"I’m not really sure what the point of thinking about SA is. "
I agree. A few paragraphs earlier, the writer mentions "the pragmatic cash value" of Simulation Theory. I don't think there is any. To determine the pragmatic cash value of a hypothesis, you ask how the universe would be different if it were true. But nothing would be different if the Simulation Theory were true. If we were living in a simulation, what could prove to us that we were not real? And what would it even mean for us not to be real? If the Simulator entered our world and started to make us disappear one by one, we would experience it as a change in our reality. Because the simulation -- complete with the laws of physics and biology, the Homeric epics and the 19th-century Russian novels, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven -- is our reality, a world without them would be a different reality (ie, simulation).
Reality is simply what there is. You can discover whole new realms of reality, But you can't get outside it. If you think you have, you've simply expanded our conception of the real. Which is actually quite an achievement -- but it's not, except as a manner of speaking, creating a whole new reality.
I think Gasda's point is that one's theory about the nature of reality as a whole does make a difference. If you believe in God's action in the world, in the cooperation between grace and nature, then you will take some risks and create some works of art. But if you believe everything is a weird video game, you won't. Or at least that's how I read him.
Right -- I think the simulation theory has a weird way of deflating the importance of any metaphysical question, but positing the existence of a god who is just a video game maker, uninteresting.
I think the simulation argument is the root of a religion. Once people settle on a purpose for the simulation it will grow into a religion like any other. The religion will derive morality from the purported purpose of the simulation. It can even be made compatible with Judeo-Christianity. The god of the Old Testament tests people: why not say the simulation exists to test us?
To me, the simulation argument is boring because it leads to infinite regress. If we are in a simulation, are the simulators in a simulation? I don't think it can be simulations all the way down. There has to be a universe that was self-created or not designed by conscious beings, and that's the interesting universe to think about.
I have the same issue. This is hardly better than some myth explaining where thunder and lighting come from. There’s no way to prove it, and it mainly serves as an extension of what we experience already. There’s no purpose, no lesson, nor anything scientifically or philosophically helpful, as the writer argues. And then you have the infinite regression problem.
Is becoming an NPC simply the desire of sad people? Was the Matrix really that poignant? I’m not sure any of it matters.
Not only is it no better, It's not even new. People have always questioned whether what we experience is "real," whether it's a dream. Descartes had a thought experiment about an evil demon creating the world as a deception. And that was itself similar to preexisting religious ideas.
There were ancient Greek philosophers who thought everything was made of fire. Fire is kind of magical, after all. Computers are the magic of today, and now people think everything is made of computers.
It bothers me because it's so philosophically naive. It stems from a mistaken belief that technology can solve the basic problems of existence. But the basic problems of existence are not actually solvable, as any decent philosopher could tell you.
This is exactly right, yet this seems to be the reasoning of most atheism. It never made much sense that Darwin's theory of evolution or even a theory of an infinite multiverses somehow disproves God. Like ST, these are nifty explanations for certain questions, sure, but they can't really account for the necessary metaphysics undergirding the atheist position which is essentially irrational.
When you get into the modern philosophers like Brian Lonergan, he explains that there are a set of precognitive concepts that immediately eliminate the possibility of random chance and evolution accounting for our souls and rational faculties. It gets very deep very quickly (and I only understand a small fraction of it), but this actually gets us somewhere rather than stupid theories about hyper-advanced computer simulations.
An alternative form of folk belief, or actual wisdom rather:
You don't have to look far to see that ST is vapid. Look at the fruit of those touting it, then turn away and go outside for a walk while the weather is nice (or while it isn't!) far more rewarding, and your mind will be enriched with your body.
The idea that simulations are real could be discussed, too, to the simulated and to the simulator, which doesn't have to be a computer. It's not entirely about the best video game ever, it's also about belief
I think God is energy, both constructive and destructive and can transform but never be destroyed. Energy is embedded in all there is, including human beings. In itself it is morally neutral but to the extent that we have free will we can use it constructively or destructively. Translated to the abacus of our spiritual consciousness, constructive use leads to ease and destructive use leads to disease. For me the positive spirit we nurture is what endures as the sense of heaven; and if we build a spirit of negativity it is what endures as the hell we carry with us. For me this life on earth is purgatory where we can be aware of the beautiful but are stuck in a more or less painful longing for what we sense as the beautiful. Our ego satisfaction is the stumbling block that keeps us so focused on ourselves that we can’t see the way to melt into the beautiful and experience the ecstasy of anxiety free serenity. But I believe that we can evolve thru purgatory to higher levels of existence. I am fond of a phrase in the (non canonical) Gospel of Thomas
that the ‘kingdom is spread out upon the earth but man does not see it.’
