, marred only by a certain lack of orthographic integrity. If only Spellcheck were not so expensive! Damn you, Microsoft!
But let us take this idea that we are Sims seriously for a moment and while we're at it compare it with the more traditional Judeo-Christian idea that we are soul-studded creations of a supremely perfect God. It turns out that they suffer from the same defect.
Bostrom neatly sums up his argument in the conclusion to his paper:
A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is 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.
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation.
Got that? The biblical argument for our existence is, I trust, too familiar to need repetition here. Now, the case against traditional theism has many arrows in its quiver, but here I need draw only one: theodicy, better known as the problem of evil. A more accurate way of phrasing this, in my view, would be the problem of pointless suffering.
There are too many examples to cite, but I offer you one to stand for them all: progeria. God, we are told, loves little children, yet he afflicts some of them with this absurd genetic disease that causes them to age at a fantastic rate, wither away and most often die before enjoying a day of adulthood.
Defenders of traditional faith, whose craft is known by the delightful term "apologetics", swoop in to reassure us that this is not a problem at all. (If you ever want an example of rationalizing to contrast with reasoning, you cannot do better than to look at apologetics of theodicy.) Their arguments typically center on two ideas: that suffering results from sinful choices, and that suffering is part of a hidden greater good known only to God.
The first idea stumbles on the general hurdle that a perfect God could easily have created beings who, even with free will, would not have made choices that lead to the kind of suffering we see in the world. It then falls flat on its face when you look at specific instances: did the parents of Ashley make a sinful choice in conceiving her? And even if so, did Ashley deserve to suffer the consequences? It's a patently ridiculous idea.
But what about a hidden greater good? After all, we humans don't know everything, do we? Of course not. But if we are to have rational discourse leading to a common understanding of the world we share, we cannot resort to "God moves in mysterious ways" arguments. If God acts irrationally (or beyond rationality, if you prefer), then anything is possible, including the falsity of all theology. Maybe the devil reigns, and just sets up the idea of God to torture believers all the more at the end. Game, set, and match to madness.
And that brings us back to the Sims. How can know whether we're simulations in some superduper computer built by posthumans? Some pretty amusing objections have been raised, such as quantum tests that a simulation would fail. It seems safe to say that any sim-scientists examining the sim-universe they occupy would find that the laws of that universe are self-consistent. To assert that a future computer could simulate us, complete with consciousness, but crash when it came to testing Bell's Inequality strikes me as ludicrous. Unless, of course, the program were released by Microsoft. Oooh, sorry, Bill, cheap shot. Let's take it for granted that we could not expose a simulation from within -- unless the Creators wanted us to.
But the problem of pointless suffering leads me to very different conclusion. Recall Bostrom's first conjecture: that few or none of our civilizations reach a posthuman stage capable of building computers that can run the kind of simulation in which we might exist. There are many ways civilization could end (just ask the dinosaurs!), but the one absolutely necessary condition for survival in an environment of continually increasing technological prowess is peace. Not a mushy, bumper sticker kind of peace, but the robust containment of conflict and competition within cooperative frameworks. (Robert Wright, in his brilliant if uneven book NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny, unfolds this idea beautifully.)
What is civilization if not a mutual agreement to sacrifice some individual desires (to not pay taxes, for example, or to run through red lights) for the greater common good? Communication, trust, and cooperation make such agreements possible, but the one ingredient in the human psyche that propels civilization forward even as we gain technological power is empathy.
Of course, ants presumably lack empathy yet manage to organize their own version of civilization, but the degree of freedom our brains and hands confer on us requires a much stronger kind of social glue. Over the last several centuries, we've tried out facism, communism, and various kinds of religious and secular totalitarianism. They've all failed. We're not a species that takes kindly to anything less than kindness. What I suggest, then is that any civilization that emerges from the brawl of 21st century global unrest will surely be peaceable and empathetic.
To imagine that they would turn around and simulate their past replete with all the agonies of genocide, slavery, oppression, and countless acts of senseless suffering inflicted by natural disaster is, to me at least, unthinkable. If they really wanted to revive the past, surely they could -- and would -- just switch off the consciousness module. We would no more suffer than a Halo 3 shooting victim. Unless, of course, all this suffering is part of a hidden higher good...
Nah!
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
The Gospel according to Neo / The Christian Science Monitor ...
THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, MYTHOLOGY and POPULAR CULTURE in The Matrix
Technology and religion in The Matrix - Symbolism, Theology ...
