Worldviews in a Simulated Universe: A Probability-Based AnalysisIntroduction

Worldviews in a Simulated Universe: A Probability-Based Analysis
Introduction
The simulation hypothesis – the idea that our reality is an artificial simulation – has moved from science fiction into serious scientific and philosophical discourse. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom famously argued that if future civilizations can run many detailed ancestor simulations, then “there is a significant probability that you are living in a computer simulation”


. Public intellectuals have echoed this: astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has put the odds at 50–50 that our existence is “a program on someone else’s hard drive”


, and he notes it’s easy to imagine some higher intelligence creating our world “for their entertainment”


. For the purposes of this analysis, we will assume the simulation hypothesis is likely true – say, a 60–70% probability – and explore its implications for the truth of major religious and metaphysical worldviews.
If we are indeed living in a simulation, then the “Architect” of our universe plays the role of a Creator or God. In computing terms, this Architect would be a hypervisor-level intelligence overseeing our reality as a virtual machine. This invites a provocative question: Which religion or worldview is most likely to be correct in a simulated universe? In other words, given that reality is programmed, what can we infer about the nature of the “programmer” and the structure or purpose of the simulation? We will treat traditional religious systems (and secular alternatives) as special cases or subsets of simulation theory, and attempt a statistical breakdown of their plausibility within a simulation scenario.
We focus on several major worldviews – Deism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism (a “blind” or purposeless simulation), and Gnosticism – assigning each a subjective probability weight. These assignments are based on comparative reasoning using four criteria: (1) logical parsimony (simplicity of assumptions), (2) metaphysical coherence (internal consistency and alignment with the simulation premise), (3) compatibility with quantum physics and scientific observations, and (4) explanatory power (ability to explain reality’s features, such as consciousness, morality, and cosmology). The tone of our investigation will be formal and analytical – akin to a PhD-level inquiry in the philosophy of religion/metaphysics – drawing on contemporary thinkers like Nick Bostrom, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, and others for insight and context.
Before diving into each worldview, we set the stage with an overview of simulation theory and the concept of the Architect as a hypervisor-like deity. We then evaluate each worldview in turn, and finally summarize the results (with approximate probabilities) in a comparative table. The goal is not to prove any worldview but to gauge which is most parsimonious and plausible under the assumption that reality is a simulation. This is a speculative exercise, but a deeply fascinating one that merges cutting-edge metaphysics with age-old religious questions.
The Simulation Hypothesis as a New Metaphysical Paradigm
Simulation Theory 101: High Probability and Serious Consideration
What does it mean to say “our reality is a simulation”? In essence, it posits that everything we experience – matter, energy, space, and even our minds – is generated by an underlying computational substrate. Bostrom’s seminal 2003 paper crystallized this idea into an elegant argument: if technological progress continues, future “posthuman” civilizations may attain enormous computing power and run many simulations of conscious beings (for research, entertainment, or other purposes). If even a tiny fraction of civilizations do this, the number of simulated minds would vastly exceed the number of original (“base reality”) minds. Statistically, we would most likely be among the simulated minds


. Thus, either almost no advanced civilization ever runs simulations, or we are almost certainly simulated


. Bostrom stops short of assigning a precise probability, but concludes it’s a hypothesis we cannot ignore. In his words, the simulation argument’s “most startling lesson” is that a significant chance exists that we “exist in a virtual reality” created by advanced beings
.

Contemporary thinkers treat this scenario with genuine respect. David Chalmers, a leading philosopher of mind, argues that we cannot rule out the simulation hypothesis and must take it seriously


. He even suggests that virtual worlds can be “every bit as real” as physical ones


. While Chalmers himself remains philosophically agnostic, he admits that as an atheist, the simulation idea made him consider the notion of a Creator more earnestly than any traditional argument for God


. On the scientific front, notable physicists have chimed in: Tyson’s 50% estimate was mentioned, and MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark noted that the universe’s strict mathematical laws are exactly what we’d expect “if I were a character in a computer game” governed by code


. Theoretical physicist James Gates went further – discovering certain error-correcting codes (the kind used in computer software) embedded in fundamental equations of supersymmetry, which gave him “the stark realization” that our reality might indeed be programmed


. Such remarks, while not proof of simulation, show that the hypothesis meshes intriguingly with modern physics. Our universe behaves in digitized, information-theoretic ways (quantized energy levels, binary quantum states, Planck-scale pixels of spacetime), which is at least compatible with the notion of an underlying computational grid


.

It is important to note that not everyone agrees – skeptics like physicist Lisa Randall argue the simulation argument relies on speculative, ill-defined probabilities and ask why any advanced being would simulate us at all


. She pegs the chances at “effectively zero”


. Nonetheless, for this exploration we take a contrarian stance: suppose there is roughly a 60–70% chance we live in a programmed reality. Under that assumption, what can we deduce about the nature of the “Architect” and which of humanity’s worldviews (if any) is vindicated?
Fig. 1: Conceptual illustration of the simulation hypothesis. If our world is a virtual reality managed by an external computational system, the creator of that system plays a role analogous to God or a cosmic programmer. We explore which religious worldview best fits such a scenario.
The Architect as a Hypervisor-Level Deity
In a simulated universe, the entity (or entities) who wrote the simulation code and oversee its execution are effectively gods relative to the simulated inhabitants. Just as a hypervisor in computing controls virtual machines from outside, the Architect of the simulation could monitor and influence our world from a transcendent “root layer” of reality. This perspective recasts traditional theological concepts in computational terms: • Creator: The Architect literally created our universe (by running the simulation program). In that sense, the simulator has the key attribute of a creator deity – our world’s existence depends entirely on their creative act
.
• Omniscience (within the simulation): The Architect can presumably observe any part of the simulation’s state. All information in our world (even our private thoughts, if they are encoded in the simulation) could be accessible to the simulator, much as a programmer can inspect the memory of their running program. This parallels the idea of an all-knowing God – at least omniscience with respect to our universe
.
• Omnipotence (over simulation): Likewise, the simulator can alter any aspect of the program’s code or initial conditions. They could suspend physical laws, perform “miracles” (from our perspective) by editing variables, or terminate and restart the simulation at will. They are all-powerful relative to our reality


, though not necessarily omnipotent in an absolute sense (they might be constrained by resources or a higher reality). • Transcendence: The Architect exists outside the simulated spacetime. From our viewpoint, this is a transcendent realm. The simulator might experience time differently (they could rewind or fast-forward our timeline, or run simulations at faster or slower speeds). This echoes theological notions of God being outside time and space. • Moral character: Here is where a simulator-god may depart from traditional conceptions. In classical theism, God is not only creator and powerful, but also morally perfect (omnibenevolent). A simulated universe’s creator might not have any particular moral concern for the simulated beings. As Chalmers notes, the simulator may have the “standard properties of the traditional God” in terms of power and knowledge, but there is “no particular reason to think” they are all-good


. The Architect could be benevolent – but could just as well be indifferent or even cruel (for instance, running a simulation out of curiosity with no regard for the suffering inside). In other words, the problem of evil takes on a new dimension: if our world is full of undeserved suffering, perhaps the simulator is not a benevolent God, but more of an experimenter.
This hypervisor analogy helps frame religious worldviews in simulation terms. Depending on the simulator’s attributes and intentions, the resulting simulated cosmos could align with different theological models. Is the Architect a compassionate law-giver who intervenes for our salvation? Or a disinterested clockmaker who pressed “Start” and left? Or a whimsical/dark figure satisfying their own agenda? Each possibility mirrors a religious or philosophical worldview that humans have believed in. Thus, examining major worldviews under the lens of simulation theory can shed light on which scenario is logically and empirically most plausible.
It’s noteworthy that the idea of our world being an illusion or crafted by a higher being is not new. Ancient philosophies anticipated elements of the simulation concept. In Plato’s allegory of the cave, prisoners see only shadows of reality – a metaphor for our ignorance of true reality. The Buddhist and Hindu concept of Māyā holds that the world as we perceive it is “like a mirage, a dream, an apparition”, lacking inherent essence


. Indeed, Hindu Vedanta teaches that ultimate reality (Brahman) is veiled by Maya, much as a simulated world is a veil over the underlying computer. Several Gnostic religions of late antiquity went so far as to claim this world is the deceptive creation of a Demiurge – a lesser, perhaps evil, god – and that a higher true God exists beyond it


. These are strikingly similar to the simulation hypothesis, with the Demiurge analogous to a flawed simulator and the material world a falsification to be transcended. Such historical parallels suggest that the simulation idea resonates with a long intellectual tradition of doubting the “reality of reality”


.

With simulation theory providing a new paradigm – technologically flavored but philosophically rich – we now turn to our criteria and then the analysis of specific worldviews within this paradigm.
Criteria for Comparing Worldviews in a Simulated Reality
Before evaluating each worldview, we will briefly explain the four comparative criteria guiding our analysis: • 1. Logical Parsimony: We consider how simple and economical each worldview is in terms of assumptions. Does the scenario require many added hypotheses about the simulator’s behavior or goals, or does it stay minimal? According to Occam’s Razor, all else equal, the worldview that explains the phenomena with fewer speculative add-ons is preferable. For instance, a scenario where the simulator sets up the universe and never intervenes might be more parsimonious than one that requires frequent miracles or multiple supernatural agents “patching” the simulation. • 2. Metaphysical Coherence: This looks at the internal consistency of the worldview when mapped onto a simulation. Do the key tenets of the religion logically translate into the simulation framework without contradiction? The worldview should cohere both with itself and with the general notion of a programmed reality. If a religion posits concepts that outright conflict with the idea of a stable simulation (for example, completely unpredictable violations of natural laws that would crash any consistent program), that would reduce coherence. Coherence also means the worldview doesn’t force the simulator into an incoherent role. (For example, can an omnipotent simulator also grant genuine free will to simulated beings? Such questions fall under coherence.) • 3. Compatibility with Physics (and Empirical Reality): Since we assume our known physics is the “code” of the simulation, a viable worldview shouldn’t be grossly at odds with well-established physical observations unless it provides a clear reason (like the simulator overriding physics on occasion). We examine whether each worldview can accommodate modern scientific knowledge – especially quantum physics and cosmology – in a simulation context. Notably, simulation theory itself dovetails with many features of physics: the universe’s mathematical structure


, possible discretization of space-time


, and fine-tuned constants (which could be parameters set by a programmer)


