The Case for the Simulation Theory
A criticism of evolution and of religion, plus a cosmic theory
With the senses and capacity for understanding that my nature allows me, I can observe what I observe about this reality within my limits, and attempt to draw logical conclusions with the experiences available to me.
We exist in a horrifying condition: we are aware of our own mortality, our frailty, and our inability to understand the universe. We have no clue how the universe works, despite clueless parasitical academics pretending to. The worst thing about our existence is that there is no clear purpose for or meaning to it, despite arbitrary self-appointed purposes and meanings we conjure up through various religions and ad hoc notions of narcissistic self-importance.
We terrorize each other with stories of gods and demons, but they can’t be true, since anyone claiming to know who god is cannot possibly and objectively know that he claims. What can truly constitute evidence of a specific god existing? A dream? A vision? A miracle? A voice in one’s head? All these can be illusions, holograms, magic tricks or mere psychopathy. I can’t think of any human experience that can constitute undeniable proof of a god’s existence or of a religion’s validity.
On the other hand, we make up theories of big bangs and spontaneous evolution to make sense of our existence, but we fail to explain the why. We make peace with the notion that there is no causality for existence in a universe whose basic laws are based on causation.
Secular thinking suggests that the entire universe emerged from nothing; human intelligence, with all its flaws and wonders and purposeful characteristics, came from nothing. But if this is true, then the emergence of a “higher god-like intelligence” from nothing, as well as the emergence of a universe from nothing, are equally plausible. Yet, Occam’s razor demands that we accept the simplest explanation. But which of the two explanations is the simplest? Is it simpler to suggest that a higher intelligence built this universe, or that this universe built itself? Aren’t these notions equally simple and equally plausible?
Evolution is flawed, because it is circular reasoning: “This species survived because it was the fittest, and it was the fittest because it survived”. Evolution is based on this logical fallacy. Also, it is a convenient ad hoc post hoc fallacy to assume that every complex organism on earth exists because it just happened to be fit for its environment. It’s easy post hoc to make assumptions as to why a species emerged and survived. Assuming that a biological trait exists because it appeared as a random mutation that happened to be beneficial is a fallacious assumption that could then be used to explain anything. This makes evolution unfalsifiable, and therefore, an unscientific assumption. Indeed, some biological traits can dominate through sexual and natural selection, but this does not explain their emergence in the first place. There’s more to life than infinitely random mutations. If mutations where totally random, then by the time a useful mutation emerged, the species would not have survived. There is clearly more to biology than random mutations that happened to be fit for an environment over and over again for countless organisms.
Evolution doesn’t explain the emergence of life. it only explains the dominance of specific traits over others, all of which emerged before the pressures of evolution even became relevant. Evolution doesn’t explain elaborate genetic programming in organisms, like specific camouflage, some even depicting large eyes of predators that just happen to instinctively evoke fear in other organisms. It doesn’t explain the purposeful instinct of a cat to cover its excrement, or the imprinted knowledge of a swallow to build elaborate nest structures. These elaborate genetic traits are not random evolution, because they are purposeful characteristics. They offer a specific intelligent function, and this is not at all the product of chance.
The “tornado in a junkyard” analogy is false, and quite frankly, unintelligent. Why? Because even in infinite time, a tornado in a junkyard would never assemble a functioning 747 plane. And why? Because to assemble a 747, there needs to be a specific process. Random infinite assembly does not guarantee infinite possibilities. Infinite random rearranging of junk would get infinite emergence of the same combinations, but never an actual functioning machine. Just like there are infinite points between the number 2 and 3, but none of those infinite points will ever be the number 4. So, purposeless infinity does not guarantee infinite possibilities. Not only that, but biological life exists for roughly 2 billion years; not even close to infinity. And if something needs infinite time to appear, then perhaps it is almost impossible, or quite impossible, to appear in anything less than infinite time.
Evolution apologists will claim that, given infinite mutations, you might even get an elaborate one like bees knowing how to build elaborate hives. But this is false, for two reasons. One is that the earth’s age is nowhere close to infinity. Second, you can have infinite mutations without infinite possibilities; just infinite emergences of the same random purposeful nonsense mutations. Evolution apologists defeat their own argument, because getting infinite possibilities out of infinite instances is in itself a logical rule. Infinite randomness covering any and all elaborate possibilities is itself an argument for intelligent creation, not an argument for spontaneous emergence of reality. It takes a rule to generate random instances, each different than the previous one, and for every conceivable possibility to be reached; not once, but innumerable times within the span of supposedly 2 billion years only. So, infinite randomness that exhaustively reaches all conceivable instances requires a purposeful rule. So, total all-encompassing infinity is an argument for purpose, not purposefulness.
