A society on pillars

nivtricLeave a comment

Identity groups building society

Dutch society long centred around identity groups based on religion or ideology. The Dutch call it pillarisation. A pillar is vertical, so it encompasses several social classes. Social life was within your identity group, and you had few contacts with outsiders. These pillars had sports clubs, political parties, unions, newspapers, and broadcasters. Roman Catholics and Protestants also had schools and hospitals.

The pillars of Dutch society were Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Socialist, with each about 30% of the population. The Protestants themselves consisted of smaller groups that had their specific views on the Bible. The remaining 10% of the Dutch were liberal. The liberals were less organised and opposed pillarisation, but they also had political parties, newspapers and broadcasters.

Strong communities are close-knit, have shared norms and values based on ideology or religion, and come with social obligations. The pillar organisations focused exclusively on their communities. Similar arrangements existed in other countries. In the Netherlands, none of these groups dominated society. And the shared Dutch identity and the state made these relationships cooperative. In other words, Dutch society was built on pillars.

The Dutch were famous for their tolerance, which was at times close to indifference. The identity groups accepted each other and minded their own affairs. After 1800, there was no civil war in the Netherlands, nor was there a threat of one at any time. Leadership played a significant role. The leaders of the pillars were willing to compromise, and the members merely followed their leaders, guaranteeing peaceful relationships within society for two centuries.

Still, identity issues dominated Dutch politics from time to time. On 11 November 1925, the cabinet fell when the Catholic ministers resigned after Parliament accepted an amendment introduced by a small Protestant fraction to eliminate the funding for the Dutch envoy with the Vatican. A Protestant government fraction supported the amendment.

None of the identity groups on its own was able to dominate society. Instead, they had to make deals with each other. On religious issues, Roman Catholics and Protestants found each other. For instance, they arranged that schools and hospitals could have a religious identity and that the state would fund them like public schools and hospitals. The Socialists made deals on working conditions and social benefits with Catholics and Protestants.

Pillarisation in the Netherlands began to take shape at the close of the nineteenth century. One could say that Dutch society was built upon the pillars. They allowed groups with different views and cultures to coexist peacefully and gradually integrate. From the 1960s onwards, the pillars began to lose their meaning, and the Dutch became one nation. Pillarisation can be helpful if you believe in a shared destiny, for instance, the nation-state, but have different backgrounds that prevent integration in the short term. In this sense, it works like multiculturalism.

Pillarisation can be helpful if people believe in a shared destiny, for instance, the nation-state, but do not share a common background. In that case, everyone can live and work together with the people they feel comfortable with. Cultural and religious differences may subside over time. But as long as these identities remain distinct, people can organise themselves accordingly via pillars, and in doing so, avoid conflict.

Latest update: 19 May 2023

Fat cat

Mystery of Being

nivtricLeave a comment

Why is there something rather than nothing? We may never know. If gods created us, we may learn one day why. Still, that doesn’t explain why these gods exist. Perhaps the gods don’t know either. Coincidence and evolution explain why there are humans, but not why there is a universe. The odds appear stacked against us being here, so we might see our existence as a miracle and think this universe is there for us. However, had humans never arrived on the scene, no cat or fern would have wondered why it exists. Once you reverse the argument, you can see what is wrong with it.

My existence depends on my parents having met. Had my father not broken his leg during a soccer game, he might not have met my mother, who was a nurse in the local hospital. Or, my mother might have had a headache on the night I would otherwise have been conceived. My parents’ existence, in turn, depends on countless accidental actions of the many generations before them. If one of my forebears had slept ten minutes longer on 16 September 1455, I might not exist.

The number of incidents that could have prevented my existence is infinite. Yet, despite the near-zero odds, I exist. If the purpose of the universe were to create me, that must be a miracle. But why isn’t this universe made for that fat grey cat sneaking through my garden or a particular fern growing in the forest? The chance of their existence is as low as yours. Similarly, the chances of humans appearing when dinosaurs were still roaming and of living creatures emerging here on Earth when the galaxy started were also negligible.

In a similar vein, some argue that it is unlikely that this universe emerged by chance. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants appear designed for life to exist. It is the same type of error: thinking that my existence is a miracle. If the universe didn’t support life, we wouldn’t be there to notice it. A rabbit doesn’t ponder these questions, yet the existence of rabbits is as great a miracle as our existence. And how do we know the physical constants and natural laws that support life? And how does that rule out chance? There could be an infinite number of universes with different laws and constants. And this universe might support life by accident.

Intelligent design proponents claim that evolutionary processes lack the intelligence to design something as complex as a human being. And so, life on Earth requires an intelligent Creator. Indeed, the chance of life to emerge in the way it did was close to zero from the outset, and still, we are here, as are ferns and octopuses. Scientific findings indicate life on this planet had four billion years to develop. Given ample time, the possibilities are endless, and anything could happen. Competition, or the struggle for survival, is a force that promotes complexity but has no intelligence.