. A worldview that naturally expects an ordered, law-governed cosmos (e.g. Deism) might fit better than one that expects constant supernatural disruptions (unless those disruptions can be coded in judiciously). Additionally, because consciousness and quantum measurement are sometimes linked in interpretations of physics, a worldview’s stance on mind/matter could be relevant. For example, does the worldview expect phenomena like mind influencing matter (which a simulator could implement, but would be an extra feature)? • 4. Explanatory Power: Finally, we ask what each worldview explains about our experience that others might struggle with. This includes cosmological features (why is there something rather than nothing? why does the universe appear fine-tuned for life?), biological and consciousness features (how did life and mind arise? why do we have subjective experiences?), and moral/existential features (why is there suffering? do our lives have purpose or endpoint?). A strong worldview should make sense of these questions under the simulation assumption. For example, if a worldview explains consciousness as the result of an external soul injected by the simulator, that might address the “hard problem” of consciousness, albeit by assuming a dualistic simulator. Or a worldview that accounts for the apparent fine-tuning of physics by saying “the simulator designed it for a reason” has high explanatory power for that issue (while a strictly atheistic scenario might lean on coincidence or multiverse arguments). We will especially note how each worldview deals with the problem of evil and suffering, since in a simulation that translates to what kind of simulator would allow or cause pain in their program. The solutions to that (or lack thereof) inform how plausible the worldview is morally.
It should be emphasized that our probability estimates will be subjective and qualitative, based on these criteria. We are effectively asking: if we are indeed in a simulation, what is the likelihood that the simulator(s) have designed it in a way that corresponds to each specific worldview? We now proceed to examine each candidate worldview one by one, through this lens.
Deism: A Non-Interventionist Simulator
Worldview Summary: Deism is the belief in a Creator who initiated the universe with a set of natural laws and parameters, and then does not intervene thereafter. The Deist God is often likened to a watchmaker who builds a clock, winds it up, and lets it run on its own. In a simulation context, Deism corresponds to a scenario in which the Architect programs the initial conditions and physical laws of the simulation and then presses “run” – without ever tweaking or interfering with the simulation once it’s underway. The simulator exists, but effectively hides behind the hypervisor, not inserting themselves into the simulation or performing any miracles. The only signs of the Architect might be the cleverness of the initial design (such as fine-tuned constants or the very existence of a universe). Human beings would not receive any special revelations or divine interventions in this scenario.
Deism under simulation would mean our universe’s entire history from the Big Bang onward has unfolded according to the initial code and rules set by the Creator. If we pray or seek divine help, in this worldview the simulator does not respond – not out of inability, but by choice (either out of indifference or a principled decision to let the simulation evolve freely). The role of the Creator was exhausted at the moment of creation (program launch). Many Enlightenment-era thinkers like Thomas Jefferson were deists; they imagined God given away in nature’s laws, but not micromanaging daily events.
Let’s evaluate Deistic simulation by our criteria: • Logical Parsimony: Deism is highly parsimonious in a simulation scenario. It posits only one major assumption beyond the simulation itself: that a Creator set up the initial conditions intentionally. After that, everything runs on autopilot following the program’s logic. This does not require any further hypotheses about miracles, divine communications, or special status for certain beings. The simulator’s existence is already given by the simulation hypothesis; Deism adds that the simulator chooses non-interference. This is a simple “governing policy” for the Architect. In terms of complexity, it’s arguably the minimal religion: God created the universe, period. Compared to other worldviews that require periodic supernatural actions (which in sim terms are code interventions), Deism is streamlined. Parsimony Score: High. • Metaphysical Coherence: Deism translates very coherently into a simulation framework. A Deist simulator would create the universe-program and then remain hands-off. There is no internal contradiction in that idea – it’s basically how many complex simulations (like weather models or evolutionary simulations) are run by humans today: we set initial conditions and then watch emergent behavior without interference. If the Architect is a perfect engineer, they might have designed the simulation’s laws such that no further tinkering is needed. One potential tension: Deists typically believe God is morally good but just doesn’t intervene. If the simulator observes terrible suffering in the simulation and yet never steps in (because of their non-interference rule), one might question the coherence of calling them “good.” However, Deism generally doesn’t dwell on God’s moral character beyond being the Creator. It’s coherent so long as we accept that non-intervention is the rule of the game. Coherence Score: High. • Physics Compatibility: A Deist simulation is completely compatible with known physics. In fact, it more or less demands that the simulation adhere to fixed natural laws at all times – which matches our observation that the universe follows consistent physical laws (aside from quantum randomness, which could be pseudorandom number generation in code). There are no violations of physics expected in a Deist world, since God doesn’t reach in to suspend laws. The scientific picture of a universe running on mathematical rules fits hand in glove


. Moreover, features like the Big Bang and cosmic evolution could be exactly the initial setup the simulator implemented. Fine-tuning of constants (e.g., the precise values that allow stars and life) would be explained as the simulator’s design choices


– Deism can credit those to an intelligent setter of parameters rather than chance. After that, everything – from galaxy formation to evolution of life – proceeds via the physics engine. There is no conflict with quantum mechanics or any other well-known science; if anything, Deism sees science as uncovering the code the Creator wrote. Physics Compatibility: Excellent. • Explanatory Power: Deism offers a clear explanation for why our universe exists and why it appears fine-tuned for life: an intelligent Creator made it so (presumably for some reason, even if unknown to us)


. It also can explain why we do not see obvious miracles or divine interventions today – the Creator chooses not to intervene, so the apparent absence of supernatural events is exactly what Deism predicts. However, Deism struggles with some other explanatory areas: it provides little comfort regarding the problem of evil. If the simulator never intervenes, then all the suffering and evil in the world happen without any redress in this life. Deists historically often believe in an afterlife where souls might meet the Creator, but within the simulation, justice might not be guaranteed. Deism in a simulation might allow that perhaps the simulator plans to evaluate or use the results of the simulation later (for example, harvesting data on moral behavior?). But since by definition the Deist God doesn’t guide or reveal, humans are left somewhat in the dark about ultimate purpose. Deism explains how the world is so orderly and life-friendly, but not to what end. It also doesn’t directly explain consciousness or moral intuition beyond saying “that’s how it was set up.” One could speculate the simulator imbued the code with certain moral principles or fine-tuned it for consciousness to emerge (which are design choices). Those are plausible, but Deism doesn’t elaborate on them beyond initial design. Explanatory Power: Moderate. It scores well on cosmological explanation, moderately on scientific explainability, but low on giving human life a clear narrative or moral meaning within the simulation (apart from whatever meaning we create for ourselves).
Given these considerations, a Deistic simulation scenario ranks as one of the simplest and most internally plausible worldviews under the simulation assumption. It requires minimal “special coding” beyond the initial creation, and it neatly matches a universe where God’s hand is not overtly seen. Many scientifically-minded philosophers find this attractive because it doesn’t conflict with empirical data – it simply says an intelligent agent lit the fuse. We will assign a relatively high probability weight to Deism in our later summary, reflecting its strong parsimony and coherence. However, we must also weigh that it leaves some questions (like suffering) unanswered except by deferring to the unknown purposes of the Creator.
Theistic Simulation (Christianity)
Worldview Summary: In contrast to Deism, theistic religions assert a God who not only created the world but actively intervenes in it and has specific intentions for humanity. Christianity is a prime example: it teaches that God is a loving, omnipotent Father who revealed Himself to humanity, performed miracles, became incarnate as Jesus Christ for our salvation, and will ultimately judge and redeem the world. Key tenets include the idea of divine revelation (through prophets and scriptures), the Incarnation (God entering the world as Jesus), miracles (such as healings, the resurrection of Christ), and an ultimate plan for the world (Second Coming, final judgment, an eternal heaven/hell). In a simulation scenario, a Christian worldview would mean the simulator is actively involved in the program’s narrative, not a distant observer. The Architect in this case would correspond to the God of the Bible: a being who not only created the simulation but also cares deeply about the moral and spiritual state of the characters, even to the point of entering the simulation personally.
How could we interpret Christian claims through the simulation lens? One possibility is that the simulator “uploads” or manifests a version of themselves into the simulation (analogous to an MMORPG designer logging in as an avatar) – this would parallel the Incarnation, where the Creator takes on a form within the creation (Jesus). Miracles would be instances of the simulator suspending or altering the normal code for a specific purpose (for example, turning water to wine might be a temporary physics override by the system admin). Revelation could be the simulator communicating with certain chosen individuals (prophets) – effectively passing messages from outside the simulation into it, perhaps through modifying those individuals’ thoughts or presenting themselves as an angelic messenger (a subroutine carrying God’s message). Christianity also entails that the simulator is morally perfect and wants the simulated beings to freely come into a relationship with Him. It suggests there is an ultimate judgment and afterlife beyond the simulation’s timeline – maybe the simulator plans to “extract” or continue the existence of conscious minds after the simulation ends, to reward or punish them (the heaven/hell concept).
This is a much more elaborate scenario than Deism, so let’s analyze it with the criteria: • Logical Parsimony: Christianity in a simulation is less parsimonious than a hands-off scenario because it requires a variety of special interventions. The simulation’s code isn’t one-and-done; the Architect must occasionally reach in and tweak events. This includes performing miracles at specific times (parting the Red Sea, for instance, or raising Jesus from the dead), which are essentially manual overrides in the program. It also involves an assumption that the Architect is willing to violate the usual running rules of the simulation for the sake of a higher narrative. Moreover, the Incarnation is a very specific and dramatic intervention – God inserting an avatar of Himself (with presumably unique properties, like being able to do miracles natively). In computational terms, that might mean the simulator created a unique character with elevated privileges in the simulation (able to break physics), which is an extra piece of code. Theistic simulation also typically implies multiple revelation events (various prophets over time, scriptures inspired, etc.), which are additional inputs from outside. Each of these is an extra assumption/hypothesis. That said, if one starts with the assumption that the simulator has a particular story or purpose (like saving souls), these interventions might all be part of one unified plan – but it’s certainly more complex than no interventions. Therefore, parsimony is moderate-to-low for Christian theism: it’s not the most extravagant scenario (it still has one primary God figure, not many gods, for example), but it’s definitely not the simplest. • Metaphysical Coherence: Does the Christian narrative cohere when recast as a simulation? In many ways, yes – but it raises some tricky issues. On the positive side, incarnation and miracles can be coherently imagined in a simulation: an all-powerful simulator can place themselves into their world and suspend rules at will. There is no technical incoherence in that. In fact, some have pointed out that a simulated universe would make bodily resurrection or walking on water technically possible – it’s just altering variables in the code. A Christian might say that what we call miracles are simply the simulator’s edits to the program. Revelation is also coherent: the simulator can implant messages or visions in a prophet’s mind (a sort of divine “OCR” or direct data upload into the simulation). The concept of prayer could be seen as communication from within the sim to the Architect – a simulator could monitor those and choose to respond via interventions or by affecting probabilities (a prayer being answered if the simulator adjusts an outcome). None of these violate the simulation premise; they just assume the simulator is engaged and has goals for the beings.Potential incoherence arises if we consider free will and the simulator’s omniscience. Christianity holds humans responsible for sin and expects freely chosen faith. If the simulator knows every thought (which in a simulation, they potentially could, since they have the code)


