{NOTE: My goal is not to argue computer simulations are probable. My goal is not to claim they are for sure possible or can be ever realized. My goal is to argue that IF we have two options to explain some "supernatural forces" (that I do not believe exist in our world or in any world), and our options are 1) the existence of some spiritual realm, especially the existence of a god/God (especially with features we perceive as logically contradicting each other) or 2) That we live in a computer simulation in a world without truly supernatural forces, assuming we think simulations seem possible some level of civilization development, then, having that two options in mind, it is always AXIOMATICALLY SIMPLER (I think usually more rational, probably not always rational, for sure not always convincing. Note also that something is axiomatically simpler doesn't have to mean it is true, though we tend to assume simpler coherent explanations are better) to assume we live in a computer simulation. My assumption in that post is that some form of conscious computer simulations is at least possible at some stage of civilization development, which does not seem to be impossible or irrational belief. Many current theories of mind give us such a possibility, though for sure that assumption is controversial. What I shall argue is, having knowledge about our current world, it is probably more probable we live in a computer simulation than in a world with God having logically contradicting properties.
I see that post as a theoretical curiosity, not as a serious issue. I am not trying to persuade anyone we live in a simulation or that to believe in God is always intellectual dishonesty, or that if in our world there are "revelations" and "miracles" it means we are in a simulation. When I consider them, I think of (necessarily) undoubtable ones, extremely well-documented, systematic miracles, surely fulfilled prophecies or revelation on a global scale, also experimentally testable. There are no such cases in our world, my argument, as I've said, is rather a thought experiment, although It can be used in discussions about logical implications of deep faith based on revelations that is considered to be impossible to rational question if the revelation actually happened. I claim it is the logically simpler answer, namely that such a world would be a simulated one.
I hope I've underlined my assumptions and controversies related to the topic. I am aware of possible misinterpretations, overinterpretations, and misleading extrapolation of my views, so please keep in mind the Note, especially when I was not precise enough.}
Over the centuries, various nations have written stories of supernatural forces operating in the world. Numerous miracles and paranormal phenomena are also reported today. Stories of alien abductions, miraculous healings by saints, blood-crying figures, healings at apparition sites, revelations themselves, prophecy, and contact with spirits are just a few examples of phenomena that are not explained in current physics.
The vast majority of miracles today can, often easily, be explained and corrected by spiritual interpretations. Nevertheless, many of these phenomena grow in new layers of wonder and confabulation, losing the line between the real and the imaginary. Delusions and childish over-interpretations on the part of naïve believers (I do not criticize strictly deep faith, only naive faith) are phenomena that occur every day, in almost every or every religious or paranormal group.
Accounts of encounters with Jesus or saints, healings, and magical stories cannot be very easily explained when it comes to psychology, because of our incomplete knowledge of the human brain, that without presenting straightforward evidence, and preferably a fully completed theory of mind, naively believers will never question the truth of what they believe.
Perhaps even many unbelievers would be able to admit that if presented to them, or if they had experienced an undeniable and explainable miracle, they would believe in a supernatural reality.
In fact, however, a much axiomatically simpler assumption, and therefore the preferred one, is that we exist in a computer simulation. The chances that we live in computer simulations, or that a large part of our measure is in computer simulations, are unknown, but arguments that these are half and half odds are not uncommon. In fact, it is theoretically possible that nearly 100% of all beings, or almost 100% of their measure, exist as simulated minds.
If a Christian mystic had a revelation in which she would foretell the future in detail, or if it was proved that the Hindu guru does not need to eat and consumes only light itself, and heal people from the most serious diseases, or if the reincarnation and the human soul were confirmed, it would not mean that the Trinity exists neither that Christianity is true nor that Hinduism is telling the truth.
The most coherent vision of the world, which is also the simplest, assumes here that we in such a situation are inhabitants of a simulated reality.
NOTE: There are no undoubtable miracles in our world (lest's say by undoubtable I mean extremely well documented, demonstrated under strict conditions in laboratories, please consider Your own definition of relatively irrational to doubt if You don't like such an absolute statement). IF, and only if, we assume for a sake of a thought experiment there would be some, then: {The most coherent vision of the world, which is also the simplest, assumes here that we in such a situation are inhabitants of a simulated reality.}
No miracle or prophecy can in any way prove its supernatural origin, nor can any religion claim to be true on the basis of any miracle or revelation. I argue that the simulation hypothesis will always be an axiomatically simpler explanation, so in such cases, living in a simulation should always be considered more probable.
I think most readers can imagine scenarios in which an image of Vishnu appears in the sky, writing the words from Vedas in Sanskrit among the stars. Christ's Second Coming, in all respects with the words of the apocalypse, would probably convert most of humanity. The unconverted part would probably attribute demonic roots to this phenomenon.
However, the simplest scenario in which such an event occurs is in fact the corresponding virtual world.
The goal of creating a world in which one religion would seem to be the only true one is rather unclear to us, but the motives of the creators can be imagined. Recreating the events of past mythology in a hyper-realistic representation of future posthumans staging a completely imaginary story written by another civilization or conducting unethical experiments on societies are just some of the non-abstract motifs. Perhaps, thanks to our lives, simulation creators could experience the world created in this way for themselves. This form of entertainment (or experience of incomprehensible value for creators) is also found in the range of possibilities. It could be argued that precisely because humanity already exhibits motives that can lead to the creation of the simulated worlds described, such realities are in fact more likely to be real. Anyway, only the present age can be simulated (the earth would not have a "real" geological and historical past), in the case of simulating entire societies, or even just a few hundred or fewer people (for example, only posthumans wanting to experience the ultimate Heavenly War). In that case, miracles in the lives of these people should certainly happen.
Rather, I definitely do not think that we live in such a simulation. If we live in a simulation, I believe that there are much more valuable ways of arranging your own and someone else's lives when you have such computing powers and technologies. Nor do I believe that any miracles have ever been or have turned out to be more than a misunderstanding of the world and how the brain works.
However, I would like to make it clear that IF the existence of miracles and revelations were real and indisputable, or if religion turned out to be "surely" true, the simulation hypothesis is always a simpler option in terms of assumptions, completely consistent with current physicalism and naturalism.
Thus, miracles and religious apparitions cannot be for an intellectually honest person irrefutable proof of the existence of a specific spiritual reality. The existence of any god with logically inconsistent characteristics such as omniscience or absolute free will can never be considered unquestionable, even in a world where miracles happen all the time, because of the logical possibility of existence in a computer simulation.
Perhaps the question of subjective certainty or profitability of adopting certain beliefs may be somewhat different. In a world where, since the beginning of time, there seems to be an unquestionable existence of a sun god who can turn coffee into milk (and does it every time we pray to him) or who prevents wars and explains to people God's cosmology, while claiming that it has seemingly logically contradictory features it would be rational or profitable to believe it. Similarly, if there can be a God who enjoys throwing unbelieving people into Hell the greatest pleasure, and the existence of this God seems to be confirmed by miracles and revelations, it can be rational or has greater utility function to believe and worship such a god, even if there are axiologically simpler visions of the world. Perhaps even if the simulative alternative were widely known, it would pay off to worship such a deity. However, I believe that the supernatural hypothesis can never find greater confirmation than the simulation hypothesis because of the simplicity of (coherent) assumptions. (Hopefully the gods know that in such worlds, and do not throw surrounded by miracles skeptics into hell for rational disbelief.)