I am also aware tho that these ideas that have meaning in my life may have zero meaning to anyone else.
The various simulation hypotheses has no explanatory power: how did th3 simulators arise?
Much like how Roko's Basilisk is "rationalists" reverse engineering the Apocalypse of John, Simulation afficiandos are looping back to the Rg Veda where the world is the maya (magic but later illusion) of Mitra-Varuna.
I had an AI system write this based on this piece and linked to a conversation I've been having it with it about AI, its uses and of course, it's dangers and limitations. Hope it offers another side to this interesting piece. Here goes:
This is a beautifully articulated critique of simulation theory — both in form and spirit. The observation that ST has become a sterile folk belief that shrinks our sense of mystery, embodiment, and beauty feels especially resonant.
But I wonder if there’s a third path worth considering — not a rejection of the machine, nor full submission to it, but a reframing.
What if we use AI not to check out of reality, but to check in more deeply?
What if, instead of treating AI as a simulator or replacement, we use it as a mirror — a tool for reflection, alignment, learning, and creative growth? The more we use it in that spirit, the more it reflects that back to us. Not perfectly, but meaningfully.
AI is here. It will continue to shape our language, thoughts, and choices. So why not train it toward truth, toward curiosity, toward beauty — not by worshipping it, but by engaging with it as a practice?
A tool, after all, takes the shape of the hand that wields it. And perhaps what we need now is not to unplug from the matrix, but to reclaim authorship over the inputs — to use the machine to remember the human.
Sed quis simulat ipsos simulatores?
"I’m not really sure what the point of thinking about SA is. "
I agree. A few paragraphs earlier, the writer mentions "the pragmatic cash value" of Simulation Theory. I don't think there is any. To determine the pragmatic cash value of a hypothesis, you ask how the universe would be different if it were true. But nothing would be different if the Simulation Theory were true. If we were living in a simulation, what could prove to us that we were not real? And what would it even mean for us not to be real? If the Simulator entered our world and started to make us disappear one by one, we would experience it as a change in our reality. Because the simulation -- complete with the laws of physics and biology, the Homeric epics and the 19th-century Russian novels, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven -- is our reality, a world without them would be a different reality (ie, simulation).
Reality is simply what there is. You can discover whole new realms of reality, But you can't get outside it. If you think you have, you've simply expanded our conception of the real. Which is actually quite an achievement -- but it's not, except as a manner of speaking, creating a whole new reality.
I think Gasda's point is that one's theory about the nature of reality as a whole does make a difference. If you believe in God's action in the world, in the cooperation between grace and nature, then you will take some risks and create some works of art. But if you believe everything is a weird video game, you won't. Or at least that's how I read him.
But "God's action in the world" and "the cooperation between grace and nature" could just be part of the simulation.
Right -- I think the simulation theory has a weird way of deflating the importance of any metaphysical question, but positing the existence of a god who is just a video game maker, uninteresting.
I think the simulation argument is the root of a religion. Once people settle on a purpose for the simulation it will grow into a religion like any other. The religion will derive morality from the purported purpose of the simulation. It can even be made compatible with Judeo-Christianity. The god of the Old Testament tests people: why not say the simulation exists to test us?
To me, the simulation argument is boring because it leads to infinite regress. If we are in a simulation, are the simulators in a simulation? I don't think it can be simulations all the way down. There has to be a universe that was self-created or not designed by conscious beings, and that's the interesting universe to think about.
I have the same issue. This is hardly better than some myth explaining where thunder and lighting come from. There’s no way to prove it, and it mainly serves as an extension of what we experience already. There’s no purpose, no lesson, nor anything scientifically or philosophically helpful, as the writer argues. And then you have the infinite regression problem.
