The simulation Test

I propose a Simulation Test based on the Simulation Hypothesis. The test is this, is a given purported supernatural event reasonable within the Simulation Hypothesis. Namely, is the purported supernatural event reasonable if you assume we exist in a simulation and the supernatural event was caused directly by the Simulator ‘interfering’ with the simulation.

For example, resurrection can pass the simulation test since it would be easy for the Simulator to take information from one place in the simulation and copy it to another. This type of interference, which is similar in some general sense to feeding the multitudes, is easy to explain and to motivate in our experience with simulations. Healing, where disease leaves the body, would also pass the simulation test as it would be easy for the Simulator to delete certain information through various memory states.

Let’s consider other purported, now considered absurd, supernatural events. Such as lightning strikes. Or the seasons each year. Or rain, however frequent it is. Is it reasonable, even ignoring our natural explanations for such events, for the Simulator to make so many repeated and structured modifications to the simulation? Or would such repeated events be included in a model or routine which is called at many points in the simulation (and so we would probably classify as natural and not supernatural)? So a miraculous hypothesis for such events would not pass the Simulation Test.

For a test to be useful, it needs to be applicable to a current point of discussion (even if one that some people feel is absurd). So let’s consider the interpretation of the biblical story of creation that many Young Earth Creationists hold. In this interpretation, the simulation behaves in a completely different manner in each of what should be called the first seven days and even though the simulation on the seventh day has some surface similarities to the simulation observed now, that it was still fundamentally completely different. Not only that, but that all of those changes were made by interference by the Simulator.

This seems implausible. It might be plausible for the Simulator to start a simulation at an interesting point or to start one simulation, stop it and make fundamental changes to the simulation, and then restart from the point the previous simulation had stopped. But in the Young Earth Creationist interpretation, either that the physics we observe now was the same physics during creation and that the 7 days were defined by continual supernatural events which have no impact on the universe we observe now or that radically different physics exists on each of the 7 days which have no relation to the physics that we observe now or the physics of the previous days, fails the Simulation Test.

Other interpretations of supernatural events in Judaism/Christianity might fail this test. I think the sun standing still for Joshua could be explained by a supernatural event changing the index of refraction and not by the failing interpretation of repeated supernatural events causing the Earth to change its rotation with no other impact other than the change of the Sun's observed movement in the sky.

Thoughts on the Simulation Hypothesis

There are books and many blogposts about the Simulation Hypothesis. Some scientists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder and Aron Wall, do not appear to find it very interesting. Some posts by Sabine (do we live in computer simulation and the simulation hypothesis and other and no we probably don't live in computer) influenced my own view on the topic.

While I think that the Simulation Hypothesis is not very interesting scientifically, I think that it is interesting philosophically or religiously (here I think that I disagree with Aron and Sabine). The Simulator is obviously not the God of Classical Theism, but the Simulator can be the Christian God (under some interpretations).

In fact, it is possible for the Simulator can have all of what I consider to be the most important qualities of the Christian God: being the source of existence of everything that we interact with, having a desire to have a personal relationship with us, having the ability to create change within us, being good, being one and having the ability to hear our prayer.

Also, we already have examples with our own simple simulations of simulation creators placing themselves in their simulation, so the notion of the Simulator having a presence in the Simulation (Jesus) is not difficult. Finally, resurrection would be simple for the Simulator as it would just be changing a few 'memory states' in the Simulation.

So while I claim that the God I worship, the Christian God, is the God of Classical Theism and so do not desire for the Simulation Hypothesis to be true, believing in it does seem to me to be just another way of saying "I believe in god(s)" and it can even be another way to say "I believe in the Christian God".

Thoughts on SuperGod

One of the blog posts that I have wanted to respond to on this blog for a long time is that of god and supergod by Noah Smith.

