Life in a Simulation
Yesterday I read an interesting article from the New York Times about reality. The author, John Tierney, seems convinced that the world we know may be nothing more than a computer simulation created by a super intelligent being or our own descendants in the future. As he put it, “it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation.”
Tierney goes on to speculate on what behaviors would be most likely to ensure survival in a simulation. Maybe the most “interesting” people would survive longer to entertain the creator, maybe those who follow the simulation’s archetypal values would be rewarded. Maybe the simulation functions like a Star Trek holodeck, where the creator gets to join in the fun. Maybe it is a working model to study alternate histories by changing pivotal events. Maybe, maybe, on and on.
Although the idea of a computer generated world is interesting, this article was more useful in proving what we don’t know than giving any real insights. By suggesting yet another possible mode of reality, here a computer simulation which itself has endless possible orgins, Tierney proves that we still have no idea who we are or what our purpose is. We don’t even know the basic format of our universe.
Not only do we not know why we’re here or even where here is, we don’t know what we should be doing. If we are only characters in a child’s computer game, what is the best behavior to ensure survival? What is survival even worth if the finale is nothing more than “Game Over” as Tierney suggests?
The possibility that our world is a simulation only plants us more firmly at square one. What is the meaning of life and how can we best live it? After reading Tierney’s article, I am more convinced that the best way to live is the way that helps you be content and grow. Simulation or otherwise, we don’t know where we came from or where we are going. All we can do is make the best of where we are, which can take a lifetime to learn. If the game is unplugged tomorrow, would you be satisfied with your score?
Tierney’s article leaves unexplored questions as to the nature/character of the “creator” of the simulation game. The question I would ask Tierney is borrowed from theologian A.W.Tozer. Tozer postulated that “What we think about God is the most important thing about us.” Tierney’s article suggests that God is in the business of creating for his/her own amusement. God is capricious, bored, distant and unpredictable. When we consider the Universe, what kind of possibilities are there? Might the idea of a game be too limiting?
As most gamers know, it is through playing the game that we become more proficient in it. Yet it is in the enjoyment of the game that keeps us involved even to the act of repeating the game to do better the next time around or to the enjoyment recieved thereof. As in The Mario Brothers game where warping is allowed, situations existed that were beyond the skills already obtained. Whereas in life unexpected occurrences i.e. personal loss, health issues, and natural events sometimes are beyond the skills of the individual to overcome and cause some people to quit the game. While others acquire the neccessary skills to overcome and incorperate these newly won skills to future advantage. So, as in life it is not so much as the end result but for some in the actual playing of the game. We may not know the origin of the game of life or the intent of the designer of the game, much less the character but that does not change the essential fact that the game is.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Nan. I think it’s so important to enjoy the journey as we progress through life. No matter what the final destination turns out to be, we have the opportunity to learn and grow while we’re here.
Here’s another great post on this topic. The comments are even better.