Imagine that in the future, scientists have detected certain signals coming from outside of the universe. The signals were highly differentiated and correlated directly with certain actions. From earth, we could precisely predict all activities—both physical and social. These signals explained everything from remote changes in our moods to massive material changes among planets.
We used these signals to explain all of quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle became the [lead scientist name]’s certainty principle. All the mysteries of physics were explained.
We also learned how to send back these signals to convey intelligible speech. The signaling gods then sent back signals in our language, and soon, we had a Turing Test passing conversation. During our signal talk, the simulation gods explain that our universe is artificially created. Then, they sent over different signals that led to results that appeared to violate the laws of physics, just for confirmation.
We have validated the simulation hypothesis. Now what?
Does that mean life is devoid of meaning and ethics? Would our society turn into some Mad Max hellscape, eclipsing the chaos of the last days of Rome?
No, and it shouldn’t. Morals and meaning don’t derive from external material. Any simulated reality is only another part of the chain of causation, ultimately neverending until we discover how something comes from nothing.
Since the death of god, we have understood that there is no objective meaning. Philosophers and scientists have also shown that what we call reality is merely our “shared hallucinations” created by our perceptions. So more shared hallucinations won’t make a difference unless we choose for it to make a difference.
We have also known that despite this interpretation we place on the world, everything we do is pre-determined.1 All of our actions have a physical cause that can theoretically be discovered. And science has continued to discover how far matter can be broken down.
So far, we understand that matter is composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of protons and neutrons, which are composed of randomly-moving quarks. If yet-undetectable signals of the simulation can explain the movement of those quarks, then that’s just one more step along the chain of causation. Since what we call the world can be broken down into finer and finer parts, what does one more fine part matter?
Naturally, future generations will be curious about what lies beyond the simulation. Their minds might be blown by the thought that even our simulation is a simulation, and so on.
But regardless of our advances in science, our view of the world remains ours to shape. Proving a simulation might be like finding quarks being made up of even infinitesimally smaller Whoville societies. These societies may be interesting to learn about, but by itself, that concept would contribute nothing to our ethics or sense of meaning unless we chose to give it meaning.
Whether we discover something as tiny as little civilizations within quarks or something massive like infinite simulations, the world is still what we make of it.
Let’s take the example of two individuals with the exact same life experiences—say both pursuing a career in academia.
The first is anxious and depressed. He has goals, yet he views the obstacles in his path as personal injustices beyond his control. He envies the success of others, who he constantly compares himself to, and remains insecure, despite his individual success. Notwithstanding his intelligence, he remains bitter as a teacher and disagreeable as a colleague. He considers himself cosmically unfortunate. Achieving his dreams of worldly success would turn into dust in his hands unless he changes his view of the world.
However, the second person, with the exact same experiences, has a vastly different view. He’s optimistic, proud of his accomplishments and publications, and appreciative of the valuable aspects of his life. He creates a connection with potential competitors because he can relate more closely with them. He learns from them and can easily become their friend. He doesn’t let himself feel threatened by them, since their success becomes his success.
Every setback is viewed as a challenge to overcome in his quest for glory. And every conquered obstacle leads to personal growth. He becomes a better teacher and writer. Whether his dreams of becoming a great scholar come to fruition matters little, since that’s out of his control. But what is entirely in his control is his attitude toward life.
A lot of self-help literature works on getting people from the first mindset into the second. And its criticisms come from its focus on personal subjective experience, rather than verifiable objective reality. Yet the importance of the former is lost on many who favor the latter.
Changing subjective experience is entirely within our faculties. This is a powerful and (so far) uniquely human ability. To have our mindset depend on external circumstances is a self-denial of this power.
Our interpretation of physical events creates meaning—and meaning can differ wildly even with the same experiences. If our understanding of the physical world changed dramatically, meaning and morals are still ours to make.
Whether we are in simulation does not affect our moral universe. Sure, we might be able to learn from our creators through dialogue. Yet any moral commands our giant simulation gods issue would still require justifiable reasons. Morality would still be ours to accept, and we have no inherent duty to obey our simulation overlords.
It once was commonplace to claim that neither morals nor meaning could not exist without god. Many argued that if atheist ideas spread, people’s belief in a deep objective truth would reveal itself to be an illusion. Nihilism would be the next logical step. But that view represents a misunderstanding of meaning.
Nihilists in our simulation-proven future would do well to read some Viktor Frankl and other existentialist writing. If we should learn anything in that simulation future, it should be that meaning in life doesn’t derive from our physical universe. Meaning can be found anywhere, in an unexciting heaven or a hellish concentration camp; meaning is created by internal interpretation, not by external reality.
It’s turtles all the way down. A simulation would be a giant turtle, but it’s still just a turtle.
or random