Our universe is a computer game?

[Starlight]

As science advances it seems like it will only be a matter of a time before we can understand and prevent human aging. Living for thousands, millions, or billions of years will likely be extremely boring, and with robots to do all our jobs, humans will likely have a lot of time our our hands and play a lot of computer games for leisure. As our virtual reality technology gets better and better those games will become a lot more immersive, and it seems only a matter of time until our technology becomes so good that the games 'seem real'. We'd likely want to forget our aeons-long boring lives for a while during this leisure time and want to immerse ourselves completely in these games while we played them, so using tech on our brains to help us temporarily forget our lives and believe that the game is actually real seems likely something we might want to do.

One type of game that is extremely popular right now is MMORPGs, where thousands of people play together, each controlling a single character, each living their own 'life', who all interact within the game world. A future human with a billion-year lifespan could literally live one million such game-lives, experiencing every kind of possible life in all sorts of game worlds or time periods, and interacting in many different ways with the billions or trillions of fellow-citizens who were also playing out lives within those game worlds. This seems like a highly-plausible thing for technologically advanced civilizations to do, in general, and from observation of our society it seems like something that our own civilization will pretty much inevitably do in the future.

So we can argue:
1. The number of 'in game' lives ever lived would be potentially a million times greater than the number of 'real' lives ever lived.
2. We find ourselves living a life - is it a 'real' life or an 'in game' life?
3. Probabilistically, given (1), it is probably an 'in game' life because there are a whole lot more of those.

So we can tentatively conclude that our universe is probably a giant computer game and we are all players who are living game lives in it.

[The Pixie]

So you think there are some people who are just avatars, here playing a game as a diversion from their own mundane lives in some other universe? I wonder how we tell them apart from the sprites like you and me.

[Doug Shaver]

So we can tentatively conclude that our universe is probably a giant computer game and we are all players who are living game lives in it.

Before I spend any time rebutting your argument, could I trouble you to explain what it has to do with Christian apologetics?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

As science advances it seems like it will only be a matter of a time before we can understand and prevent human aging.

Doesn't seem like that to me, at all.

[TheWall]

How does one program wisdom, truth, or objectivity?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How does one program wisdom, truth, or objectivity?

Well, truth and objectivity are precisely the way computer programs work. I'll leave "wisdom" aside, for now.

[Sparko]

So Starlight. You are an atheist who thinks there is no God because everything in the universe happened naturally, through time chance and evolution. Yet you are arguing for a universe that is actually completely artificial and created by other intellegences using computer simulation. You have just admitted that it is possible that this universe is intelligently designed and controlled. If that is possible, why is it not possible that there really IS a God and the universe is created by him, just as Christians believe all along?

[TheWall]

It also violates occams razor to claim that an entire virtual universe exists rather than the basic proof of the universe as it exists.

[Sparko]

It also violates occams razor to claim that an entire virtual universe exists rather than the basic proof of the universe as it exists.

I see this theory pop up all the time, and atheists eat it up, not realizing that they just agreed to the proposition that the universe is intelligently created. And if they can believe that, then there is no reason to reject religion and God as an alternative answer. They just destroyed every argument they ever had rejecting intelligent design by accepting this simulation theory as possible. If a computer can do it, God can do it better.

[Christianbookworm]

I see this theory pop up all the time, and atheists eat it up, not realizing that they just agreed to the proposition that the universe is intelligently created. And if they can believe that, then there is no reason to reject religion and God as an alternative answer. They just destroyed every argument they ever had rejecting intelligent design by accepting this simulation theory as possible. If a computer can do it, God can do it better.

Do they really just not want some powerful entity(actually omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.) to hold them accountable for their actions?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I see this theory pop up all the time, and atheists eat it up, not realizing that they just agreed to the proposition that the universe is intelligently created.

Yep. Kinda tough to simultaneously argue that ID is ridiculous while arguing that the universe is a computer program.

And if they can believe that, then there is no reason to reject religion and God as an alternative answer.

Well, there are still plenty of reasons to reject religion and God as alternative answers, depending upon the notions of religion and God under discussion.

Do they really just not want some powerful entity(actually omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.) to hold them accountable for their actions?

In general, it's usually better to ask someone about his motivations for holding to a certain position than to attempt to ascribe those motivations for them. I've found it's the easiest way to avoid Straw Man and Genetic Fallacies.

[JonathanL]

As science advances it seems like it will only be a matter of a time before we can understand and prevent human aging. Living for thousands, millions, or billions of years will likely be extremely boring, and with robots to do all our jobs, humans will likely have a lot of time our our hands and play a lot of computer games for leisure. As our virtual reality technology gets better and better those games will become a lot more immersive, and it seems only a matter of time until our technology becomes so good that the games 'seem real'. We'd likely want to forget our aeons-long boring lives for a while during this leisure time and want to immerse ourselves completely in these games while we played them, so using tech on our brains to help us temporarily forget our lives and believe that the game is actually real seems likely something we might want to do.

One type of game that is extremely popular right now is MMORPGs, where thousands of people play together, each controlling a single character, each living their own 'life', who all interact within the game world. A future human with a billion-year lifespan could literally live one million such game-lives, experiencing every kind of possible life in all sorts of game worlds or time periods, and interacting in many different ways with the billions or trillions of fellow-citizens who were also playing out lives within those game worlds. This seems like a highly-plausible thing for technologically advanced civilizations to do, in general, and from observation of our society it seems like something that our own civilization will pretty much inevitably do in the future.

So we can argue:
1. The number of 'in game' lives ever lived would be potentially a million times greater than the number of 'real' lives ever lived.
2. We find ourselves living a life - is it a 'real' life or an 'in game' life?
3. Probabilistically, given (1), it is probably an 'in game' life because there are a whole lot more of those.

So we can tentatively conclude that our universe is probably a giant computer game and we are all players who are living game lives in it.

I could be wrong, but it seems to that if you wanted to simulate an entire universe, down to the state of every fundamental particle, it would require utilization of the entire processing power of the universe you're currently in, which is impossible. So each simulation in the chain would necessarily be less and less complex, until you get to a point where the simulation simply breaks down, and the "illusion" is broken.

[Christianbookworm]

Yep. Kinda tough to simultaneously argue that ID is ridiculous while arguing that the universe is a computer program.

Well, there are still plenty of reasons to reject religion and God as alternative answers, depending upon the notions of religion and God under discussion.

In general, it's usually better to ask someone about his motivations for holding to a certain position than to attempt to ascribe those motivations for them. I've found it's the easiest way to avoid Straw Man and Genetic Fallacies.

I'm asking about if that's a possible motive for fundy atheists, not smart atheists. You aren't a fundy atheist, so the question doesn't apply to you.

[JonathanL]

Well, truth and objectivity are precisely the way computer programs work. I'll leave "wisdom" aside, for now.

I don't think giving computers precise and detailed instructions in order to solve a specific problem has much to do with truth and objectivity at all. You can use computer programs to get "true and objective" solutions to your problem, but that isn't the same thing as using "truth and objectivity" to write programs.

I could be misunderstanding you though.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't think giving computers precise and detailed instructions in order to solve a specific problem has much to do with truth and objectivity at all. You can use computer programs to get "true and objective" solutions to your problem, but that isn't the same thing as using "truth and objectivity" to write programs.

I could be misunderstanding you though.

Literally, the entire way in which computers work is through mathematical logic. True and False are the foundational basis for the entirety of Computer Science.