Practical Theology and the Matrix - Project X - the Search for the ...
Second, I'm not sure how often Judeo-Christian philosophy has addressed irony ("God is an Iron," Spider Robinson).. However, Mr. Naff's reference to spell check highlights his own editorial error: "That is to say, the electrons and subatomic nuclear particles (or strings, if that's the you swing) are elusive little buggers who can only be pinned down via quantum numbers."
The next question of course is why pray and what good is He/She/It then? This question seeks to use the finite mind and reason to approach the infinite, seeking to define human concepts of morality within Natural Law. An inexact process at best.
We must also remember religion is a human made construct replete with human flaws and human power struggles. The real unanswerable question is why does a good God permit human concepts of evil? Now that is a tough one and it has several postulates. It also begs the question "what is evil both human and divine and what is its nature?
Note to fr33d0mhawk: "God according to the Bible does not exist"???????????????
Funny... the Bible utterly disagrees with you. Remember that whole "global flood that killed nearly all of life on earth" thing? Yeah... utterly impossible under the natural laws of the world; could only happen if they were violated.
If you have the power to lift a 4,000 pound Buick off of a child, *but you stand by and do nothing*, you cannot claim moral superiority.
What better way to design a creature to survive and thrive on Earth than to use the natural processes of physics and evolution?
And you last question is working only from our limited perspective. If there is a creator God, then that God would have to exist outside of our understanding of physics and evolution. So that God would not be limited by those processes.
But if you are just expressing a belief in this purest of deistic Gods, a non-personal, non-interventionist Deity then there is no conflict. The conflict begins when people start to make more claims about the nature and activities of this God. Such as being all powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Throw in the concept of a "heaven" and then you have a whole slew of conflicts with the "Problem of evil or suffering."
Christ has two sides to his coin. Best not to forget all the pain and strife religion has visited upon humnakind.
The world or the universe is not the Good-in-itself, I think you agree with that. That it is not a paradise makes you so angry, but this-worldly reality is not a paradise and hardly ever will be. Then what sense does it make to be so angry about that? Another point is that not everything that is going on in the real world is so bad, and there are many things worth to be enjoyed, such as beautiful landscapes, good books, arts, etc.
God is the source for everything, good and bad, and good and bad are human constructs. God told Moses to violate one of the 10C's 3000 times before Moses even got to show them to his people. Imagine the gallons of blood, the children dead or who lost parents, all because God ordered the violation of His own commandments. King David was God's bud when he ordered childrens heads bashed against rocks, when he had his best friend Uriah killed so Davie could bed Uriahs wife, but David is a pal of God so he gets a Crimes Against Humanity get-out-of-jail-free pass. Monotheistic Religion is simply supertitious hypocrisy used to dupe people of low objectivity to violate their own instinctual morals to commit heinous crimes against their neighbor. The percent of people murdered by other people has been relatively constant, even after the invention of religion.
Why?
That's not true. A large porportion of social welfare throughout humanity's history was conducted through Christianity. It's just not as headline grabbing as something like the Crusades. Still, I would wager that if we knew all the times Christian theology motivated a kind act, a soup kitchen, or reassured someone emotionally, and then compared them to all the bad things people have twisted religion to justify, we would see that Christ's name has been used more for good than for ill.
Still, on another level, it's impossible to know what people would do without religion. Hopefully it wouldn't be the same thing officially atheist nations like the USSR or China have done. I suppose only God knows (hehe).
I hear in Ashley, Hope, and Joy and a loving, optimistic spirit. I know the voice characteristics of those confronted with Progeria. I am not sure that what we witness with Ashley condition is something that would offer an example of a heartless God, nor do I think we should ignore her example.
I cried when I was loosing my sight, like the man who had no shoes until he met the man with no feet. I am near death, but I probably have more years left than Ashley does.
As always Clay, you offer pause to think.
But when we propose or examine the false doctrines of Sin as cause for affliction. I would offer up Job, and what is written when he lamented to God over his suffering. OR how God reproached and admonished his friends when they falsely blamed Job for his conditions.
Regarding Hamlet: What did he see when gazing again, on his childhood friend and playmate?
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew whim, Horatio, a fellow of the infinite jest, and most excellent fancy.
GOOD POINTS Clay!!!!
You make me think.
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
Take the humans vs ants analogy. It is assumed that humans have free will and ants do not. Why is that assumed? Well, it is assumed ants are mindless, that they aren't making their own choices, but following some kind of script.