, and if they occasionally tweak events, some worry that this could conflict with genuine free will. However, an omnipotent simulator could design the system such that from our perspective we have free will, and they only intervene in ways that don’t negate that (this dives into deep waters of philosophy of free will, but not a clear logical contradiction). Another point: Christianity says God is perfectly good and just. If our world is a simulation with so much suffering, one must reconcile that with a good simulator. Christianity does have a theodicy: suffering is tied to free will (human sin) and a fallen world, and God uses it for a greater good and eventually will wipe every tear in heaven. In simulation terms, one might say the simulator allows suffering as part of a moral drama – maybe necessary for souls to grow or to maintain freedom – and plans to compensate with an eternity outside the simulation (which would be the afterlife). This is coherent if one accepts that logic, though it’s one of the most challenging aspects.Overall, the Christian worldview can be made coherent within a simulation, particularly if we imagine the simulation is specifically designed to enact the Christian story. In fact, some authors have whimsically suggested that a sufficiently advanced being could choose to instantiate the exact world described by, say, the Bible. If our simulators were themselves believers in that narrative, they could literally code a universe where Jesus is incarnated, etc., making Christianity “true” by construction


. That is a coherent possibility (though it ascribes motivation to the simulator that begs explanation). Coherence Score: Medium. It’s mostly coherent but does require acceptance of some philosophical nuances (free will, problem of evil), and it implies the simulator’s nature is strongly benevolent and purposeful, which must be squared with the observed mix of good and evil. • Physics Compatibility: On the face of it, an actively theistic simulation entails events that violate our known physics – miracles. If we had strong empirical evidence of such violations, that would ironically strengthen the case for this worldview (because we’d catch the simulator in the act!). However, scientific consensus is that physics has not been observed to break in reproducible ways; miracles are matters of faith or anecdote. In terms of compatibility, we must ask: can the simulation incorporate miracles without making the world contradictory or unworkable? It could, if miracles are rare and strategically placed. A simulator can locally override physics at certain times and later restore the normal rules. As long as these aren’t rampant, the world remains mostly governed by discoverable laws – which is what we see (the vast majority of events follow regular physics, with perhaps a few historical anomalies people debate). This is compatible in principle; the simulation doesn’t crash from a few overrides. Quantum physics might even hide some interventions (one might speculate that if God influences outcomes, He could do so at the quantum level, where events have inherent randomness anyway, thereby “steering” events without a blatant break in classical physics – some theologians and scientists have proposed this idea). So one could say the world being almost entirely law-governed with a few exceptions is not incompatible with simulation theory – it’s exactly what a controlled sim with occasional admin commands would look like. The key is that those exceptions should not be falsifiable easily by others; indeed miracles in religion are often one-off and not repeatable on demand, which fits the idea of specific interventions rather than general law changes.Another scientific point: the Christian timeline involves a creation and potentially an end of the world. The simulation could have started at the Big Bang (which could be “Genesis” in a figurative sense). If one takes the Bible literally (young Earth, etc.), that conflicts with evidence (billions of years of cosmic history). Most Christian scholars accommodate that by reading Genesis metaphorically or assuming God’s creation could utilize natural processes (theistic evolution). In a simulation, the programmer could have let the universe evolve over billions of years or could have started it mid-way with an appearance of age. Either way is possible in principle (just different initial conditions or a time-skip). The key physics observation is that our universe looks old and obeys continuity; a simulation implementing Christian theism could either accept that and incorporate it (God guiding evolution, etc.) or be less straightforward (with built-in history). The former is more compatible with how science reconstructs the past.Additionally, Christianity posits an eventual new creation (a “New Heaven and New Earth”). In simulation terms, that could mean the simulator will at some point dramatically alter or restart the simulation in a perfected state (or take the saved minds to a different environment outside the current simulation). It’s speculative, but not impossible within simulation theory – it would just be a major planned event (think of it as the simulator uploading the righteous to a new server, perhaps!). None of this violates computation, but it’s certainly beyond anything science could predict. So, Physics/Empirical Compatibility: Moderate to Low. Day-to-day physics mostly holds, but true adherence to Christian doctrine implies some events that are empirically extraordinary. Since our criteria consider compatibility, this worldview fares worse than ones that demand no exceptions. It doesn’t contradict physics in an ongoing way, but it punctuates history with supernatural exceptions that by definition are not scientifically explainable (though explainable by simulation overrides). • Explanatory Power: Here, Christian theism shines in areas where Deism was weak. It provides a robust framework for meaning, morality, and destiny. If the simulator is the God of Christianity, then our lives have a clear purpose: to form a relationship with our Creator, to grow in virtue, and ultimately to be saved for an eternal life. Suffering and evil, while real, have explanations: much suffering comes from misuse of free will (which God allows for the sake of freedom), and even natural suffering is seen as tied to a fallen state that will be redeemed. The promise of an afterlife (the simulator can bring us into a reality beyond this one) addresses the unfairness we observe – injustices in this life can be corrected by the simulator in the next. This worldview explains why moral laws feel binding: they are effectively the “ethical subroutines” the simulator wants us to follow, communicated via conscience or revelation. It also places a dramatic narrative on history: creation, fall, redemption, consummation – which might mirror the simulator’s own goals for running the simulation (perhaps to cultivate genuine loving beings).Christianity also explains odd phenomena like reported miracles or religious experiences – these would be actual contacts with the simulator. It even might explain the fine-tuning of the universe in a more personal way than Deism: not only did God fine-tune the cosmos, He did so with the intention of eventually entering it and saving creatures, demonstrating love, etc. One could say it maximizes the explanatory power for those who accept its premises: everything from the origin of the universe to the purpose of each human life is covered. However, it does so by introducing many elements that skeptics might label as unproven (miracles, resurrection, etc.), so its strength in explanation comes at the cost of requiring faith in those specific events.In our context, if we assume simulation, some of these “faith” events become potentially investigable. For example, did the simulator really raise a particular person from the dead 2000 years ago? We as analysts might not have evidence to confirm that, which is why this remains a matter of belief. So from a neutral standpoint: Explanatory Power: High (for existential questions), Moderate (for empirical phenomena). It gives a richly detailed purpose to life, at the expense of postulating significant unseen actions by the simulator.
In summary, a Christian interpretation of the simulation hypothesis is grand and compelling, but complex. It depicts a simulator who cares and intervenes – essentially turning the simulation into a stage for a moral/spiritual drama. How probable is this scenario? That’s a subjective judgment. On one hand, if one already finds Christianity plausible, the simulation hypothesis doesn’t diminish it – it simply provides a mechanism (God as programmer). Chalmers even commented that the simulation idea made the concept of God more intellectually respectable to him