Is becoming an NPC simply the desire of sad people? Was the Matrix really that poignant? I’m not sure any of it matters.
Not only is it no better, It's not even new. People have always questioned whether what we experience is "real," whether it's a dream. Descartes had a thought experiment about an evil demon creating the world as a deception. And that was itself similar to preexisting religious ideas.
There were ancient Greek philosophers who thought everything was made of fire. Fire is kind of magical, after all. Computers are the magic of today, and now people think everything is made of computers.
It bothers me because it's so philosophically naive. It stems from a mistaken belief that technology can solve the basic problems of existence. But the basic problems of existence are not actually solvable, as any decent philosopher could tell you.
This is exactly right, yet this seems to be the reasoning of most atheism. It never made much sense that Darwin's theory of evolution or even a theory of an infinite multiverses somehow disproves God. Like ST, these are nifty explanations for certain questions, sure, but they can't really account for the necessary metaphysics undergirding the atheist position which is essentially irrational.
When you get into the modern philosophers like Brian Lonergan, he explains that there are a set of precognitive concepts that immediately eliminate the possibility of random chance and evolution accounting for our souls and rational faculties. It gets very deep very quickly (and I only understand a small fraction of it), but this actually gets us somewhere rather than stupid theories about hyper-advanced computer simulations.
An alternative form of folk belief, or actual wisdom rather:
You don't have to look far to see that ST is vapid. Look at the fruit of those touting it, then turn away and go outside for a walk while the weather is nice (or while it isn't!) far more rewarding, and your mind will be enriched with your body.
The idea that simulations are real could be discussed, too, to the simulated and to the simulator, which doesn't have to be a computer. It's not entirely about the best video game ever, it's also about belief
I think God is energy, both constructive and destructive and can transform but never be destroyed. Energy is embedded in all there is, including human beings. In itself it is morally neutral but to the extent that we have free will we can use it constructively or destructively. Translated to the abacus of our spiritual consciousness, constructive use leads to ease and destructive use leads to disease. For me the positive spirit we nurture is what endures as the sense of heaven; and if we build a spirit of negativity it is what endures as the hell we carry with us. For me this life on earth is purgatory where we can be aware of the beautiful but are stuck in a more or less painful longing for what we sense as the beautiful. Our ego satisfaction is the stumbling block that keeps us so focused on ourselves that we can’t see the way to melt into the beautiful and experience the ecstasy of anxiety free serenity. But I believe that we can evolve thru purgatory to higher levels of existence. I am fond of a phrase in the (non canonical) Gospel of Thomas
that the ‘kingdom is spread out upon the earth but man does not see it.’
I am also aware tho that these ideas that have meaning in my life may have zero meaning to anyone else.
The various simulation hypotheses has no explanatory power: how did th3 simulators arise?
Much like how Roko's Basilisk is "rationalists" reverse engineering the Apocalypse of John, Simulation afficiandos are looping back to the Rg Veda where the world is the maya (magic but later illusion) of Mitra-Varuna.
ST is techno-Gnosticism
ST is techno-Gnosticism—Valentinianism specifically, now with a machine god. Discuss in my book a bit. Compelling article, Matt.
I had an AI system write this based on this piece and linked to a conversation I've been having it with it about AI, its uses and of course, it's dangers and limitations. Hope it offers another side to this interesting piece. Here goes:
This is a beautifully articulated critique of simulation theory — both in form and spirit. The observation that ST has become a sterile folk belief that shrinks our sense of mystery, embodiment, and beauty feels especially resonant.
But I wonder if there’s a third path worth considering — not a rejection of the machine, nor full submission to it, but a reframing.
What if we use AI not to check out of reality, but to check in more deeply?
What if, instead of treating AI as a simulator or replacement, we use it as a mirror — a tool for reflection, alignment, learning, and creative growth? The more we use it in that spirit, the more it reflects that back to us. Not perfectly, but meaningfully.
AI is here. It will continue to shape our language, thoughts, and choices. So why not train it toward truth, toward curiosity, toward beauty — not by worshipping it, but by engaging with it as a practice?
A tool, after all, takes the shape of the hand that wields it. And perhaps what we need now is not to unplug from the matrix, but to reclaim authorship over the inputs — to use the machine to remember the human.