(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
A gentle case against atheism and an ironic theory about the most baffling UFOs [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-11-05
What do we accept on faith?
Most of us, including atheists, accept a rather great deal about ourselves and our universe on faith, not on actual knowing. To wit: are we really flesh-and-blood, physical beings, or could we actually be sentient characters in a computer simulation? Most of us accept it on faith that we are what we seem to be, yet acknowledging uncertainty is often useful — it prompts us to explore.
In recent years, scientists have become interested in testing the theory. In 2012, inspired by Professor [Nick] Bostrom’s work, physicists at the University of Washington proposed an empirical experiment of the simulation hypothesis. The details are complex, but the basic idea is simple: Some of today’s computer simulations of our cosmos produce distinctive anomalies — for example, there are telltale glitches in the behavior of simulated cosmic rays. By taking a closer look at the cosmic rays in our universe, the physicists suggested, we might detect comparable anomalies, providing evidence that we live in a simulation. Similar experiments were proposed in 2017 and 2018. [Nobel prizewinning physicist] Professor [George] Smoot captured the promise of these proposals when he declared, “You are a simulation and physics can prove it [video].” —New York Times op-ed by philosophy professor Preston Greene
The physicists mentioned in the article are proposing using scientific methods to test the Simulation Hypothesis, though the philosopher who wrote that article, Preston Greene, warns that this may be an existentially dangerous pursuit. Greene reasons that if we were to discover we’re in a simulation, then whoever is running the simulation may consider this a good reason to shut it down, terminating our universe, the same way medical researchers would shut down a drug trial if recipients discovered who got the placebo. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that a scientific pursuit has had disastrous consequences; we can only hope it’s not the last!
If we are in a simulation, then clearly the simulation’s creator(s) are at a higher level of existence than we are: relative to us, they are superbeings who can exert as much control over our universe as they might desire to (within the limits of the simulation technology). Therefore, things in our lives which we think we are in control of and things which we think happen by mere chance, may not always be so; some higher-level intelligence may be manipulating the plotline.
But if that’s the case, then whoever’s controlling the simulation might be able to simply prevent scientists from seeing any telltale signs of a simulation by manipulating (for example) the output of the scientists’ instruments. Negative results could therefore be impossible to prevent — if the game has been rigged — but if scientists did observe positive results, those would presumably either be due to true error (a flaw in the experiment) or true evidence that we’re in a simulation (and the simulation controller was caught off-guard or doesn’t mind our efforts to discover our true nature).
What are the odds?
The notion that our world might be a simulation was ignited in recent years by a paper on this subject by Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom and has become popularized by personalities like the engaging astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (video) as well as the execrable tycoon Elon Musk, who has said that the speed at which computer technology is advancing suggests that the chances we aren’t in a simulation are “one in billions.”
David Kipping, a Columbia University astronomer, has a more conservative estimate. In a research paper summarized in this Scientific American article, Kipping lays out a mathematical argument putting the chances of our world being a simulation at just a hair under 50% (assuming even odds that such simulation technology might someday be feasible and if it is, that many simulations may be running). In other words, Kipping’s mathematical argument suggests that we are probably not in a simulation, even if we suppose such simulations are possible (not probable, but possible). And yet his math indicates our physical existence which we take for granted is only slightly more likely than a simulated existence! That’s rather astounding, but Kipping acknowledges that he thinks Occam’s razor would counsel us to disfavor the Simulation Hypothesis, i.e., the assumption which gave even odds on the potential for humans to eventually create the simulation technology may be too generous. However, if humans do eventually create the technology, Kipping says that the chances we’re living in a simulation then would become practically certain: “It’d be a very strange celebration of our genius that day.” So Kipping is confirming Bostrom’s logic, which is that if we assume humans are very likely to someday develop the simulation technology, then it follows that our own world is very likely a simulation.
So, is it more rational to be agnostic about this — that is, is it more rational to acknowledge the possibility that we might be in a simulation controlled by some higher-level intelligence — even if we aren’t inclined to believe so — than it is to reject that notion outright? Numerous scientists seem to think so. And if you agree with them, then it follows straightforwardly that agnosticism toward the basic notion which people of faith hold that there exists some higher-level intelligence who may (to some degree) guide our universe, is more rational than atheism is.
What are the baffling objects expert pilots witness?
Highly-trained military pilots have experienced aerial phenomena which appear to defy earthly explanation. It’s conceivable (if we’re agnostic toward the Simulation Hypothesis) that these phenomena could be absurdities purposely introduced into a simulation by a capricious or merely curious simulation operator to observe the simulated people’s reactions — analogous to the flying penises which wreaked humorous havoc in the heyday of the virtual reality platform, “Second Life.” But in the life of a Navy pilot, it’s no joke:
The object was about the size of [retired Navy Cmdr. David] Fravor's F/A-18F, with no markings, no wings and no exhaust plumes, Fravor said. When Fravor tried to cut off the UAP, it accelerated so quickly that it seemed to disappear. He said it was detected roughly 60 miles away less than a minute later. "I think what we experienced was, like I said, well beyond the material science and the capabilities that we had at the time, that we have currently or that we're going to have in the next 10 to 20 years," Fravor testified Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee's national security subcommittee. —CBS News
x YouTube Video
Counterarguments to the Simulation Hypothesis
Certainly some scientists and philosophers take seriously the notion that our world may be a simulation, but I assume most are inclined to doubt or dismiss it. You can find numerous objections to the hypothesis in Wikipedia’s article on this subject. Science writer William Poundstone presents an interesting counterargument which rests on the assumption that people who could create high-fidelity simulated worlds would be most likely to simulate eras like their own, where people possess the simulation technology. Since we don’t possess it, Poundstone argues that it seems more likely that we are the real McCoy in a universe which will never invent simulation technology rather than a rare simulation in a universe where that technology is common.
Personally, I’m not convinced that sentient artificial beings are actually possible, that software could ever become conscious. Such artificial beings are represented famously on Star Trek by the starship Enterprise’s android second officer, Mr. Data, Voyager’s holographic Doctor, and Deep Space Nine’s holographic lounge singer, Vic Fontaine. If it’s not possible to create self-aware artificial beings, then the Simulation Hypothesis goes out the window.1 But I’m merely doubtful — I don’t rule out the possibility entirely of self-aware beings in simulated worlds who speculate about whether they are real or artificial — and that we ourselves might be such beings. I can’t say I’m not intrigued by the ironic possibility that the most baffling UFOs are actually a screaming clue not that aliens are real but that we aren’t! 2
x YouTube Video
x YouTube Video
______________________
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/5/2203794/-A-gentle-case-against-atheism-and-an-ironic-theory-about-the-most-baffling-UFOs?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