. On the other hand, from a purely secular prior, it might seem less likely that out of all possible simulations, we happen to be in one that corresponds to a specific earthly religion’s story. Unless, of course, that religion’s God is real and chose the simulation medium to actualize His plan. We will assign Christianity a non-negligible probability in our final tally, but lower than Deism’s due to the extra assumptions. We also acknowledge that many of the considerations here (intervention, revelation, etc.) will similarly apply to other theistic religions, to which we turn next.
Theistic Simulation (Islam)
Worldview Summary: Islam is another major monotheistic religion with a theology of an intervening God. Islamic doctrine emphasizes that Allah (God) is the single omnipotent creator, merciful and just, who communicates with humanity through prophets. Like Christianity, Islam affirms miracles (especially those associated with prophets), divine revelation (the Quran being the final revelation delivered to Prophet Muhammad), and a final judgment with heaven and hell. However, Islam rejects the idea of Incarnation – Allah does not enter creation as a human. Instead, the emphasis is on guidance through scriptures and prophets, and on humans submitting to God’s will. In a simulation context, an Islamic worldview means the simulator is very similar to the Judeo-Christian concept: a personal, moral God who created the simulation and actively engages with it by sending messages (revelation) and answering prayers, but perhaps not by incarnating directly. Miracles in Islam (such as Prophet Muhammad’s splitting of the moon, or Moses parting the sea, etc.) would be instances of the simulator’s intervention, as would the inspiration of the Quran (believed by Muslims to be the literal word of God communicated via the angel Gabriel).
To avoid redundancy, we can note that much of the analysis for Christianity carries over, since Islam is also an Abrahamic, monotheistic, interventionist worldview. However, we will highlight some distinctions and specific points for Islam in the simulation scenario: • Logical Parsimony: Islam, like Christianity, requires interventions but perhaps fewer types of interventions. There is no equivalent of God becoming incarnate and dying on a cross – which is a very specific and complex sequence to script. Instead, Allah remains external and sends guidance. In simulation terms, this might actually be slightly simpler: the simulator doesn’t have to insert themselves as a character; they can communicate via chosen messengers (by, for example, causing Muhammad to hear the angel’s voice reciting the Quran – which is a data input event). Nonetheless, Islam still posits numerous miracles (the Quran itself is considered a linguistic miracle; earlier prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (whom Islam recognizes as a prophet) had miracles). These all are interventions that break the usual physical continuity. Additionally, Islam has a strong belief in angels and jinn (spiritual beings) interacting with the world, which in sim terms are like background AI agents or subroutines created by God. That is an extra layer of complexity beyond just humans and God – though one could compare it to a simulation that has not just the main program but also NPC (non-player character) entities that are invisible or partially visible to us (angels). If the simulator runs angels as separate processes to do certain tasks (e.g., deliver messages, record deeds), it’s a more complex design than a world without such beings. Still, these beings are part of initial creation presumably, not ad hoc interventions.Overall, Islam’s interventions (prophethood, miracles, angelic messages) are frequent enough to reduce parsimony compared to deism. But it might be slightly more parsimonious than the Christian scenario because it doesn’t include God incarnating or dividing Himself (Trinity) – concepts which are theologically rich but might be seen as additional assumptions. Islam’s God is strictly one and transcendent, interacting via messages. Parsimony: Moderate (similar to Christianity, perhaps a tad simpler). • Metaphysical Coherence: An Islamic simulation scenario is coherent in much the same way as the Christian one. The simulator sets moral laws, performs occasional miracles, and communicates with selected prophets. There is no inherent contradiction in a simulator doing those things. One could imagine the simulator runs a program where at certain points, a messenger bot (the Archangel Gabriel process) is triggered to impart divine text to Muhammad – that fits a computing analogy. The Quran in this view is basically an upload from the simulator to the simulation, containing instructions/wisdom for the created beings.Islam strongly emphasizes God’s oneness and sovereignty, which in simulation terms means there is exactly one Architect in charge (no divine sub-persons or demiurges). That is a coherent scenario: a single superuser controlling everything. The problem of free will and evil exists in Islam too (if God is all-powerful and decides every happening “Insha’Allah”, how to reconcile human responsibility?). Islamic theology traditionally affirms both God’s decree and human choice in a way that is ultimately mysterious (e.g., the Ash’ari view that God creates human actions but humans “acquire” them). In a simulation context, this could mean the simulator allows humans to make choices but ensures His overall plan is fulfilled – maybe analogous to a video game where players can roam freely but certain outcomes are scripted. It’s tricky but not outright incoherent; it’s a matter of philosophical interpretation as in any worldview.Islam also includes an idea that natural phenomena are signs of God but follow laws (the Quran encourages observing nature as signs of the Creator). This aligns with a simulation that usually runs on consistent rules but those rules themselves point to design. The concept of an afterlife is very prominent: the simulator will resurrect everyone (effectively reload or reconstruct every consciousness) after the simulation ends, for judgment. In computing terms, that’s quite feasible: the simulator could be saving the state (data) of souls or has the ability to recompute everyone’s experiences and thus judge them, placing them in a new simulated environment of paradise or hell accordingly. So long as we grant the simulator vast power, resurrecting simulated beings in another simulated realm is coherent. Coherence: Medium-High. The Islamic view doesn’t introduce major new logical paradoxes beyond the general theistic ones (free will, presence of evil – which Islam explains as a test for humanity with reward/punishment later). • Physics Compatibility: The analysis here is essentially the same as for any miracle-affirming religion. Islam records fewer miracles than Christianity in its foundational text (the main miracle is the Quran itself; others include things like a night journey through the heavens, splitting of the moon, etc., and acknowledgment of miracles of earlier prophets). If those occurred, they are one-off exceptions to physics. The splitting of the moon, for example, would be an astronomical event that left no lasting evidence (the moon appears normal now), which means a simulator could have done it (visually splitting it for observers and then “re-merging” it). Such targeted miracles would not ruin the overall consistency of physical law – they’re local anomalies. As with Christianity, Islam’s worldview fully expects the universe to be orderly most of the time (which it is), because God’s miracles are rare and purposeful. The everyday empirical world is the domain of science; Islam fostered scientific inquiry historically, seeing it as uncovering God’s design.Also similar to Christianity, Islam holds that at the end of time there will be a cataclysm (the Day of Judgment, resurrection, etc.), which means the simulator will drastically intervene – essentially terminating or pausing the current simulation. In Islamic eschatology, the physical world will be destroyed and a new order created. That would be a one-time huge intervention (like pulling the plug on the simulation or rolling it up into something else). It’s not something that’s happening yet, so until that moment, physics reigns aside from contained miracles.Islam is thus empirically almost as compatible as deism on a day-to-day basis, deviating only in historical miracle claims. It’s hard to test those scientifically (they’re usually in the past). One could argue the Quran’s linguistic beauty or prophetic content is a kind of “evidence,” but that’s outside physics – more a literary/moral domain. Physics Compatibility: Moderate. The laws of nature hold, with acknowledged singular exceptions at God’s will. • Explanatory Power: Islam, like Christianity, provides strong answers to existential questions. The universe exists because God made it as a testing ground for souls: life is an examination of whether we acknowledge and obey our Creator. This gives clear purpose to life. Moral laws (the Shariah) are explicitly given by God, so objective morality is grounded. The problem of evil/suffering is addressed by framing life as a test – hardships and good things alike are examinations, and ultimate justice awaits in the afterlife. Every soul will get their due reward or punishment, so any unfairness now is temporary. This is a powerful explanatory model for those who accept it, as it assures that suffering has meaning and that the seemingly unjust circumstances of the world will be rectified.The Islamic view of consciousness and humanity is that we have a special status (vicegerents of God on Earth), and that we possess a soul breathed into us by God. In simulation terms, that could mean the simulator has endowed human avatars with a piece of code or connection that animals or other creations don’t have – giving us self-awareness and moral agency. That distinguishes humans in a way consistent with our actual self-reflective capacities, something a purely material simulation view might struggle to explain fully.Islam also straightforwardly explains religious experiences and miracles as genuine communications or signs from the simulator (God). The unity of the message (Islam believes all prophets brought essentially the same message of monotheism and submission) can be seen as evidence of one consistent simulator guiding at different times. It’s an integrated explanation for the diversity of religious traditions: Islam teaches that earlier revelations (to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.) were from the same God but became partially corrupted over time, and the final uncorrupted message is the Quran. In simulation framing, one could say the simulator tried multiple times to communicate with the simulation and had to correct for distortions – finally ensuring the last communication is preserved. This “meta-explanation” of religious history is something Islam uniquely emphasizes, and it adds explanatory breadth (why multiple religions exist – because of multiple interventions in different eras, with a final calibration).All these give Islam high explanatory power regarding meaning, morality, cosmology, and even religious pluralism. Like other theisms, its weakness in explanation is it doesn’t scientifically explain how miracles happen (they’re acts of will by the simulator – a “black box” to us). But that’s inherent in positing a willful Creator. Explanatory Power: High. One could say Islam and Christianity are roughly on par here, each with its narrative of creation, moral law, and destiny; differences would matter more to a believer than to an abstract analysis (e.g., Islam denies need for atonement via God’s death, whereas Christianity uses that to explain salvation; but both explain how salvation is possible through God’s action and mercy).
In summary, the Islamic interpretation of a simulated universe features one all-powerful simulator deeply concerned with our behavior, who periodically sends instructions and performs signs, and who will eventually judge each of us once the simulation (earthly life) concludes. Its plausibility relative to Christianity’s scenario is similar – one might assign them comparable probabilities. For our purposes, we will treat them as distinct but both under the umbrella of “active monotheistic simulator” scenarios. If one weighs factors like simplicity, one might give Islam a slight edge for not requiring an incarnation event; on the other hand, one might give Christianity a slight edge for the depth of its atonement narrative solving certain theological puzzles. Absent a clear empirical reason to favor one, we might consider them roughly equally likely a priori. In the end, both are major possibilities if we assume the simulator is a morally invested deity aligned with Abrahamic descriptions.
We will include a probability for Islam in our summary table, keeping in mind it falls in the category of an interventionist, purpose-driven simulation like Christianity, with only minor differences in how that manifests.
Hinduism (Vedanta) and Simulation Theory
Worldview Summary: Hinduism is a complex umbrella of traditions, but a core philosophical strand (Advaita Vedanta and related concepts) sees ultimate reality as Brahman – the absolute, infinite existence-consciousness – and our perceived world as Māyā, an illusion or transient appearance. In many Hindu cosmologies, the universe goes through endless cycles (birth, destruction, rebirth), and individual souls (Ātman) reincarnate through many lives until achieving liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of illusion by realizing their oneness with Brahman. There is also the idea of Līlā, the divine play – the universe exists as a kind of play or sport of the Godhead. Unlike the Abrahamic faiths, Vedanta does not require a single creation event or a linear history; reality is cyclic and eternal in some sense. While popular Hinduism is polytheistic or henotheistic (many gods as aspects of the divine), at the philosophical level these can be seen as manifestations of the one Brahman or as higher beings within the cosmos.
In a simulation context, Hinduism provides a very intriguing analog: the concept of Māyā is often translated as “illusion” and could be interpreted as the idea that the world is a simulation-like construct. Several scholars have noted that calling the world an illusion or dream (as Hinduism and Buddhism do) is conceptually similar to calling it a computer-generated virtual reality




. The key difference is that in Advaita Vedanta, the ultimate “programmer” is not a distinct person outside the system, but rather the only reality (Brahman) which somehow manifests as this illusion. One way to map this is: Brahman is the fundamental reality (the hardware, or the cosmic consciousness) and the observable universe is like a simulation (Māyā) running on that substrate. The individual self (Ātman) is actually not different from the ultimate reality (Brahman) – as the famous saying goes, “Ātman is Brahman.” This is akin to saying each conscious being is fundamentally one with the underlying reality, though experiencing itself as separate within the illusion.
We might also consider a more theistic Hindu interpretation (like Vaishnavism) where Vishnu or another personal deity creates the world as Līlā. That can align with a simulator who runs a universe for divine play. But let’s focus on the philosophical concepts: • Logical Parsimony: Hindu cosmology in simulation terms could actually be quite parsimonious if interpreted through non-dualism. Rather than an external simulator and a separate simulation, it posits that the simulator and the simulation ultimately are one. In other words, the ultimate reality (Brahman) manifests the appearance of the world from itself. If we treat Brahman as analogous to the computing substrate, then Brahman “computes” the universe and also constitutes it. This might be likened to a simulation that is not run by an external engineer pressing buttons, but by the universe itself being a self-simulation or a dream within a mind. One could compare it to a lucid dream where the dreamer and the dream content are the same mind. This is a different paradigm than the typical simulation argument (which assumes a separate programmer), but it’s parsimonious in that it only needs one entity – Brahman – and everything else is its expression. However, one might argue this strays from the conventional simulation hypothesis, which usually assumes a distinct simulator.Alternatively, if we take a theistic creation view within Hinduism (like Brahma the Creator deity, Vishnu the sustainer), then it’s similar to deism or theism in complexity – multiple gods could complicate the picture (maybe multiple simulators or a hierarchical structure of administrators). Traditional Hindu cosmology has many levels (lokas, devalokas, etc.) which could be seen as different layers or servers in the simulation, and many divine beings, which adds complexity. But Advaita simplifies it by saying all those gods and layers are part of the same ultimate reality’s projection. It’s a rich tapestry but conceptually it can be streamlined to one essence.Reincarnation and karma add a layer of system mechanics: after death, a soul (jīva) is reborn according to karma (deeds). In simulation terms, this could be implemented by the system reassigning the conscious entity to a new body instance in the simulation, based on a ledger of their actions. That’s a complicated feature for a simulator to program, but not unimaginable – it’s a kind of auto-respawn mechanism with state carried over (karma being the state). It is more elaborate than simply having one life and then leaving the sim. So that does add rules beyond a baseline physics engine.So parsimony depends on interpretation: Advaita interpretation: relatively high (one entity, many appearances); literal many-gods interpretation: lower (as it’s like sim with many admin characters). Let’s take a middle ground: assume one ultimate reality that spawns the illusory world, with perhaps some sub-deities as in-simulation NPCs with special roles (like admin avatars). That’s moderately complex. Parsimony: Medium. Not as lean as deism, but it might avoid the need for constant miracles because the system is running as intended in cycles. • Metaphysical Coherence: The Hindu worldview is actually quite coherent when mapped to a simulation, though the metaphors shift. The idea that everyday life is not the true reality but a veil (Māyā) over the true spiritual reality is directly analogous to simulation. Hindu sages often give analogies like “the world is like a dream or a bubble”


