As some materialists try to make sense out of their interpretation of reality they have debated whether our existence is indeed reality or if we are part of a simulation. Why is there a debate? Because the mathematical properties of the physical universe are in conflict with what their beliefs have compelled them to deny, that the universe is intelligently designed.
Should we call scientists considering this idea Simulated Design Creationists?
Scientific American called the idea that we live in a simulation a “valid scientific theory.” They quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, who used the mythical 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA as a foundation for speculating about the existence and evolution of super-intelligent beings who could create such a simulation, saying, “I think the likelihood may be very high …We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence, …If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.” What led him to consider this conclusion or to imagine the details?
Others who agree claim that considering the current increase in our own computer processing power we could eventually create simulated universes. Today’s universe could just be something our future selves create to simulate our past. But not everyone agrees with the simulation idea.
Those who disagree say that there are too many things to simulate and even with advanced computing skills there wouldn’t be enough computing power to simulate a universe and all its minds. They have found that the more space-time and gravity that you attempt to simulate, the computing power needed grows exponentially. In other words, it would be impossible to simulate our universe in full detail. The interesting thing is that neither side denied the facts that led to the idea that the universe looks designed.
The Simulated Design Creationists note that the above problems may not be an issue for a simulated universe. The question is not whether “we” could eventually do it, but whether a super-intelligence from another universe could do it. For one, they wondered how much of the universe needs to be a detailed simulation? Is it only detailed when we are looking at it? Then, are the difficulties they see a deliberate part of the simulation? Perhaps the aliens don’t need to simulate all of the details all of the time. They also suggest that the creators may not be under the same laws of physics as we are. Perhaps our universe is far simpler than theirs. Their universe and its laws may be very different.
Tyson, as he tries to cover all the angles, is quoted saying, “If you’re finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe it’s just the fad of the moment… Kind of like if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” In other words, “you’re probably imagining things.” It’s an easy way to brush off the problem, and really answers nothing. Also, the analogy fits no matter who you are or what you are looking for. If you’re a materialist hammer, then every problem must turn out to be a natural nail.
Speculation runs wild on this subject, which is typical for a materialistic storyline.
Has science discovered evidence of a simulation? No. It’s the mathematical properties embedded in physics of the universe that they have discovered. If we add to that the fine tuning of the properties of the universe, our special place “goldilocks zone” in the galaxy and solar system, the conditions unique to this planet that are needed for life to survive and the information stored in the DNA of all the organisms on this planet, the obvious conclusion is that we live in an intelligently designed universe. But the current consensus is devoted to denying this. Claiming that there is a high probability that our reality might be an intelligently designed simulation demonstrates that they understand the implications of what they see. But they are devoted to denying the obvious conclusion.
We either live in an intelligently designed “simulated” universe or an intelligently designed “real” universe? Why does seeing the signs of intelligent design make materialists turn to the idea of a simulation? Could it be that the evidence points directly to what they have long desired to reject?
The claims that our universe might be a simulation obviously don’t come from science. However, science is what’s producing the discordant facts for them, the cognitive dissidence in their world view. The problem for them is what it means if the designed universe is real. That they may be subject to its creator. So, they toy with the idea of a powerful simulation and a race of evolved creators from another universe that just want to be entertained.
A Recognizable Pattern
A recognizable pattern emerges in how materialists deal with the evidence for everything. Once upon a time they claimed that science was going to demonstrate that the universe, life and everything could exist without a creator, that natural laws and events would explain everything. The scales were supposed to tip heavily towards a self-creating self-existing reality as the focus of science grew stronger. But the opposite is happening. When they look at the universe, science overwhelmingly points to the unacceptable fact that it’s been designed by an intelligence. It may run according to apparently unguided natural processes, but things didn’t originate that way. So, it forces them to make excuses for what all of us can see. For them the reality of design must result from either a massive collection of absurd accidents or…if it must be due to intelligence, aliens did it. And they believe that brains cobbled together by evolution accidently developed the intellect to know this, while those who deny it are the real idiots.
They have the same reaction when they look at life. Organisms, systems and structures only “appear” to be designed for a purpose, when they are really a massive series of genetic accidents. Could life be designed? They’ll consider it, if the designers were aliens. They believe that if the aliens (or their creators) evolved through natural processes they are acceptable intelligent designers. This of course would include our super-evolved future selves.
What about our sense of right and wrong. For the materialist our thoughts are those of brains cobbled together by blind evolution. A human brain was formed on top of a fish brain that is inside of a reptile brain that is inside of a mammal brain that is inside of an ape brain. Our morals are instinctual artifacts (side effects) of undirected brain evolution that happened to convey an absurd number of survival advantages. The idea that there really is a right or wrong is an illusion. If you don’t agree with their conclusions, they claim you are deluded. Ironically, this conclusion, which comes from an ideology that can’t solidly support the idea of right or wrong, or even sane or insane, insists that it’s wrong for anyone to conclude that they are wrong. This is usually supported by the fact that everyone who agrees with them agrees with them (consensus).
For materialists its illusion, delusion, evolutionary side effects and a simulated universe with imaginary super intelligent creators. Or for some materialists who have trouble swallowing that story, it’s just the extreme dumb luck of being in a universe with parameters weird enough for life to pop up through random interactions of matter and energy that exploded from a super compacted ball of matter the size of nothing. While real time science tells us that genetic degeneration is the norm and that evolutionary origin of new proteins is absurdly unlikely, the evolutionary storyline is a collection of just so stories where a vivid imagination and blind faith can turn fuzz to feathers, light sensitive spots into eyes, arms into wings or fins and collections of molecules can spontaneously come to life all over the universe, to name just a small fraction of the stories we are told in the name of science.
But in all of this, even though they don’t accept many things as reality and invent stories about the past, they are admitting that they can accept the idea that a super intelligence can exist outside of our universe, not bound by our laws of physics. They are also admitting that they accept the idea of a created universe. They get sidetracked by entertaining ideas about the motives, thoughts and actions of imaginary alien beings, of which they are certainly ignorant, while ignoring and dismissing the evidence that we can know that the Creator is the God of the Bible. Conversely, for those that accept what the Bible says, this is a real universe created by a real Creator. The purpose in life is real. Moral values are real. Right and wrong are real. The evidence of design is real. And reality matters! We don’t have to speculate about who God is, we can know Him for ourselves. Science agrees with the fact that God transcends this universe, that the universe and life are designed, that the earth occupies a special place in this universe and much more.