Humans have messed things up and turned this world into a wasteland. Humans are the outcome of competition between species. Competition always ends in disaster, and in the case of natural selection, it is humans. This world would be a much better place without them. No intelligent designer would design humans unless this individual seeks the praise of the created beings, desires to see their vain endeavours fail, or wants to save us from our stupidity in the nick of time by sending a saviour, as that makes a good story. So, if there is a Creator, this individual is likely humanoid, so the simulation argument makes sense. Our failure is so complete that you might wonder whether this world is real. We can’t be such a failure, or can we? Indeed, you can be right for the wrong reasons.

This world could be a simulation. Our ego stands in the way of seeing the truth, and it is the reason why we are a failed species. Pride is our road to destruction. The mystery of being is not much of a mystery. It is merely that a fool can ask more questions than a thousand sages can answer. If the possibilities are infinite, everything that ever happened once had a near-zero chance of transpiring. However, something had to happen, and that is what occurred. If there is no Creator, this world would still make perfect sense. It is our ego that tells us we are unique and special, so our existence is a miracle that requires a brilliant Creator who is infinitely wise and all-knowing. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a Creator. After all, we could live inside a simulation modelled after the real world.

Latest revision: 28 October 2025

The Virtual Universe

nivtricLeave a comment

Some religions claim that God or gods have created this world. In the Bible, God created everything by saying, ‘Be.’ That God uttered ‘Be’ and poof, there are bees, is not a particularly compelling explanation for the existence of bees. So, how could the gods have the magical powers to do that? Until recently, we had no clue, but then Nick Bostrom, known for his dry and incomprehensible employment of words, delivered us the simulation hypothesis, the most profound breakthrough in theology in nearly 2,000 years. We might exist inside a computer simulation run by an advanced humanoid civilisation. Our creators can define a class bee and instruct the computer to create instances of this class. A class has properties, allowing individual instances to be unique.

And so, Genesis might be closer to the truth than the religion sceptics think. Bostrom didn’t say whether or not that is indeed the case or how likely it is. He didn’t speculate on that issue. Otherwise, his critics might have a field day, ridiculing him for opening a back door to the paranormal and religion. That could have been the end of his career. However, it is easy to find out if you venture into areas that scientists anxiously avoid, such as paranormal incidents, religious experiences, meaningful coincidences, people’s memories of past lives, ghost phenomena, and UFO sightings.

Scientists dare not investigate these phenomena, as it could make them a laughing stock in front of their peers. That is groupthink and intellectual cowardice on a grandiose scale. On numerous occasions, multiple credible witnesses have observed events that science can’t explain. Like nearly everyone else, scientists have been proficient at ignoring evidence that contradicts their beliefs, such as unscientific ravings about spirits relaying messages from the other side during seances. Bostrom speculated that this world might be a virtual reality, but didn’t search for proof. As a philosopher, he had better things to do.

The book The Virtual Universe delves into the evidence. You can prove this universe is a virtual reality if you assume scientists have correctly established the laws of nature and that sciences like physics, chemistry and biology are correct. If events transpire that defy these laws of science, such as paranormal incidents, religious miracles, meaningful coincidences, memories of previous lives, ghost phenomena and UFO sightings, breaches in these laws occur. According to science, the Virgin Mary doing a miracle before a crowd of thousands, like in Fatima, is impossible. If science is correct, and it happens nonetheless, this world must be fake. The book The Virtual Universe puts it like this:

  1. If we live in a real universe, we can’t notice. Virtual reality can be realistic and come with authentic laws of reality.
  2. This universe may have fake properties, but we cannot notice that either because we don’t know the properties of a genuine universe.
  3. Breaching the laws of reality is unrealistic in any case. If it happens, we may have evidence of this universe being fake.

It follows from (1) and (2) that we can’t use the universe’s properties, reflected in the laws of nature, to determine whether or not this universe is real. Science can establish the laws of physics or the properties of this universe, but science can’t tell whether they are real or fake. However, if breaches occur, we have evidence suggesting this universe is bogus. The book The Virtual Universe investigates the evidence, which includes stories about paranormal incidents, religious experiences, meaningful coincidences, reincarnation stories, ghost phenomena, and UFO sightings, often with multiple credible witnesses. So yes, aliens can beam you up into their UFO because they are as fake as you are.

Advanced humanoids, often dubbed post-humans, likely share motivations with us because they evolved from humans, likely after some engineering, genetic, or otherwise. These advanced humanoids may run simulations of human civilisations for research or entertainment. Research applications could be about running what-if scenarios. Possible entertainment applications include games or dream worlds where someone’s imagination comes true. These simulations may not be realistic in some aspects, as they reflect the rules of a game or someone’s personal fantasies. In a simulation, you can let Jesus walk over water and make him think that faith alone suffices to do that.