. If we take that seriously, simulation theory could be seen as a modern reformulation: the world is literally an artificial construct (the dream) sustained by Brahman (the dreamer). Coherence is strong in the sense that Hinduism doesn’t require proving historical interventions or single events; it says the entire perceptual world is already something like a magical show.A challenge could be the role of Brahman versus a personal God. Advaita says Brahman is without attributes, pure consciousness. In sim terms, that could be like an underlying pan-consciousness that somehow algorithmically presents the universe. That’s a bit abstract, but not incoherent – it leans more to a kind of idealism (everything is consciousness) than a physical simulation. Indeed, one could view it as the simulation is running in the mind of Brahman, rather than on a physical computer. If Brahman is infinite mind, then we (the beings) are like thought-forms or sub-processes of that mind.This is metaphysically coherent but a different model: it implies the distinction between simulator and simulated is ultimately illusory. If Atman = Brahman, then each of us is actually the “player” as well as the character, but we have forgotten our true identity. This self-reference can be coherent (like an MMORPG where the player decides to fully immerse and forget they are the player, until they “wake up”). In fact, enlightenment (Moksha) in Vedanta is precisely realizing the self is the ultimate reality – akin to a character realizing “I am actually the one who made this game” or at least “I am fundamentally unified with the programmer.” That’s a radical scenario but not logically impossible.Another coherent feature: cyclical time. The simulation could be set to run over and over (the concept of Kalpa cycles). Perhaps the simulator runs the universe simulation, ends it (Shiva’s destruction), then reboots it with slight changes, endlessly. That’s feasible if the simulator has such interest or if the universe is algorithmically bound to cycle. It contrasts with one-off creation; it might be more like an eternal program that loops through phases. Not incoherent, just a different kind of program structure.Coherence: Medium-High. It’s a cohesive vision, though one has to accept a more pantheistic/monistic notion of the simulator (i.e., the simulator is not a separate person but the only reality, playing all parts). • Physics Compatibility: Hindu thought does not clash with having a law-governed physical world; in fact, it assumes causality through karma as well as natural order (Ṛta). Miracles are not a central requirement in the way they are for Abrahamic faiths. While there are plenty of mythological miracles in Hindu texts, the philosophical core doesn’t demand suspensions of physics as proof of God. Instead, unusual events might be seen as rare and not essential to faith (Hinduism has saints and yogis who are said to attain siddhis – supernatural powers – but these are seen as byproducts of spiritual advancement, not breaks in the cosmic order). The cosmos overall is expected to run by divine law (Dharma), which includes physical laws.Quantum physics and relativity have sometimes been compared to ideas in Eastern philosophy (though often overhyped). Still, the notion that time is cyclical or relative, or that reality at bottom is one substance, doesn’t conflict with modern physics – if anything, physics has revealed counterintuitive unity (like space-time as one fabric, or entanglement connecting particles) which some see analogies to an interconnected Brahman. The simulation hypothesis also dovetails with this: maybe quantum indeterminacy is just how the Brahman’s “computation” renders possibilities until observed.Reincarnation and karma are areas where empirical science has little to say (though there are studies of claimed past-life memories, etc., but not mainstream accepted evidence). In a simulation, reincarnation would require a mechanism: after avatar death, the system assigns the consciousness to a new avatar according to karma. This doesn’t break physics per se; it just is beyond what our scientific framework currently considers. It’s an additional rule operating at a spiritual level (like an operating system process we within the simulation can’t see directly). It’s not like a visible violation of conservation laws or such; it’s more about continuity of consciousness across different bodies, which arguably could happen if consciousness is separate from the physical brain simulation (i.e., if the sim has a way to detach the mind from one body and attach it to another). If consciousness is entirely emergent from physical processing, reincarnation is harder to square; but if one assumes some separate mind-stream, it could be a feature the simulator implemented.Hindu cosmology also has multiple realms (astral, etc.) beyond physical. Those could correspond to different layers of the simulation or different simulations altogether. This adds complexity but doesn’t conflict with physics in our realm— it just says physics isn’t the whole story (which simulation hypothesis already implies).In short, Hinduism doesn’t conflict with science on the surface because it treats the physical world as real within its level (Vyavahāra level) even if ultimately illusory at the highest level. Science is just studying Māyā – which is fine. There’s no insistence that Earth is 6000 years old or that a certain miracle must be believed historically (Hindu epics are often taken allegorically or as happening in other yugas). Physics Compatibility: High (with the caveat that reincarnation mechanism is extra-physical but not contradictory). • Explanatory Power: Hindu philosophy provides profound answers to many questions, albeit in a different mode. It explains why we are here: we are participating in Brahman’s play or we are souls working through karma on a path to eventual liberation. The meaning of life is to ultimately realize our true nature (self-realization), which aligns with the simulator’s nature in Advaita. Suffering and evil are explained as consequences of ignorance (avidyā) and past karma. If something bad happens to someone, it might be their karma from a past life – a sort of built-in moral accounting. This admittedly can be morally complex (one must be careful not to justify cruelty by blaming victim’s karma), but as an explanatory framework it addresses why fortunes differ and why bad things happen (they may have a cause in prior actions, even from another life). It also provides a path to end suffering: by enlightenment and breaking free of the cycle.Consciousness is front and center: Hinduism basically says consciousness is the fundamental reality (Brahman is pure consciousness-bliss). This potentially solves the hard problem of consciousness by inverting it: rather than deriving consciousness from matter, matter (the world) is a product of consciousness. In a simulation analogy, it’s like saying the whole simulation exists within a mind, so of course consciousness is present; the challenge is explaining how matter arises from consciousness (which is essentially what a simulation does if seen as a thought-generated reality).The diversity of religious expression can be explained by Hinduism’s inclusive approach: different deities, prophets, incarnations (like Rama, Krishna, etc.) are all various forms of the divine for different contexts. If we think in simulation terms, maybe the simulator (Brahman) explores many narratives: sometimes appearing as Krishna, sometimes as another deity, etc., in different cycles or to different communities, all for the purpose of guiding souls in different ways. It’s a very pluralistic explanatory system – truth is not exclusive. This might make it easier to reconcile with being one possible simulation truth among others: a Hindu might say the Abrahamic God is just another face of the one Brahman, and those religions are also paths (albeit without full realization of oneness).As for cosmological origins, Hindu texts often speak of Brahman manifesting as the universe (like “Brahman willed to become many”). There is even a concept of a multiverse in some Puranic accounts (multiple cosmic eggs). So it can accommodate modern cosmology by interpreting the Big Bang as one of many cycles, or the creation by Brahma in one cycle. The endless cyclic model also can circumvent the issue of what happened “before” – it’s eternal recurrence.Explanatory Power: High in a metaphysical sense. It addresses why suffering exists (karma, learning), what the goal of existence is (liberation), why the universe exists (divine play or self-manifestation), and what is the nature of reality (consciousness). One weakness might be that it doesn’t emphasize a moral judgment day; instead, karma is automatic. For some, an automatic karmic law might be less satisfying than a personal God ensuring justice. It also could be seen as placing a lot of burden on the individual to escape the cycle, rather than on a savior figure (though bhakti traditions in Hinduism do have savior grace elements with gods like Krishna).
In a simulated universe analysis, the Hindu worldview is quite compelling because it natively calls the world an illusion and urges focusing on the underlying reality. It might not be “statistically likely” in the sense of Occam’s razor if one is more convinced by a simpler single-creation model. But it arguably integrates the simulation idea inherently.
If we assume the simulation hypothesis, how likely is it that the ultimate truth is something like Advaita Vedanta? One argument in its favor: It explains why a simulation exists in the first place (for the joy or exploration of the One consciousness), whereas a purely secular simulation might struggle with “why bother running it?”. Also, the presence of numerous mystical reports of unity consciousness across cultures could be interpreted as glimpses of the simulation’s true nature (the code being conscious).
However, one might argue a high-level philosophical truth like “all is Brahman” doesn’t strongly predict specific observable differences. It might be true but hard to verify inside the sim until one attains enlightenment (which is subjective). So weighting its probability involves whether one thinks the coherence and depth of this worldview indicate it’s more likely the simulator set things up this way. We will give Hindu/Vedantic worldview a moderate probability – not as high as an interventionist single-deity scenario if one is looking for evidence of active guidance, but fairly high for its conceptual elegance in a simulated reality.
Buddhism and Simulation Theory
Worldview Summary: Buddhism, emerging from the same Indic context as Hinduism, shares the view that ordinary reality is ultimately an illusion and a source of suffering. The core Buddhist teaching is that all conditioned things are impermanent, lacking inherent self (anatta), and that attachment to the illusory self and world causes suffering (dukkha). The goal is nirvana, the extinguishing of ignorance and desire, which leads to liberation from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra). Unlike Hinduism, classical Buddhism is non-theistic – it does not posit a creator god or ultimate self (in fact, it denies an eternal soul; the continuity between lives is causal rather than an unchanging soul substance). Instead, the world runs on natural law (Dharma), including karmic law.
In a simulated universe framework, Buddhism would suggest that what we perceive (the simulation) is not the ultimate reality – it’s more like a dream. Enlightenment in Buddhism could be analogized to realizing the simulated nature of reality and thus not being fooled by it. Interestingly, Buddhism often uses analogies like a magician’s illusion or a bubble to describe phenomena


