Sim City

I don’t devote much effort thinking or arguing about intelligent design (ID). The main reason is that I am an economist by training and an entrepreneurial consultant by trade and have absolutely no business talking about science. But, as a Christian who believes in evolution, I am customarily persuaded by arguments against ID based on the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle maintains that although the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of human life, there really could be no other way for humans to observe the universe. In other words, if we didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to observe that we exist inside of a universe that in fact, promotes our existence. This isn’t evidence of fine tuning, but just a result of us being able to observe reality.

I find this convincing enough that I shy away from arguments about ID. It’s not that I think there is no evidence for design, it’s that I think looking at the evidence is far from convincing to an atheist. Consequently, I am frequently flummoxed when I read essays from atheists arguing that we exist inside of some simulation. I mean, the evidence for such a simulation is the same evidence for theism. So why argue for a simulation instead of arguing that we exist in the mind of God? Yet, two days before Christmas, Popular Mechanics released an article titled, “Gravity May Be Key Evidence That Our Universe Is a Simulation.”

I don’t know what’s going on over at Popular Mechanics these days, but I imagine like most publications they’ve become more driven by passing clicks than serious readers. So, their articles have become – how shall I put this generously? – speculative and entertaining. These are some articles live on their website as I write: “A Scientist Proved Paradox-Free Time Travel Is Possible,” “Scientists Found Opium in an Ancient Egyptian Vase. King Tut May Have Taken It,” “Humanity May Reach Singularity Within Just 4 Years, Trend Shows,” and “An Engineer Says He’s Found a Way to Overcome Earth’s Gravity.” Gravity comes up a lot in these articles because few readers possess the physics chops to discuss and debunk wild claims.

I, too, lack such chops, so far be it from me to argue about how gravity is evidence that we live in a simulation. According to the article, if we did live inside of a simulation, the simulation would benefit from reducing the complexity of the information inside the simulation. Think of a computer hard drive defragging itself. Let’s say you poured a hot coffee this morning, forgot about it, and now it is room temperature. That is a dependable outcome, but why? Because it reduces the amount of information in the simulation, dummy. That’s what gravity does, too.

Gravity is interesting because even the slightest change in the gravitational constant would make life impossible. Stars and galaxies could not even form, let alone you and me. So, gravity feels like some evidence that we exist in a purposeful universe. I just prefer to think that involves a loving God rather than a brilliant computer programmer. But maybe it’s the same thing.

The problem I think many of these simulation theorists have with theism (warning: here comes a crude estimate) has more to do with the fundamentalist Christian view of God and religion and less to do with evidence. The idea of an old man in the sky who created a universe of pain, evil and suffering but then blamed us for it and so killed His own son should disgust any thinking human being. Much better to look at the evidence and assume we’re a Sim family than children of that cruel and capricious God. Believing in a simulation is simply disguised theism with a trendy technological bent.

But as regular readers will know, I don’t think the real thread of Christianity supports that idea of God, either. I think this is a much more important distinction than a “how,” vs. “who,” argument of our existence. I think it matters we have a personal God. I think it matters that things are actually real and rational. I think it matters we share in the mind and essence of our creator. Simulation may be tempting because it helps explain the strange coincidence of our existence while also letting us off the hook for any kind of purpose or morality. If a simulation is true, then we are mere artifacts of an algorithm without individual personhood, without God’s image. Belief that life is a simulation is thus harmonious with the actions of morally bankrupt people like Elon Musk who take such an idea to the logical conclusion of total hedonism and exploitation. If life is nothing more than an elaborate video game, then the only rule is winning.

But why does everything seem like a simulation? I think for much the same reasons people argue for ID. Why are there universal physical constants that make things dependable and predictable and create the possibility for life? Why do we have a habitable star system where we are the exact perfect distance from our Sun? Why is the relationship between the Moon and Earth so perfect and yet so rare? The chemical prerequisites for life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur) don’t often exist in the right concentrations to permit life. Life arising from nonlife is a 1 in 10^30 chance. That is one in a billion-billion-billion. Even if you had a possible event happening every microsecond, it would still take an era that is 2.3 million times the age of the universe for this to happen in a reasonable statistical timeframe.

Again, all of this is a marvel but is still unconvincing to your average atheist or even me due to the anthropic principle. I am a Christian largely because I am convinced Christ is real not because of math. I just think it’s interesting that the math has caused some philosophers who have a distaste for religion in general to embrace simulation theory. In other words, the existence of life in the universe requires an extremely narrow range of conditions. The probability of those conditions is so small that it makes the chance seem impossible. It seems like a decent conclusion that design is involved by an intelligent mind. But many people find the popular explanation of Christianity so repulsive, they’d rather believe in a simulation.

Of course, not all atheists believe in a simulation either, and would posit quite logical alternatives to either God or machine. Just because it is an amazingly rare possibility, it doesn’t mean we didn’t win the universal life lottery. And because we did, we’re able to observe the facts and calculate the improbability of it all and come to the wrong conclusions. We shouldn’t be amazed that the universe allows for life, because if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to notice it. I see that amazing but random chance as a possible explanation for life, but less convincing.

As it turns out, many theorists agree that those chances seem almost impossible and have proffered a multiverse hypothesis. Maybe there are countless universes with varying constants and properties, and we just happen to live in the one that permits life. Lucky us. But even then, a multiverse just pushes the question back further because there must be some universe factory that allows for the creation of some universes with the felicitous constants and properties for life. But why must this be so when it seems to make the explanation more complex? Besides, if there are infinite universes and we just happen to live in the one where life happens, we also happen to live in the one where Jesus of Nazareth rose form the dead.

Finally, some atheists have thrown up their hands and said that life, constants and physical laws are just brute facts. That seems sillier to me than a simulation because it suggests that there exist some things that lack an explanation entirely and thus seems much less believable than theism.

Ultimately, I have myriad underpinnings for my belief in God beyond design. I think we are justified in our instinct that something exists instead of nothing, that something is not an illusion and that something is understandable. I think that consciousness, intention, beauty, rationality and love are even more difficult to explain as arising from chemical elements than mind. Most importantly, I have a personal experience of Christ and God that convinces me that either Christ is real or I am suffering from some psychosis or other neurological disorder, and I prefer to believe that Christ is real than I require medication and perhaps, institutionalization. I don’t think that chance requires a God. But I think these staggering probabilities are in total congruence with my already existing belief in God. I don’t need a multiverse or simulation to feel comfortable with that.

Note: If you’re curious about any of this, I previously wrote about some these difficulties in the article, “There’s No Single Proof for God’s Existence.” Also, there are really solid reasons to not believe in the simulation hypothesis and I will cover those next week.