On whether we're living in a simulation

A lot of cosmology rests on far less stable ground than most might realize. So for instance the big bang was hypothesized by observing than everything is expanding. So if you roll back the tape then it seems obvious that everything must have been closer. Roll it way back and you get the basic foundation of the idea.

So one natural consequence of this explosion would be the cosmic microwave background radiation, the radiant heat left after the explosion. And we do observe that! Kind of... The thing is, it's nothing like what we expected. When we look at the CMB it's extremely homogeneous, everywhere. The reason this is a problem is because areas that are not causally connected (could not have reached each other at the speed of light, since the beginning of the universe) actually seem to be causally connected. We would expect to see a much more heterogeneous universe after a big bang.

So we resolved this by inventing cosmic inflation. [1] The idea is that somehow, shortly after the big bang, everything just sped up dramatically - well past the speed of light. And then it slowed down. And then started accelerating again in a fashion similar to what we currently observe. If you assume this, then we can get the big bang to match what we observe. But there's no causal mechanism or anything of the sort proposed. It's literally just retrofitting a hypothesis to avoid having it falsified, an ad hoc hypothesis. [2]

Inflation does fit what we see quite well, but it's untestable, unfalsifiable (especially given the ad-hoc nature of its own existence), and the predictions its offered to date were not particularly unexpected, given the homogeneity of the CMB.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in!

To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set of criteria to live by, best expressed in the Beatitudes.

If pressed I am probably more engaged by an agnostic understanding of the Abrahamic religions, but I can’t help to feel the overwhelming truth, love and warmth of all of existence radiate from the verses of the Bible, Old and New.

My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, to see the same love and energy in the multitudes of practice and expression, like the light in the center of a lamp, throwing subtlety different shadows on the walls from the inconsistencies in the making of the glass panes by human hands.

Perhaps with time the Simulationists will end up with their own window into the glory of our existence! I will welcome such a transformation with open arms.

I want to follow in Christ’s footsteps because it would make me a better person, no matter the fact that the struggle will never end. With God’s grace I am at least given the chance to try, fail and be forgiven for the limits of my human nature.

The emphasis should be on the practice of humility, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. The particular expression is in the realm of mere mortals and is as beautiful as any other artistic creation.

I expect downvotes, but that’s OK. Father, forgive them; they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

;)

Of course there are plenty of definitions of what a simulation would mean, and I can give you a clear definition of what I meant by "escape".

In this context, I'm using simulation to mean any computational process that gives rise to my subjective experience if that subjective experience does not reflect the world in which that computational process runs. A computer would seem more likely, in a very broad sense, but computation is everywhere.

An "escape" in the sense I used it would be any means by which it were possible to find a flaw in the simulation that would allow us to either exfiltrate information and/or transfer computation out of it.

And, no I'm not saying it's possible. I'm saying it's interesting to think about the possibility.

> You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating something on a computer or other device and assuming there is something comprehensible outside it, just like how our reality exists outside a computer simulation.

No, I'm starting with the question of whether if we are in a simulation, there is something outside that we could find a way to interact with, and if so what the potential consequences would be.

Yes, this is all wild speculation - that is the entire point.

> In any possible "simulation" we live in, "outside" isn't going to entail any elements of what you perceive inside your (created) reality, just like software, other than with convenient assumptions to prop up the idea.

In an infinite set of possible simulations, the outside would entail elements of what we perceive inside our reality. In another infinite set, the outside would entail no elements. We don't have any knowledge that lets us presume to know what such an "outside" would be like, nor which would be more likely, because we don't know who would be running such simulations, or why.

> It may be a fun "mind wank" but don't take it seriously, because it doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense to let it affect us without evidence, but the question matters because understanding it is to understand the limitations of our universe. E.g. anything that might lead us to believe it is less likely we are in a simulation would imply the odds are higher that we will face substantial limitations on computation and/or filters in the future (because if we find ourself not in a simulation, while we might just be first by chance, it might also imply that simulations will be rare or never happen). Whether we can find such indicators is another question.

Conversely, if we are in a simulation, then it raises interesting questions about whether it is possible to learn anything about the potential from that from probing the limitations of "our" physics etc., and whether there are any interesting testable hypotheses there that might tell us something about the odds.

It may never get us anywhere, but so what?

> My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions,

I don’t know much about Jesuits. Is this common in their beliefs or are you just mentioning that you yourself came to these conclusions? Just curious for my own sake.

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?