First I wanted to address the notion of SuperGod. Obviously, that might be pretty important for someone whose belief system is centered on Classical Theism (a Christian philosopher's take on classical theism). But for many of us Christians, the reason why we worship and follow God is not just because He is the Classical God. Rather, it is because of what He has done for us. If you look at the history of Abrahamic religions, our place in the relationship has been consistently reacting to what He has done for us.

While God came to Abraham and said go and Abraham went on faith, the rest of the relationship with Israel was based… on the part of Israel… on what God had done in the past (lead Abraham, lead Israel out of Egypt and bondage, give Israel Canaan) and what God promised to do (making Abraham’s children as the stars, giving Abraham’s children the Promised Land, all people being blessed through Abraham’s children (including the gentiles: Isaiah)).

And a Christian here and now should experience God in their lives. Not just as an abstract idea or concept, but an experience of transformation and redemption. God doesn’t just do the big picture stuff of creating humanity, setting laws and dictating the fate of nations. He desires, and is waiting to have, a personal relationship with each of us. And if we have been transformed and redeemed by Him, then we are not only ’saved’ but we also serve as the ‘hands’ of God, bringing about His will on earth.

That being said, I appreciated Noah’s sermon about not abdicating responsibility and saying ‘God will do it’ or ’the free market will do it’ or ’the forces of history will do it’. I just disagree with the ‘it’s all on you’. Rather, 'it's on God, working from within you'.

Easter

This morning we read the Easter passages of Luke 24 and John 20.

One thing that struck me, beyond the wonder being related about seeing the risen savior, was how Jesus was repeatedly not truly seen until the eyes of the follower were opened.

In John:

14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

In Luke:

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

And I thought about the Resurrection. In my spiritual journey there was a period of time where, despite not having a critical perspective (doubting biblical miracles), I still doubted the importance of the Resurrection. In some sense I agreed with Serene Jones (christian easter serene jones) that the good news was that God Loved us and that His Love would triumph. Also, that the focus on our future state was emblematic of a wobbly faith. I was challenged by some of the best Christians who I have read: Paul and C.S. Lewis, who both described the Resurrection as the crucial component of Christianity. Many good Christians who I know personally agreed.

My experience with other Christians, particularly those who fall under the Anabaptist (Greg Boyd) and Lutheran umbrella, changed my perspective. I have come to embrace the Christus Victor model and so have appreciated the Resurrection a lot more.

A final comment about the piece about Serene Jones. She sees a reformation or change in Christianity, and I agree. I also have seen that there seem to be roughly 500 year cycles (1000 BC, 500 BC, 0 AD, 500 AD, 1000 AD, 1500 AD, 2000 AD...) of spiritual change. I think the end of this period will be the return of Christ, and, especially if that doesn't happen, I don't pretend to guess what the change will be. I will note that at least right now, despite the increase in non-believers, it doesn't seem like the liberal forces (representing a critical perspective of miracles/etc) of Christianity are ascendent. Rather it seems that they are dying. Of course, a different conclusion would be made 50 years ago.

Interesting links between Daniel 7, Newton and Christology

A couple weeks ago I continued my study of Daniel. While Catholics and Theologians (who generally don’t believe in supernatural revelation) clearly agree that Daniel was written about 50 years before it was used religiously in the Dead Sea community, many religious Protestants (including the denomination I was raised in and am a member of, Adventists, and Newton) are inclined to identify the fourth beast as Rome and the blasphemous little horn as the Middle Ages Catholic Church.

I haven’t yet read Newton’s writings about Daniel or detailed discussions of them, but in the sermon it was mentioned that the 3 barbarian groups which are identified as being extinguished by the early Catholic Church were Arian (and so not Trinitarian). Newton identified Trinitarianism as the great Apostasy and his date for the return of Christ in 2060 was based on the year for a day principle from the point where he identified Trinitarianism as becoming dominant in the Christian Church.

