The Simulation Hypothesis and the Simulationist Church
Complete Works Collected
I'm fairly well known in simulationist circles for my writings on the simulation hypothesis. Although I believe the probability of it being an accurate description of our universe and ourselves is extremely small (approaching zero) I still find the idea fascinating and thus my long record of publication on the topic. It also sparked my interest in Simulationalism, the religion which accepts the simulation hypothesis as fact, and has built an entire set of beliefs and practices around the idea. I have not written a word about either in a very long time, however, because of my long history, I receive semi-regular communications from current or former church members in a variety of forms including email, snail mail, and even phone calls. The fact that they can always find my email, home address, and number despite several moves and phone number changes speaks to their technological savvy or my own sloppiness and lack of concern for personal privacy and security, or both.
Complete Works Collected In No Particular Order
The Simulation Hypothesis
The Simulation Hypothesis and Possible Variants
The Problem of Evolution in a Simulated Universe
Making the Case for Simulation Hypothesis Variants
The Simulation Hypothesis and Transhumanist Thought
We Have Finally Arrived in Our Partially Simulated Universe
Virtual/Augmented Reality and the Simulation Hypothesis
Constraints on Partially Simulated Universe Scenarios
The Simulationist Church
Introduction and Founding Principles
Transubsimulation, Simulator Noster, and Two Fragments
The Simulationist's Confession
The Role of Nick Bostrom and On the Identity and Numerousness of the Simulators
A Simulationist's Crisis of Faith
A Simulationist Reflects on the Death of His Cat
Sex and the Single Simulationist
If the Simulation Hypothesis is Correct We Are All AIs
A Simulationists Confession of Faith
Simulationist Church Members Contact Me in Mexico
My main criticism of the simulation hypothesis is what I have dubbed the too good to be true problem (tgtbT). In a nutshell tgtbT says that the simulation hypothesis is too strong a hypothesis. It can be used answer any question and/or provide a justification for why anything in the universe is the way or why anything in the universe has happened the way it has in the past or will ever happen in the future. Basically, any question you could possibly dream up can be answered by an appeal to the simulation hypothesis. To take just a couple of examples, ever wonder why the laws of the nature are what they are? It's simple, the simulators programmed them to be that way. Sad because your best friend died last weekend in a car accident and want to know why that happened. No problem, because the code which the simulators used to program our our universe and ourselves was written that way. It doesn’t matter if you consider the Simulators as only first movers and/or that there is quantum randomness baked into the program, and thus there is still a (form) of free will, as members of the Simulationist Church believe (see the Simulationist Creed Maxim 2) one can still find an answer to any possible question with the simulation hypothesis. The only restriction is your imagination. Incidentally all major religions with an ominiscient/omnipotent God face the same problem though I tend not to harp on that point.
In the standard simulation hypothesis where both ourselves and the universe are 100% simulated (SH1) it is possible to argue that since we are simulations we do not actually know what is true, nor what good is, we only know, to the extent we know anything only as much or as little as the Simulator(s) programmed us to know and/or programmed us with the capability to learn. Obviously, this would make it impossible to call anything too good to be true. It is a fair point, though the logical extension of it is to call into question the truth or goodness of all things, however, that issue aside, even if that is the case, it does not alter at all the probability of the correctness of the simulation hypothesis. It is still either an accurate description of the universe and ourselves or it is not. And, that is what we're trying to argue about. Just because an argument can be attacked on one aspect does not mean it's weakened on another. It may also be true that what's blue is actually green and what's green is actually yellow, but that doesn't make the probability of the simulation any greater or lesser. Even in a world where we don’t actually know what is good and what is true, we still believe we do, and we act like we do, and we define these things in a certain way. Those things (our beliefs, actions, definitions) may all be wrong, but that does not alter the probability of their correctness. They either are or they are not correct no matter our beliefs or actions or definitions. In other words, the actual truth value of a thing is not at all affected by our belief about its truth value. Or, in this example, the actual goodness of something is not affected by our belief in the goodness of it. Exactly the same way the truth of the simulation hypothesis is not effected by our belief in its truth. Even the simulators could not change the actual truth value of a thing. This cannot be changed by any power save perhaps an ominpotent/omniscient God which I don’t think anyone, including the Simulationist church has argued the Simulators are. They may have some (from our limited perspective) God-like powers but they/it/he/she are not God(s). An omniscient/omnipotent God could even presumably alter the laws of logic such that something could exist and not exist at the same time or make it so that a thing is both larger and smaller than something else or itself, but these concepts are so foreign to us that are minds can't even comprehend them.