, which align nicely with the idea of a simulation. However, Buddhism would not focus on who is running the simulation (that question is considered metaphysically unimportant or unknowable in Buddhism – the Buddha famously remained silent on questions about the origin of the world, as they are not conducive to liberation). Instead, Buddhism focuses on practical liberation: how to live to escape suffering, regardless of the cosmic mechanics. If we insist on mapping it: a Buddhist might say, “Whether or not there is a programmer is irrelevant; what matters is that our world is fleeting and unsatisfactory, and we need to awaken from the illusion of self.”
That said, some later Buddhist traditions (like Pure Land Buddhism) introduce quasi-theistic elements (e.g., Amitabha Buddha’s pure land which sounds like a programmed paradise accessible through devotion). But mainstream Buddhist philosophy is about self-driven enlightenment.
Analyzing Buddhism in simulation terms: • Logical Parsimony: Buddhism does not demand belief in any creator or external deity, which makes it quite parsimonious in terms of additional entities. It essentially posits that the universe operates lawfully (with karma) and beings arise and pass according to conditions – all within this grand illusion of samsara. If we integrate simulation theory, Buddhism might say: the simulation runs itself, possibly with no outside operator needed (or if there is one, it doesn’t interact). This is very similar to a naturalistic simulation scenario – effectively an atheistic simulation. Indeed, we could classify “Atheism (blind sim)” and Buddhism together in terms of not requiring an active god in practice. The difference is Buddhism adds the concept of reincarnation and karma, which are extra rules compared to a purely random or aimless simulation. However, these could be built-in algorithms of the simulation (like a soul recycling program with moral weighting).Because Buddhism is silent on ultimate origins, one could imagine a simulator or not – it doesn’t matter for living the Buddhist path. If we exclude a simulator, then we might be talking about something like a self-simulating universe (again akin to a Brahman-less Advaita, or just an endless chain of cause and effect, perhaps in a multiverse). But since we assume simulation theory is true, logically there is some system or designer at least at the level of starting it. Buddhism wouldn’t deny it, it would just consider that outside our concern.In terms of complexity: The idea of countless rebirths and realms (Buddhism also has multiple realms of existence: hells, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, devas, etc.) is a feature that adds complexity – but these realms and rebirths function according to impersonal law, not ad hoc interventions. Once set, it’s like a complex but self-regulating system. That’s arguably simpler than needing a god to step in constantly. Parsimony: Medium-High. There’s karma and rebirth which are extra beyond plain materialism, but no external godly figure or special one-time revelations required. • Metaphysical Coherence: Buddhism’s worldview is quite coherent in itself: everything is cause and effect, even the self is just a temporary aggregation of skandhas (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, consciousness) that disaggregate at death and lead to new aggregation (rebirth) with karmic influence. In a simulation, one could implement this by having consciousness as a process that moves to a new body after the old one ends, carrying some state (karma). No permanent soul is needed, just a chain of influenced processes. That’s a coherent algorithmic approach.The notion “all is empty (śūnyatā) of inherent existence” could map to the idea that nothing in the simulation is fundamental – only the underlying system (if anything) is fundamental. In other words, the phenomena we see have no independent reality; they exist interdependently (which matches the idea of code objects existing only in relation to the whole system and programming).Buddhism’s lack of a Creator might conflict with our initial assumption that simulation theory is true, since simulation theory classically assumes someone created it. However, one could reconcile by saying: perhaps this universe was created by some being (call them a simulator) but Buddhism either doesn’t know or doesn’t care because that being is not intervening and not relevant to ending suffering. Alternatively, one might envision the universe has been existing forever in cycles – maybe the simulator is just an impersonal principle or the simulation is an inevitable reality. This edges towards asking “who created the simulator’s reality?” – which Buddhism would say is an unanswerable infinite regress (it might assert that there’s no beginning point, just an infinite cycle).Since Buddhism intentionally avoids speculative metaphysics about a first cause, it remains coherent by not committing to one. It means a Buddhist can incorporate simulation theory by saying “fine, maybe we are in a simulation, but that doesn’t change the path of practice.” In terms of coherence, nothing in simulation theory contradicts Buddhism because Buddhism doesn’t require particular historical miracles or theistic doctrines. If anything, simulation theory would validate the idea that the world is not as it seems (which Buddhism already claims) and that death is not final (if rebirth is part of the program). Coherence: High, as Buddhism is flexible and mostly about the illusory nature of phenomena which fits simulation. • Physics Compatibility: Day-to-day Buddhism fully accepts the functioning of natural law. It encourages understanding reality clearly – which includes understanding causality and likely by extension, whatever scientific truths there are. The Buddha was interested in the mind and suffering rather than physical cosmology, so Buddhism has no quarrel with physics describing how things work. Miracles in Buddhism are more like psychic powers (some texts mention enlightened monks doing telepathy, levitation, etc., but these are not central and considered rare). The laws of physics aren’t defied except maybe by those exceptional individuals, and even that can be framed as using laws we just don’t understand (like harnessing mind in extraordinary ways – maybe the simulator gave advanced users some admin privileges? In any case, not a fundamental break of physics globally).Rebirth and karma are extra-physical concepts, but physics doesn’t disprove them; it just doesn’t account for them. They operate on a level that current science doesn’t measure. But a simulation could certainly have a hidden karma counter for each conscious entity to determine their next spawn. The existence of realms beyond our visible one (like heavens or hells in Buddhist cosmology) again doesn’t conflict with physics here – they could be separate “instances” or areas of the simulation not accessible to us normally, which might sound wild scientifically but doesn’t mess with our local physics.Because Buddhism doesn’t depend on any breaches of physical law for its truth (only on eventually transcending all physical law by exiting samsara), it’s fully compatible with a rigorous, continuous physical cosmos. Physics Compatibility: High. • Explanatory Power: Buddhism’s primary strength is explaining suffering and how to alleviate it. It provides a clear diagnosis (the Four Noble Truths: there is suffering, it has causes – craving and ignorance, it can cease – nirvana, and there is a path to that cessation – the Eightfold Path). So it excels at answering “Why do we suffer and what should we do?” – arguably the most pressing existential question. In a simulation, that question remains: people suffer, what’s the meaning? Buddhism would say the meaning is to learn to let go and awaken; the suffering is like a feedback mechanism pushing us to seek truth beyond the illusions.However, Buddhism deliberately doesn’t give much explanation about ultimate origins or purpose beyond ending suffering. It might not satisfy someone looking for a cosmic why (like “why did the simulator create this? what’s the grand plan?”). Buddhism would perhaps say the search for a first cause is futile; more important is to break free from the whole chain of causes. In that sense, it might have less to say about why the simulation exists at all – maybe it just exists beginninglessly. This might be seen as a gap in explanatory scope (compared to theism which says it exists out of God’s love or plan, or Hinduism which says it’s lila or for souls’ education).For moral order, Buddhism uses karma instead of a divine judge, which explains a lot about fortunes and encourages ethical behavior (since you’ll experience consequences eventually). Karma as a principle provides a form of moral explanation without needing a constant divine oversight; it’s like a built-in moral physics. That’s elegant but some argue it can be unfalsifiable (since karma can span lifetimes, it’s hard to prove).On consciousness: Buddhism provides a thorough analysis of mind phenomena and meditation practices to experientially investigate consciousness. It notably says there is no permanent self – which intriguingly could align with the idea that our sense of self is a construct within the simulation, not an independent entity. It also means consciousness is seen as a process, not a static soul, which jibes with how a simulation might instantiate a conscious process per being.Explanatory Power: Moderate. It’s extremely powerful for explaining and addressing personal human suffering and mental phenomena. It’s moderate for explaining cosmic purpose or origin (since it largely sets those aside). If one isn’t concerned with ultimate creator and focuses on liberation, Buddhism covers what’s needed. But for those asking “What is the point of this simulation? Who did this and why?”, Buddhism’s answer is essentially: those questions are wrongly put, just focus on liberation. Some may find that less satisfying as an explanation of the universe’s existence, while others find it refreshingly pragmatic.
In a simulated universe analysis, Buddhism essentially aligns with a scenario where the simulation is running on autopilot (no active beneficent or maleficent deity in charge), and the only “way out” is to realize it’s a simulation/illusion and detach oneself from it. It is almost like saying the *goal of the simulation’s inhabitants should be to attain a form of simulatexit (exit the simulation cycle). What happens when one attains nirvana in simulation terms? Possibly one’s consciousness is not reincarnated again – maybe it merges back into whatever base reality or simply ceases as an individual process. Buddhism actually states nirvana is unconditioned, beyond description, so one could analogize it to leaving the program entirely (or in some interpretations, abiding in some base state of reality, which might correspond to something like Brahman but Buddhism avoids saying that).
From a probability standpoint, the Buddhist worldview within simulation theory is similar to the atheistic simulation (no active god) but adds a purposeful path to follow to escape suffering, which a purely atheist simulation worldview lacks. If one finds the evidence of widespread suffering and the seeming hiddenness of any benevolent programmer compelling, one might lean towards the idea that no one is going to rescue us – aligning with Buddhism’s emphasis on self-rescue through insight. Also, the concept of the world as illusion and meditation experiences of unreality of self are points in favor of Buddhism capturing something real about the simulation.
We will give Buddhism a respectable probability weight, comparable to or slightly below the high-theism scenarios. It might be slightly lower only because it doesn’t “predict” or require any confirmable external action (so it’s harder to confirm). But its internal consistency and pragmatic focus make it quite plausible as a practical truth of living in a simulation that doesn’t reveal its Creator.
Atheism (Blind Simulation)
Worldview Summary: By “Atheism (blind sim)”, we mean a scenario where there is no deity or purposeful moral authority within the simulation. The simulator, if it exists, is indifferent or simply not involved in any religious or spiritual sense. This could mean a few possibilities: (1) The simulation was created by advanced beings for some mundane purpose (scientific experiment, entertainment, etc.), but those beings do not intervene or imbue the world with any particular moral framework – effectively they are “hands-off” like deists but also not morally exalted, just technicians. (2) The simulation could even be an emergent phenomenon – perhaps a consequence of a parent universe’s physics (though that stretches the usual definition of simulation). (3) From the perspective of the inhabitants, there might as well be no simulator at all, because everything operates on impersonal laws and no higher being interacts or cares.
In essence, this worldview is akin to traditional materialistic atheism, with the caveat that our universe is artificial in origin. But crucially, the artificial origin doesn’t translate to any sort of “God” figure in the religious sense. The “Architect” in this scenario might not be worthy of the name God – perhaps it’s just a super advanced teen running a universe program for a science fair