The Millerites, from whom the Adventists descended (along with other denominations like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Church of God (7th Day)), came up with the date of 1844 as the end of Daniels prophecy using the year for a day principle. Adventists were born out of the Great Disappointment when Christ did not return. While the Bahá'í also identify 1844 as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, it isn't clear to me that the interpretation is preferred for any reason other than that it fits the life of the Báb.

Note that while many Adventists are not Trinitarian, most are and I am and was raised Trinitarian. I hope to write a blog post about Trinitarianism at some point in the future.

Other Blogs

Sometimes you come across someone that has not only done what you wanted to do, but also has succeeded far more in every way. I realized that it was the case for me when I came across Aron Wall's blog a couple of years ago.

I strongly recommend his blog, named UNDIVIDED LOOKING.
Before that, I came across a nice presentation of his about the Fine Tuning argument for the existence of God.

He is a much more successful physicist, a particle theorist (which was my original interest), regularly updates his blog and blogs about Christianity and Physics. We even had some overlap at the University of Maryland, but I think that we didn't meet as I spent most of my time at Jefferson Laboratory starting in January of 2006.

Physicists on God and Science

The following is based on my recollection, I am sure that details are wrong and the statements "quoted" are a paraphrase of my memory. 

In 2004, I and some UMD graduate students interested in studying particle physics theory attended a series of lectures by Prof. Gates. A group of interested undergraduates from Howard also attended.

One day, I and the other graduate students had spent some time talking about the Anthropic Principle. This continued as we went to the lecture. Gates had something come up and so it continued as the Howard students also arrived. 

Gates ended up very delayed and so the discussion developed into a more general God and Science discussion with ~3 sides: I and a Jewish graduate student taking a general theist perspective, the other graduate students taking a general atheist perspective and most of the Howard students taking a traditional Christian perspective.

The discussion had continued for over half an hour and had become very involved when Gates arrived. He listened for a few moments and then drew a Venn diagram with three circles and labeled them Technology, Mathematics and Nature. He pointed to the intersect of all three and said something like
“This is the part of the universe that we have the technology to make measurements of and the mathematics to describe. This is where we do science.”
He then pointed to the part of the circle that was exclusively Nature and said something like
“I believe that God is here”
and then pointed to the overlap of Nature and Mathematics
“and that String Theory is here, where we have mathematics to describe nature but do not yet have the technology to make measurements yet.”
He then went into his lecture.

This didn’t seem to have a very strong impact me at the time, but retrospectively has had a huge impact on me. I think about his diagram whenever I think about God and Science or Religion and Science and associated issues.

Christian anniversaries

Tomorrow (June 8) is Pentecost. According to Christians, this is the 1971st (or 1973rd) anniversary of the visual manifestation of the Holy Spirit's presence with the early christian church. A bit over a week ago, May 29, was Ascension Day, the anniversary of Christ's return to God to be humanities eternal Lord and Saviour.

As an american protestant, the only Christian holidays which I really knew about were Easter and Christmas. While Halloween (All Saint's Eve) had some christian (Catholic) root, the US celebration is very removed from such roots. I knew that there were other christian holidays, but I thought of them as 'Catholic' and so unimportant to a protestant like myself. I was very surprised by the holidays celebrated in Europe. For example, in very post-christian Sweden, the holidays Epiphany, Ascension Day, and Pentecost were celebrated.

While Epiphany might deserve more study, it doesn't seem to be religiously different than Christmas, a date which appears to have been chosen for other reasons rather than it's significance to christian events. 

The events in a significant portion of all 4 canonical gospels deal with Christ's final days. His death was during the jewish Passover festival and He rose again (Easter) on Nisan 16 (according to the letters of Paul). Forty days after this, according to the synoptic gospels, Christ returned to heaven. Ten days after that, on the jewish festival of Shavuot, the visual manifestation of God being present with the early church occurred as described in Acts.

All of these festivals: Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, and Ascension Day, are anniversaries of important dates in christianity and, like other anniversaries, are times to remember the past. Tomorrow will be the first time I remember this anniversary.