However, how do we know that ants are less "free" than humans? How do we know that ants don't FEEL they are doing what they WANT to do. That they could do any number of things, but they happened to decide to do whatever it is they are doing....?
This is very similar in humans. People seem to be totally blind to how universal many things are in human action, let alone human thinking, that it isn't even THINKABLE to do otherwise. Why is courage universally a virtue? Why is cowardice universally a negative? Etc.
Just because you don't see the very narrow path you are given, as a human, to wander down, doesn't mean the narrow path doesn't exist. Same goes for the ant.
On Freedom Vs Determination:
“Freedom; our freedom, is directly proportional to our awareness and knowledge of the forces and persons, that would seek to determine it!"
Works for me!
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
I have since moved towards atheism, as there is no proof to verify the existence of gods but I do appreciate the thoughts in this piece since my own views were partially shaped by similar ones.
But that's not the only idea.
Obviously, other people have had similar ideas or this author would not have felt the need to write this article.
How ignorant. The ultimate religious fallacy is to stop learning about the real world and stay stuck in a mythological one of your chosing.
He would do well to question the foundations of Judeo-Christian, Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian (to name a few) religions and examine what he believes using real tests and measures. Such is the thought process of anyone not wishing to be like herded cattle.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Like I said, it just got me thinking. One little idea was a huge catalyst for me, especially given the world view I had from growing up Christian.
If we choose not to love God, what else can He do? The wicked will find fault with God rather than place the blame on sinners, but who are they to judge the wisdom of Almighty God? God realizes that, if selfishness is left unchecked, one selfish person would destroy the moral universe if possible. In His infinite love and justice, He must allow us the freedom to make and stick by our choices, but wicked choices must have consequences.
The severity of the punishment for breaking a law is a reflection of the lawmaker's estimate of the value of the law. God estimates the value of a relationship with Him to be such that to live selfishly can only be rewarded by an eternal punishment. In Hell, sinners will be blaming others for being there. They will protest their sentence and they will never acknowledge the truth, that they are blameworthy for their sins, because denial and darkness reign in Hell.
God is love.
“… choose to love Him.”. How can one choose to love? One can choose to go through the motions, but emotions can not be chosen.
May the Quantum™ have mercy on your Disconnected Consciousness and allow you to experience the Synchronicity Showers before it’s too late.
Quantum™ unto you
The fact that creatio ex nihilo (positive existence out of null state) is an impossibility gives us at least one "ultimate Truth," which is that Existence Itself is Eternal in nature; something has ALWAYS existed, and always will. And that FACT leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that regardless of how many "universes" are created -- either subsequently following expansion-collapse cycles, or by intelligent beings in "greater" universes -- there still MUST be, working backwards, a First Cause of everything which is, itself, completely UNCAUSED.
And I simply cannot see, due to this mind-blowing FACT, how any "Matrix-like" philosophy could ever be the Ultimate Truth of Existence.
The ONE "thing" in this universe which we have yet to be able to objectively measure (thereby rendering it a bone fide "object," is Consciousness Itself, which suggests that Consciousness may be Absolute Subjectivity. And what cannot be measured has no endings or beginnings, making it both Infinite in scope, and Eternal in duration. Logic then points to Consciousness as being the selfsame First Cause which is Eternal in nature that caused all Objective Existences their start.
It cannot be hurt, destroyed, threatened, or possibly made to NOT exist, for it is the very CONTAINER within which All Reality manifests, as well as all manifested Reality Itself. It is quite literally All That Is, and it is merely our dualistic PERCEPTIONS from within a Space-Time Universe which convince our minds that Reality is "relative." Unbelievers cringe at the idea of the existence of a "God" because their minds are locked into dualistic perceptions, and they therefore stubbornly anthropomorphize even that which they vehemently deny exists! They refuse to accept God as a possibility because their linear thinking paints a picture of a God who looks and behaves just like they do. And because they make distinctions and make judgments, then so must God, and they FEAR such a being, and correctly so. I would fear such a being myself, for what sane person would wish to give limitless power and presence to anything resembling a human being?!
The *mathematics* say that this universe came, not from nothing into a 'void,' but something still bigger but very real that remains the substance of all of it.
What some call 'logic' and 'commonsense' to propose impossibilities by....Doesn't apply within this space-time-matter-energy bit of a causal-appearing universe.
What we presently think of as 'Everything and everywhere and everywhen,' well, didn't 'burst into being' from nowhere, somewhere else. 'The big bang' happenned right here and everywhere we know or can: 'This' is everywhere we see, and it just arises like a wave on the sea.
