The notion of us living inside a computer simulation seems to pop up with some regularity these days as we continue to hear and read more and more about improvements in computer technologies and computer programming. People seem very willing to entertain such fanciful ideas without giving much consideration to their real-world implications. In a previous article I outlined some reasons why I think the Simulation Hypothesis defeats its own plausibility (read here), but did not examine in that article what the Simulation Hypothesis would entail as a worldview.
It is not surprising that people are quick to adopt the latest fad into their ideas about the world around them. People are not well known for having well-constructed worldviews. As Ken Samples writes, “Unfortunately, many people consider philosophical reflection in general – and worldview consideration in particular – a waste of time…A generally unexamined or scarcely examined approach to life may explain why so many people hold underdeveloped, disjointed, and poorly understood worldviews. Though such incomplete positions may be difficult to articulate, they do exist.”[1] So, how might one articulate the worldview which emerges from the Simulation Hypothesis?
Why Do We Exist?
One of the first things every worldview must address is the ultimate questions about where we came from. Does God exist or not? Is there anything which exists beyond this world? Do I exist in a real world or is the world just a product of my own mind? Did humans arise from random interactions of biochemicals or were we intentionally made?
Some have thought this is where the Simulation Hypothesis bears some resemblance to theism because it must be designed by one or more simulators – it was created. To compare this to theism is pretentious at best. In its conception, the Simulation Hypothesis says the likelihood of us living in a simulation is dependent on there being endless iterations of simulated worlds – that the simulator for our world could also be the product of a simulation – that it could be “simulators all the way down”.
Having “simulators all the way down”, however, cannot suffice as an explanation because, by the very nature of simulations, there must be some base reality upon which all the simulations are modelled. So, who or what was the source of this base reality? Under the Simulation Hypothesis, we are so far removed from what created the base reality, it provides no real answer to this ultimate question.
Simply that the simulated world was created is not sufficient to align it with theism. Within the major theistic religions of the world, they all insist that the God of this world created everything and placed humans in it – that we are material beings living in an external theory independent universe. Moreover, the Creator is not just a theoretical being – He revealed himself throughout human history. With Christian theism in particular that revelation came in the form of the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. While we cannot know him fully, he has revealed himself in a sufficient manner to let us know he desires to have a relationship with us – the ultimate purpose for human existence – but this is a missing element of a simulated world.
What is My Purpose in Life?
What would be your meaning and purpose in life within a simulation? From our perspective there are only a couple reasons why we would be motivated to produce a simulation. The first is an attempt to answer some question about our future based on current conditions. This is what weather forecasting is all about: can we compare our current conditions with past events which were similar and project what the next events will be on the weather front. It seems improbable that any being who had enough smarts to construct a simulation with the level of detail we experience in this world would even need such a simulation to inform them about future events – especially not one which involves the ineptitude of our current human race.
Another reason we construct simulations is for entertainment purposes – think about video games. But video games are very narrow in their construction. There is only enough information put into the simulation to deal with a particular problem or meet a challenge. Some extraneous data is added to make the game look real, but the player is very limited as to where they can go or what they can do before they are put back in their place. The world we live in now, if it were a simulation, has many aspects which might be very entertaining to the simulator, but I cannot image anyone being particularly entertained by watching me do my laundry or scrub toilets.
The plausibility of the Simulation Hypothesis also relies upon future advanced humans in this world being able to create their own simulation of this world. It could be there is some purpose for simulating our world which is beyond our current perception, but that leaves us in the present with no clear purpose or meaning in life except that it is rooted in the purposes of the simulator. Without some greater vision, I can hardly see how we would be motivated to simulate this world ourselves or even work toward that as a goal. At bottom, as objects in a simulation, we individually have no purpose or meaning in life. This challenges the coherency of the simulated worldview – it does not match my experience – I have some sense that I do have a purpose in life even if I cannot clearly articulate it.
Why is There Evil in the World?
In addition to answering questions about existence and purpose, all worldviews also need to address the human problem: why is it that humans who have achieved such great accomplishments also have been responsible for so many great evils? What is the solution to this problem? Under the Simulation Hypothesis, the answer lies not within ourselves, but in the simulator who made this world. We are not responsible for our actions because they come about as the result of the digital coding which instantiated our existence. There really is no solution to the problem – the simulator wrote both good and evil into the program – the simulator is ultimately responsible for both, not the objects who are acting out what was prescribed by the program.
This, perhaps, is what makes the Simulation Hypothesis attractive to some – that there is no personal accountability for our actions. In a society which has been so focused on immediate gratification of animal urges, this worldview gives humans license to do whatever feels right. Simulated humans need not have any regard for moral considerations – whatever you do is what you were programmed to do. But what if you were programmed to follow a moral code? How would you know if you were or were not?
Under Christian theism, the answer is not ambiguous. We were created to align with the moral standards set by the Creator, but all humans fail to do this perfectly – we are sinful, broken people in need of a rescue from ourselves. Fortunately, there is a solution: the Creator has let us know there is a plan in place if we are willing to accept His help. Whether you do or not determines your eternal destiny – what happens when you die.
What Happens to Me When I Die?
What awaits you when you “die” in the Simulation Hypothesis? Regardless of who you are in the simulation, monstrous tyrant or gracious humanitarian, when your life ends the data files or lines of code which represent you are no longer accessed by the program. The data which was generated by your role in the simulation may exist as a “memory” on the part of some other object in the simulation, but that is not you. One might think you could be recreated in a subsequent simulation of this world, but the next iteration could not be you either. All that you are in this world could never be faithfully reproduced in the next simulation. Simulations inherently are less complex than the thing they are simulating.
In some sense you may continue to exist after “death” if your data files are archived. The files would exist as long as the simulation exists. Then again, your data files may be erased once your role in the simulation has ended. Either way, as soon as somebody pulls the plug on the simulation, we all cease to exist. This is firmly in opposition to the intuition of most people in the world that we have some sense there is something or someone which transcends our material existence. In Christian theism it is clearly articulated by the God-man, Jesus, that for those who believe in Him, there is an eternal life awaiting them after their death in this present world.
A Failed Worldview
This is far from an exhaustive analysis of the worldview entailed by the Simulation Hypothesis, but even this light treatment makes it clear that it is rather impotent and remarkably unsatisfying. It fails to clearly answer the most important questions a worldview ought to answer and fails to cohere with our human experience. We glean no sense of where we really came from nor any clear idea about our purpose or destiny in life.
Despite the fact that the Simulation Hypothesis is highly implausible and untenable, I do think it has a modicum of value. Its usefulness is that it challenges us to be a great deal more reflective about what we believe about the world we live in. Not just any worldview will do. Your worldview strongly influences what you value and how you choose to live your life. The truthfulness of your worldview has implications for both this life and the next. Philosophy matters.
If this has challenged you to think more deeply about your own worldview, I highly recommend two books which both serve to explore more fully what is entailed in a worldview and compare the worldviews held by the major religions of the world:
James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, 6th edition (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2021)
Kenneth R. Samples, A World of Difference (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007)
[1] Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 22.
Cicada Song 
1 thought on “A Simulated Worldview”