, as some have humorously conjectured. If that’s the case, the teen (or simulators) don’t inject any divine purpose or interventions; they just watch or abandon the sim altogether. It’s a blind watchmaker updated to a blind programmer analogy.
Let’s examine this scenario with our criteria: • Logical Parsimony: This is basically the simulation hypothesis without any extra frills. It asserts that we are in a simulation and nothing more – no purposeful interventions, no designed afterlife, no miracles, nothing beyond the natural laws observed and maybe the initial creation event. In terms of added assumptions, it’s extremely parsimonious: you have the simulator (which simulation theory by itself entails) but you do not claim this simulator does anything beyond running the sim. If anything, it might even try to minimize assumptions about the simulator’s motives. One might say: maybe countless simulations are run, and our universe is just one of them – not special. This is very much aligned with Bostrom’s original argument, which didn’t claim simulators care about us or are benevolent, only that they could be numerous


. Indeed, Bostrom’s scenario would lean this way – we could be one of many ancestor-simulations run by posthuman researchers out of curiosity or for modeling, but they might not intervene at all once started (unless for debugging, but presumably a stable sim runs without interference).It requires fewer assumptions than any religious worldview because it doesn’t have to account for any phenomena outside the known physical and maybe some initial conditions. Parsimony: Very High. This is essentially the null hypothesis among simulation-informed worldviews. • Metaphysical Coherence: A “blind” simulation is straightforward: the simulator sets it up and maybe walks away, or simply observes passively. There’s no inherent contradiction here. It’s basically a deistic creation without the deist assumption that the creator is morally elevated or interested in worship. If the simulators are just intelligent beings but not “Gods,” it’s perfectly coherent that they might treat the simulation like we treat a petri dish – watch it without interference, possibly not concerned about the sufferings of bacteria in the dish. If something goes awry, they might even terminate it without ceremony. That does raise a chilling prospect: our existence could be snuffed out if the simulators lose interest or need to free up disk space. But that’s coherent albeit unsettling.One aspect to consider: if there’s no guiding moral force, any appearance of moral order (like how humans have ethical impulses, religions, etc.) must all arise from within the sim naturally. That’s plausible – sociobiology can explain altruism, etc., as evolutionary strategies, and our tendency to believe in gods could be a byproduct of cognitive evolution (the “hyperactive agency detection” theory and such). In a blind sim, religion itself would be an in-simulation phenomenon with no external validation. This is coherent because we can see how human psychology might generate religious beliefs even if no religion were true – an atheist in a base reality already believes that, so it’s the same inside a sim.The only potentially incoherent point is that if simulation theory is true, then technically there is a creator (the simulator). A strict atheist might say “there is no God,” but here we’d have to acknowledge an intelligent designer outside (the programmer). However, calling that entity “God” might be misleading if it doesn’t have divine attributes. They are not worshipped, not morally perfect, perhaps even mortal in their own realm. So one could still say in terms of any meaningful definition of God for us (as an object of worship or moral authority), there is none – the simulator isn’t providing those. Thus, it’s coherent to maintain an “atheistic” stance relative to any normative deity, even though an intellect started the sim.Another angle: Could the simulation be truly “unmanned”? Perhaps it’s a simulation running as part of some larger natural process, not deliberately created by anyone. This strays from conventional use of “simulation,” but some have speculated e.g. that the universe could be a quantum computer naturally. That gets into deep metaphysics – effectively pantheism or pancomputationalism rather than a personal simulator. But either way, no personal god caring about humans.Coherence: High. It’s conceptually simple and free of paradoxes. • Physics Compatibility: By definition, a blind simulation scenario expects the world to follow consistent physical laws at all times (since there is no one to intervene with miracles). So it is entirely compatible with all scientific observations. In fact, it likely assumes our physics is either exactly whatever code was written or something emergent from it, but there’s no reason to ever break it. The simulation might even be designed to avoid detection; thus it would run as if it were a base physical world. All quantum quirks, relativity, etc., are just the rules. We might find hints like the digital nature at tiny scales, but those are only hints if at all.If some aspects of reality seemed weird (like maybe consciousness or free will), in the atheistic sim view, these too would have to arise from the code – e.g., consciousness is emergent from complex computation (consistent with many materialist theories), free will is either illusory or some emergent property with no violation of physics. There’s no need to invoke anything outside the physical processes of the simulation. So from a science standpoint, this scenario aligns with a fully materialistic understanding: the universe is a closed system governed by law; meaning and morality are human constructs or evolutionary byproducts.It’s essentially the same as the worldview of an atheist assuming no simulation, except that the stage was set by programmers. But those programmers don’t tinker, so inside it’s identical to a closed naturalistic system.Physics Compatibility: Excellent. • Explanatory Power: Here we consider what this worldview explains or fails to explain. It explains the empirical data well – everything is just physics, no mysteries beyond perhaps technical scientific puzzles (which have scientific answers in principle). But it might be seen as lacking in providing deeper meaning or comfort. It says: there is no divine plan to the simulation, no built-in purpose for your life except perhaps what you create, and no afterlife or external justice unless the simulators arbitrarily decide to copy you (but in this scenario, they likely won’t – or if they do, it’s not out of justice, maybe out of curiosity).Why does the universe exist? Possibly just because some advanced beings wanted to run it. We might not know their reasons – could be trivial. That doesn’t give a satisfying answer in a philosophical sense, but it might be the truth. It basically deflates the “big why” to either “no why, just how” or “the why lies in the motives of some aliens we can’t access, which might not align with our notions of purpose.” In the extreme version, our entire universe could be a science project that was left running on a server – in which case our significance is nil to the creators.It accounts for the problem of evil in a straightforward (if bleak) way: evil and suffering happen because that’s how the system evolved; there’s no outside help coming. This is essentially the same as secular humanism’s view in base reality, just transplanted. It doesn’t solve evil, it just doesn’t pretend there’s an ultimate justice. One could find that explanation robust (Occam’s razor: don’t multiply entities like a God to explain what natural causes suffice to explain) or unsatisfying (we crave meaning and justice).On consciousness and morality: an atheistic simulation would say consciousness is likely an emergent property of the neural networks (simulated brains). If one subscribes to functionalist or materialist views, that’s fine, albeit the “hard problem” remains unsolved. But there is no extra ingredient (like a soul or Brahman or God) – just very complex computations. Morality has no absolute anchor; it’s a human construct or evolutionary impulse. That means any sense of higher moral truth is illusory or at best pragmatic. For some, that is a perfectly acceptable understanding; for others, it leaves morality groundless. But as a worldview, it’s clear: life is what we make it, and any meaning is self-created or evolved, not handed from on high.In terms of explanatory power, one might say it explains things in a minimal way: e.g., it “explains” fine-tuning by saying maybe there are many simulations or just that those are the parameters chosen, no deeper reason. It doesn’t try to find purpose behind phenomena, just mechanism. Its strength is it doesn’t raise further questions like “why would God do X?” – by denying God, that issue evaporates.Explanatory Power: Low in teleology, High in simplicity. It lacks an overarching narrative or purpose (which some might see as a flaw, others as a virtue of not telling unfounded stories). It basically says: “The universe is likely a brute fact (or brute artifact) with no ultimate purpose; our task is to understand it and perhaps make the best of it for ourselves.”
Finally, how likely is this scenario in a simulated world? Many secular thinkers arguably lean this way. Nick Bostrom’s own stance wasn’t that any existing religion is true, but rather that if we are simulated, it might just be by future humans (or aliens) with no divine qualities. David Chalmers, while being more open to calling the simulator “god-like” in some ways, as an atheist he didn’t assume the simulator cares about moral perfection