What we are evolved to be able to see and know easily, really, is just a stable part of something bigger.
The need for a 'First Cause' only needs to be involved if you insist it does. But causation as we know it isn't relevant beyond our own scale of time. (I'm sure it sounds like gibberish, but think of the wave. The wave has shape and motion, but it didn't come from nowhere. It's 'only' a shape. ) What else there is, ...isn't relevant. At the moment.
Similarly, I can’t think of anything that follows from the god hypothesis, unless you add several other hypotheses to it.
I agree that the omnipresent suffering on our planet seems to represent strong circumstantial evidence against the Sims-theory, but only based on a whole set of assumptions:
- We are actually created in the image of our creator, meaning he shares our moral and ethical traits. I have no doubt that a civilization of, say, cat or ant-like intelligences would develop different moral values. Maybe we are not a Sims-simulation but a simulation to explore alien mindsets?
- The creator acknowledges that simulated feelings are as relevant as 'biological' feelings. And really, are they? And even if we truly suffer, is this suffering relevant when the creator can erase it with a mouse-click? Or reboot us? Or switch us off? Or change it into eternal bliss on a whim?
- There is indeed no reason for our suffering. But maybe there is? Maybe the simulation serves a goal of much higher priority, the development of complex moral standards, say, or the prevention of wars or ecological or economical disasters in the creator's plane. Surely the simulated suffering of a few billion neural networks would be seen as an acceptable price to pay for the improvement of the living conditions of untold billions or trillions of 'real' beings?
I think one could come up with more necessary assumptions, but regardless I really enjoyed this piece.
1) Bostrom's conjecture relates to our descendants simulating us. But even if you assume a cat civilization, or whatever, my point about empathy holds. Based on the only case we have (life on Earth), I argue that life which becomes technologically complex enough so that each individual can wield vast destructive power must value and enforce a ban on cruelty (or, to put it positively, empathetic behavior) if it is to survive. The ant model doesn't work at this level, because creative problem solving requires a degree of individual freedom and the pursuit of self-interest. (The bacterial model of problem solving is more impressive still, but even they cannot anticipate and respond to every challenge that humans can.)
2) Suffering is suffering, and when pointless, it is immoral.
3) This is the "hidden higher good" argument which I refuted in my piece. It *may* be true, but it moves the discussion outside the realm of rationality. "Hidden higher evil" is just as valid a response.
Best regards,
Clay
This goes especially for categorically dismissing the "higher good" scenario. I don't follow your argument that the discussion of such a driving force would move the discussion into irrational territory. This would only be the case if the existence of "higher causes" could be ruled out in principle for logical reasons. But I don't think they can.
Take the area of animal-experiments in our reality. There are cases where most people will perceive the suffering of animals as immoral (development of cosmetics, etc.), but there are others, where most of us would accept the suffering of animals for a 'higher good', in the testing of important pharmaceuticals for instance.
You stated that a civilization capable of running these simulations surely must be much higher developed in the moral area than we are. But regardless of the degree of moral and ethical enlightenment of that hypothetical civilization, there will always be the need to balance common good vs. other entities interests. One must assume that the initiators would give (legitimate) interests of their own kind at least as much weight as the suffering of the simulated. From their perspective their suffering is real and irreversible, while ours can be reset by a mouse-click. Would they rather let 1000 of their own suffer, or, if that was the choice, one of the simulated?
I also write. I have a very personal relationship with each story and novel I create - the world and the characters. The characters are a part of me, and also their own unique personalities - at least I strive to craft highly distinct characters. I love them all, even the villains and random extras. They are almost like children. Or pets. But I have enough distance from them that I have no qualms about making them suffer - and suffer hard. I'm sure that if they could speak apart from me, they'd think that much of their pain is pointless, since they are unable to know the ends they have in mind, nor the overreaching beauty to what I am trying to write.
I've always believed it when Vonnegut said that the secret of good prose fiction is to find characters you love and be insufferably cruel to them.
Funny old world, but maybe it started to seem less like art and more like a bad version of Super Mario Bros.
Lost the heart for it in a world where people simply want the gold and cheer for the pratfall.
Maybe, when people talk about the evils of 'religion' and related 'fiction,' it's because people worship at that the altar of that point of view.
Call it 'gritty and real' when everyone's just a video game character in an arbitrarily-constructed maze, and destined to 'fall.'
Say, 'That's the order of things.'
Maybe... That ain't life.
Best Regards,
Clay