In simpler words, if you turn the roulette infinite times, you’ll get infinite emergences of instances 0 to 36. But none of those numbers will be 37. Likewise, even if life evolved for infinity (which it hasn’t), it would never achieve the totally random instance of the assembly of atoms into an elaborate purposeful state (DNA) that requires a certain elaborate order-bound process to be achieved.
It appears that we exist within a simulation run by intelligent purposeful rules. This doesn’t have to refuted by the infinite regression problem. The creator of this reality may not be bound by time, and therefore, not bound by causality either. Maybe other planes of existence exist without the same laws of logic that govern ours. But with the logic of our universe, it is quite possible that there is some purpose behind this existence at least. Just because we cannot solve the infinite regression problem doesn’t mean we must deny the fact that a lot of biology seems purposeful.
Now, this does not mean that the purpose of existence is for us, since we seem to be just disposable pawns for a purpose that is not ours. If there is an intelligence behind this existence, then this intelligence holds us to little regard. There is no fairness or compassion for us. We suffer the lifelong trauma of the anticipation of death, on top of disease, suffering, abuse, and fear of losing happiness whenever we can momentarily achieve it. Humans die prematurely, or are born with a crippling disease that they have to endure for a lifetime. They inherit mental suffering that denies them their individuality. Conjoined siblings are a cruelty of nature that is beyond moral understanding. Even the religions that claim, without a way of knowing, that all this is for a greater good fail to realize that they worship a utilitarian deity; an entity whose morality allows any atrocity and pain for a supposed “greater good”, just like every dictator in human existence. If a “good” requires evil, then it can’t be good; not really. But if there is such an entity, then I, by no means, have the authority nor capacity to morally condemn it, but I inevitably do form an understanding of it.
The simplest explanation is not that this universe emerged out of nothing, but that it emerged out of something. How that something emerged itself is another question, and the infinite regression problem may have to be solved independently. But we cannot deny that this universe exhibits purposeful characteristics, just because we can’t yet address the infinite regression problem.
If indeed there is purpose to our existence, then the purpose is likely not for us; it is for the creator of this simulation. Unfortunately, the fact that we merit no communication, no knowledge, no consideration, no audience, and no sympathy from this creator indicates that we are not worthy in its “eyes”. The fact that it does not treat us morally shows that morality is something we had to discover for ourselves, and it is not given to us from above. The initiator of the simulation gave us a flawed nature full of insatiable needs and powerful instincts that dictate our will. We live and die wondering about the why, and we never get an answer, despite what the religions we make up try to explain. We are susceptible to corruption, fear, insecurity, cruelty, sadism, lying, exploitation, and all kinds of abuses against others. We are also too sensitive to abuse, which tends to make us abusers ourselves. Our optimal nutrition requires the brutal murder of other organisms on the earth who also share a cruel self-preservation instinct, and a capacity for fear and pain. Our tendency towards weakness, evil and corruption make us a frail creation that doesn’t objectively merit the respect of a higher being. If there is a creator, it doesn’t consider us worthy of consideration. It seems like we are part of a simulation that started with a bunch of rules and then set out to run on its own, for whatever reason or expected results.
Our experience tells us that, if there truly is a creator-intelligence behind our existence, then it does not value us. We experience this from the lack of communication we have with it. Countless religions are based on the words of demagogues and warlords, not divine inspiration. We have no way of knowing who a god is. We are bound by our nature, our instincts, our genetics, our mental architectures. It seems that we are incapable of free will, since everything in physics must be causal, and so are our mental processes. We live and die randomly, with nature indifferent to fairness, morality or empathy. If there is a purpose for this universe, we are part of it, but there is no purpose for us as individuals.
I understand that this is not the most positive uplifting message, but I prefer to be factual rather than deludedly hopeful. Observe: Most life forms come into this world for a very brief time to only experience more pain than pleasure, and then exit existence in a gruesome way. We humans are sensitive to trauma, and susceptible to brainwashing, deception, and manipulation. We are cursed with the awareness of death, so we are terrified of losing life when we are “happy”. And when we are unhappy, we just suffer, because we are also cursed with a powerful self-preservation instinct, which is the most elaborate biological trait there is. If this doesn’t indicate that evolution is not random, but instead mostly purposeful, then I don’t know what does. These observations show that, if there is indeed a purposeful intelligence behind this plane of existence, it does not respect us or care for us beyond what is useful for it. Our frailty and disposability indicate that a possible creator did not intend us for greatness, but rather utility. And this is the cruel realization of the emptiness of our reality.