. The observational fact that we do not obviously see clear, attributable miracles or consistent revelations might be taken as evidence favoring this “blind sim” hypothesis over theistic ones – essentially an application of Occam’s razor to observed reality. The world looks statistically indifferent (bad things happen to good and bad alike, etc.), which is what you’d expect if no one is tweaking outcomes for moral reasons.
If one gives weight to that line of reasoning, the atheistic/blind simulation could be considered the default high-probability scenario absent evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, it can’t provide comforting answers or ultimate hope; it’s a bit of a nihilist outlook except for what meaning we create. But truth isn’t guaranteed to be comforting.
We will likely assign a relatively large probability chunk to this worldview, as it is arguably the most straightforward given a high probability of simulation but no compelling evidence of supernatural involvement. It basically says: “Yes, we live in a simulation, but for us that changes nothing about the lack of a divine plan – the makers are just like evolutionary forces or indifferent gods.”
This scenario could overlap somewhat with Buddhism (no personal god, emphasis on self-reliance) except Buddhism adds the karmic structure and goal of enlightenment. The blind sim scenario might align more with a secular humanist approach: our job is to understand our universe (simulated though it may be) and improve life through our own efforts (maybe someday we might even communicate with the simulators if possible, but they aren’t reaching out to us proactively).
With all worldviews covered, we can now compile our probabilistic assessment of each scenario, given the simulation hypothesis. The table below summarizes the major worldviews and our rough estimated probability for each being “the case” in a simulated reality:
Comparative Probability Table of Worldviews under Simulation Hypothesis
Worldview (Simulated Scenario) Key Features Approx. ProbabilityDeism (Non-Interventionist Creator) Single Creator starts simulation then never intervenes. Universe runs on fixed laws; no miracles or personal revelations. Explains fine-tuning by initial design, but Creator remains hidden. 20%Theistic Simulation – Christianity Simulation run by a benevolent God who intervenes in history (incarnation of Christ, miracles, scripture). God-programmer actively guides moral narrative and offers salvation beyond the simulation. 10%Theistic Simulation – Islam Simulation ruled by one God (Allah) who sends revelations (Quran) and prophets, enforces moral law (via karma-like justice after life). No incarnation, but miracles and final judgment/afterlife administered by the simulator. 10%Eastern Idealism – Hindu/Vedanta Reality is a cosmic “simulation” (Māyā) generated by the ultimate consciousness (Brahman). The simulator and simulation ultimately are one; souls reincarnate as per karma. The universe is cyclic (repeated runs). Goal is to realize the illusion and unite with the underlying reality. 10%Eastern Non-theism – Buddhism The simulation has no creator figure; it’s an impersonal flow of causes. Life is suffering due to ignorance of the illusion. Rebirth occurs until one attains enlightenment (escapes the sim). No external God, only the Dharma (law) and Nirvana (escape). 10%Gnostic/Demiurge Scenario The simulation is created by a lesser, possibly malevolent being (Demiurge). Our reality is a flawed prison. The true divine realm is outside the simulation. Salvation means gaining secret knowledge (gnosis) to escape the simulation’s control. (Modern analogy: we are in a “Matrix” controlled by an amoral programmer.) 15%Atheistic “Blind” Simulation The simulation is essentially a neutral sandbox. The creators (if any) are not involved in any spiritual capacity. No divine plan or moral interventions – things happen per natural laws and chance. Any meaning or religion is human-generated. This is basically a secular universe that happens to be simulated. 25%Base Reality (No Simulation) * (For completeness) The chance that our reality is not a simulation at all, but the genuine base reality. In this case, traditional atheism or some non-simulation theology would apply. (We assumed ~30–40% for no-simulation if simulation is ~60–70%.) N/A (30–40%)
Note: The probabilities above are subjective estimates that sum to 100% within the assumption that we are in a simulation. If we consider the complementary probability that we are not in a simulation (roughly 30–40%), that would be a separate case outside this table. For example, an overall assessment might say: 70% chance we are simulated – and given that, a 25% out of that 70% (which is 17.5% absolute) that it’s a “blind” sim, 15% absolute that it’s a Gnostic-type sim, etc., and 30% chance we’re not simulated (in which case the question of this table is moot, or one falls back to conventional debates on God vs atheism in base reality). The main point of the table is the conditional likelihoods of each scenario assuming a simulation.
Looking at these numbers, the Atheistic/Indifferent simulation comes out on top as a single category (~25% of simulation scenarios). This reflects the idea that if we have no strong evidence of the simulator’s benevolence or interaction, the simplest assumption is that the simulator is indifferent or absent – essentially treating the simulation like a petri dish (or even a forgotten program). Gnosticism gets a notable share (~15%) because it cleverly explains why our world has a mix of beauty and suffering: perhaps our simulator is not a perfect God but a flawed or even malevolent being, which would fit a lot of the world’s cruelty. This scenario is a bit more speculative but not to be ruled out, given that the simulation hypothesis allows the simulator’s character to be anything.
Deism (20%) is one of the higher ones because it balances needing a Creator for cosmological reasons with the lack of evident miracles. It’s basically the scenario of a “well-behaved” simulation that never shows obvious glitches or divine messages – which matches our empirical reality quite well aside from personal claims. The active theisms (Christianity and Islam in our breakdown) are lower (10% each) not because they are less internally consistent, but because from a neutral standpoint one would need evidence that this particular narrative is true in the simulation. They are certainly possible – if tomorrow a clear divine sign occurred, those probabilities would shoot up – but absent that, one might consider them less likely than a no-intervention scenario. Still, we give them non-trivial weight because their explanatory depth is high and they each have a significant intellectual tradition; it’s conceivable that a simulator might indeed choose to actualize one of those religious storylines within the simulation (especially if the simulator is the God of those religions). They also have millions of adherents who would argue there is evidence (holy texts, experiences), though that evidence is disputed.
Hindu/Vedanta and Buddhist worldviews are each around 10% in our estimate. They gain points for philosophical coherence with a simulated reality (world as illusion, cycle of rebirth which could be a system feature, etc.), but they also usually depict the ultimate reality in somewhat abstract or impersonal terms, which is harder to “prove” or detect. They might actually be true in conjunction (some Buddhist philosophies are compatible with Advaita Hindu ideas, just with different language). Combined, Eastern non-theistic or pantheistic philosophies take about 20%.
Finally, Gnosticism we gave 15%, as mentioned. It’s a bit of a wild card but worth considering because it directly addresses the possibility of an imperfect or evil simulator, which could explain much of the existential dread in life. Interestingly, modern simulation lore (e.g., The Matrix film) is very Gnostic in flavor


. If we ever saw inexplicable glitches or evidence of “admin abuse” in the world, the Gnostic probability would rise.
One could certainly tweak these numbers – they are not derived from a strict calculation but from a qualitative weighing of the criteria and how the world appears. They reflect one possible ranking of likelihoods given current knowledge (or lack thereof).
Conclusion
Through the lens of simulation theory, we have re-examined the major religious and philosophical worldviews, treating them as different hypotheses about the nature of the “Architect” and the purpose (or lack thereof) of our universe. This exercise demonstrates the remarkable interdisciplinary potential of the simulation hypothesis: it serves as a unifying framework where questions of metaphysics, theology, and science intersect. In a sense, simulation theory modernizes age-old questions — what is the nature of reality, and is there a God? — by placing them in a computational paradigm.
Several key insights emerge from our analysis: • The simulation hypothesis does not automatically favor traditional theism. Even if we grant a 60–70% chance that we live in an artificial world, it doesn’t mean the God of any particular religion is necessarily the programmer. A high probability of simulation gives new life to the possibility of a creator, but the character of that creator remains unknown. It could be benevolent (theistic), indifferent (deistic/atheistic), or even malevolent (gnostic Demiurge)


. Thus, simulation theory expands the conversation rather than conclusively resolving it. • Empirical reality as we observe it — stable physical laws, no universally acknowledged miracles, presence of unjust suffering — tends to align more with scenarios where the simulator is either non-interventionist or not morally invested (Deism, atheistic simulation, or Gnostic to some extent). As Chalmers noted, the simulation argument made him take the idea of a creator seriously, but it doesn’t guarantee that creator is “especially good”


. The relatively “hidden” nature of the Architect in our world pushes our probability estimates toward the no-intervention side. If there is an Architect, it appears to keep a low profile. • Moral and existential clarity varies widely among the scenarios. The Abrahamic theistic views (Christianity, Islam) and Indian philosophical views (Hinduism, Buddhism) offer rich narratives or prescriptions that make sense of life within a simulation: either as a testing ground for souls, a divine play, or a training simulation to attain enlightenment. These provide frameworks of meaning that can guide human behavior (e.g., follow God’s commandments, or follow the Eightfold Path) with the promise of a transcendence or reward beyond the simulation (heaven, moksha, nirvana). In contrast, the atheistic/indifferent simulation offers no such built-in meaning; meaning must be constructed locally by humans (through personal or collective goals). Gnosticism offers a more rebellious meaning: the world is a trap to escape from by seeking higher truth. • Parsimony vs. Explanatory Power: There is a trade-off. The atheistic and deistic scenarios are very parsimonious (few assumptions), but they may leave many “why” questions unanswered. The religious scenarios add assumptions (a loving God, reincarnation mechanism, etc.) which give them greater explanatory reach regarding moral order and purpose, but those assumptions themselves are not verified by external evidence — hence one pays a price in simplicity. Which one prefers depends on how one weighs Razors versus Reasons. A high-IQ, analytically inclined reader might lean toward simpler models unless there is strong reason to complicate them. However, one must also consider human experiential data — billions claim religious experiences or intuitions; whether one counts that as evidence is subjective. Our approach has been neutral, but a different weighting of human testimony could increase the probability of theistic scenarios. • Quantum physics and modern science do not contradict any of these scenarios; in fact, as we saw, aspects of physics (mathematical structure of laws, possible discretization, error-correcting codes in equations) surprisingly resonate with the idea of a programmed reality




. This means our decision between worldviews rests not on basic physical plausibility (all can accommodate science through one mechanism or another), but on more subtle criteria: coherence and alignment with observed historical/philosophical facts. For example, the lack of consensus on any single revelation or miracle leads some to lean atheist; the existence of any cosmos at all with consciousness leads others to lean deist or theist (like Nagel’s contention that materialism alone struggles to account for consciousness


).
In the end, what does simulation theory add to the philosophy of religion? Perhaps its greatest contribution is conceptual clarity and imaginative possibility. It allows us to discuss creation in a concrete way (programming) rather than abstractly, and it posits a potentially testable structure (one could imagine, however difficult, finding a “signature” of the simulation, such as the lattice artifact in cosmic rays


, or some glitch). If such a signature were found, it wouldn’t tell us who the Architect is, but it would elevate the conversation from “Is there a God?” to “What kind of programmer is our Creator?” – a question that blends computer science with theology.
For now, absent a revelation either divine or technical, we must live with uncertainty. The probabilistic ranking offered in this article is a tentative guide, not a definitive answer. Each worldview presents a unique way to navigate life in a possibly simulated universe: • The fideist may say: “Live as if your faith is true; if the simulation confirms anything, it will confirm my God in the end.” • The skeptic may say: “Don’t commit to unwarranted beliefs; the simulation hypothesis itself is reason for humility about any grand claims.” • The seeker might take inspiration from multiple traditions, treating simulation theory as a common ground that shows we all peer at shadows on the cave wall


(or images on the screen), striving to glimpse the reality beyond.
Ultimately, simulation theory reframes the old existential questions in a new vocabulary, but the questions themselves persist: What is the nature of our reality? What responsibilities do we have within it? And if there is an Architect, how do we relate to them (or it)? High-powered intellects will continue to debate these matters, running thought-experiments perhaps as elaborate as the simulation we might inhabit. Until such day as we have proof or disproof, we remain, to paraphrase philosopher Bertrand Russell, “unsure jesters on an electronic stage, seeking meaning in the flicker of the pixels”.
In the search for truth under the shadow of the Simulation, keeping an open yet critical mind is paramount. As this analysis has shown, many roads are possible – and the road of rational inquiry combined with spiritual imagination may yet yield surprises. The simulation hypothesis itself was once a surprising speculation; now it is taken seriously by scientists and philosophers




. Likewise, the question of the most likely religion may find new answers in light of new knowledge. Until then, we balance probabilities, examine our criteria, and perhaps, above all, strive to be good simulated beings – just in case any of those worldviews about moral reckoning turn out to be true.