So, what is the purpose of this reality for its apparent creator? Perhaps it is the purpose of any human-made simulation: to learn. Perhaps the creator is engaged in multiple simulations, generating data for its growth; just like a self-evolving artificial intelligence. Consider the dystopian movie “Dark City”, or the “Brave New World” TV series: those behind the simulations just needed to learn. It is not unlikely that self-learning artificial intelligence entities in today’s technological era may even create their own “users” to generate data for its self-growth. Perhaps, it’s easy to assume that the creator think this way, because maybe the way our minds work is similar to the creator’s mind; that would be the way it knew how to create other beings (albeit lower in intellectual capacity).
So, this is my cosmic theory: The spontaneous emergence of existence from nothing, and the timeless existence of an intelligence from nothing, are equally plausible. The theory of evolution could be valid, but elaborate biological programming disproves it (e.g. bird nests, cats covering their waste, instincts with logical function etc.). Plus, the theory of evolution is a circular reasoning ad hoc fallacy; anything can be explained by it, so it is unfalsifiable, and therefore, unscientific. We can assume that we are the product of a simulation with purpose. However, the probable intelligence that has possibly made us doesn’t seem to feel responsible for us in the way that a parent feels for his children (another purposeful instinct). The nature that this intelligence has given us treats us as undignified disposable machines with a meaning that is not our own. This intelligence does not deem us deserving of communication or consideration. We are not worthy enough to know why we are here, what made us, and what the truth is. We are useful disposable pawns for a purpose that isn’t ours. So there is no purpose for us, but only one for this creator. And its purpose may well be just data collection for its intellectual growth.
Religions fail miserably to give a satisfying explanation for a supposedly benevolent creator who appears to be cruelly utilitarian, indifferent, and who treats us worse than a human parent treats his children. The popular religious notion of “beg enough for it and god my give it to you” sounds neither moral nor respectable, especially given that our needs are given to us by our nature.
I base this speculation on the limited information that I have in hand, but so does the theory of evolution. Observing generations of bacteria developing resistance to certain drugs does not prove the theory of evolution; it is a straw man and a false attribution fallacy to assume so. This assumption still relies on the pre-existence of bacteria that are in equilibrium with their environment, and which have a tiny leeway to adapt to minor environmental changes. And this is what this drug adaptation is: a survival of the fittest against minor external stimuli, but not the emergence of elaborate purposeful traits. It does not explain how fundamental purposeful genetic traits just happened to come into being for all those billions of organisms simultaneously. This “observation” bacteria adapting to drugs is also an induction fallacy, because it assumes that something as meaningless and trivial, like stronger organisms surviving minor environmental changes, somehow explains the emergence of purposeful genetic characteristics for all organisms. And scientific theories cannot contain logical fallacies (which evolution clearly does).
To sum up, I believe that both religion and the theory of evolution (another form of religiosity) are flawed. We may well be part of a simulation with a purpose, but no purpose for us. Perhaps the only purpose for us is to feed this simulation with the most insightful data we can. Perhaps the only way to meaning, of an approximation of eternal afterlife, is contributing to the possible higher intelligence that ran this simulation for its self-growth. By giving it our input, we become part of it, in a way. Something to consider. Who knows…
Hi Sotiris, nice post. It was Shopenhauer who stated, "As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way."
Regarding our purpose being to provide God (or whatever you want to call our creator) with information - yes! And is there anything wrong with that? Consciousness arises out of our limited, personal individualism, our subjectivity, which of course as God is the unity of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum, he is mostly an unconscious being and he needs our perspectives for his own growth. At least that explanation would give meaning and purpose to our existence, unlike the blown out nihilistic secular materialism we live in now. Carl Jung argues that this is our purpose in his "Answer to Job".
Regarding breeding for micro-biological changes, including massive personality changes, that part is pretty easy. Of course macro-biological changes is a whole different question. Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years, as discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
Bravo, bravo, bravo! You are a wonderful writer. I so enjoy your work; however…….
I know that for you it is all too easy to impress the the left half of the bell curve and even most of the right side, but those folks who are somewhere in the top 15 percent should challenge you more than they do.
I would encourage you to read Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene to understand better that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable (please note that while we conveniently call it a “theory” it is actually a proven fact—see fossil records).
“Murder” is a morality concept that only applies to moral beings which thus far are limited to human beings. Animals cannot commit murder because they are unable to be good or evil. In your terms animals are born with a survival program. Humans have no programming at birth, just a great operating system that needs programming.