Civilisations are complex. Small changes can derail events that would otherwise occur. Just imagine another sperm had won the race to Adolf Hitler’s mother’s egg. There were millions of sperm in that race. Guaranteeing an outcome, such as letting World War I end on a date referred to by the licence plate number of the car that drove Archduke Franz Ferdinand to his appointment with destiny, requires control over everything that happens. That doesn’t apply to games. Unpredictable developments make games more interesting. Considering how we utilise computing power, mainly for games, sexy pictures and cat videos, the number of simulations for entertainment likely vastly outstrips those run for research purposes. If we live inside a simulation, we should expect its purpose to be entertainment.

The owner or owners may use avatars to play roles in this world and appear like ordinary human beings to us. If you are familiar with computer games, you are familiar with avatars. Once you enter a game, you become a character inside that game, your avatar, and you have an existence apart from your regular life. Inside the game, you are your avatar, not yourself. Alternatively, you could start a virtual world where you are the Creator and bring your dreams to life. In this world, you also become someone else.

That is a lot of assumptions, and without evidence, they remain speculation. Even when there is evidence, it doesn’t necessarily mean the explanation is correct. Suppose you hear the noise of a car starting. That is the evidence. You may think there is an automobile starting. Perhaps a vehicle is firing up its engine. But your husband might be watching his favourite television series, Starting Engines, so you can’t be sure. Nothing you know contradicts your assumption, but you could be wrong. So, is God an individual from an advanced humanoid civilisation who uses us for amusement? It is credible, and perhaps nothing contradicts it. But who is to say it is correct?

Now comes the disagreeable part. We are instances of the class human. When the beings in the simulation think for themselves, that raises ethical questions like whether they have rights that the creators should respect. Considering how humans treat each other, it is not a given that these rights would be respected even when our creators acknowledge them. In the real world, bad things happen to people. In the case of control, the beings inside the simulation don’t think, but are mindless bots following the script. We have no independent will and are toys to our creators. God kills people at will, and a few million casualties more don’t matter. On the bright side, if God wants us to enter Paradise, where there is peace and happiness, nothing can stop that as well. Those who try will surely find themselves on the losing side. So, if the Boss makes a joke, you can better laugh. Perhaps it isn’t easy. But don’t worry. It took me fifteen years to look at the bright side of life.

Latest revision: 6 September 2025

Post-human motivations

nivtricLeave a comment

Once we realise that reality is unrealistic, we discover that we live in a simulation. That doesn’t require spending massive budgets on scientists. But that doesn’t tell us why we exist. We can explore the possible motives behind those who run simulations of human civilisations to understand their motivations. Again, that doesn’t require scientists. There is no point in speculating beyond the obvious, because the possibilities are infinite. Modern humans place great value on their inner selves, so we may not alter our human essence once we can. Hence, the motives of post-humans could be similar to ours. And so, post-humans might run simulations of human civilisations for research or entertainment.

Research could involve running what-if scenarios. What if a giant meteor hits the planet’s surface? What if China never becomes unified? Alternatively, what if religions such as Christianity and Islam never existed? Or what if a deadly infectious disease breaks out? Countless scenarios are possible. Post-humans might be interested in running them to see how we cope. These simulations are likely realistic. After all, playing what-if with unrealistic assumptions is not playing what-if. What if humans suddenly transformed into koala bears? Some individuals might entertain that thought. And so, that is entertainment.

Possible entertainment applications include games or dream worlds that bring your imagination to life. Such a simulation may be unrealistic in some aspects, as it reflects the rules of a game or someone’s imagination. Minor changes can have a dramatic impact on future developments. And simulations of civilisations are complex. If you desire to make your imagination come true, you need control over everything that happens. That doesn’t apply to games. Unpredictable developments make games more interesting.

What we know about human nature suggests the number of simulations for entertainment will vastly outstrip those run for research. If we live inside a simulation, we should expect its purpose to be entertainment. That could be either a game or a script, thus a story someone wrote. The owner or owners may use avatars and appear like ordinary human beings to us. If reality is unrealistic in some aspects, this suggests that our purpose is entertainment, as a simulation run for research is more likely to be realistic. Evidence of control further indicates that the purpose of this simulation is not to play a game, but to stimulate someone’s imagination through a story.

We live by stories, so there is nothing typically modern or Western about the idea of using the existing technological means to run stories. We have books, theatres and films. What is more speculative is the degree of individualism in the supposed motives of the post-humans. Humans are originally social animals who live in groups. It is particularly Western to see ourselves as precious individuals. It is an inheritance of Christianity that sees each human soul as precious. That individualism allowed Europeans to organise more flexibly, which eventually made them conquer the world, so it is not far-fetched to assume that an individualist culture is at the basis of the civilisation that created us, and that we are a product of a consumerist economy.

If the beings inside the simulation are sentient, that might raise ethical questions like whether they have rights that the creators should respect. Rights don’t exist in objective reality. We only imagine that we have them. And, considering how humans treat each other, it is not a given that our creators would respect these rights even when they acknowledge them. In a realistic simulation, bad things happen to people. And if the simulation is the stage of a story, and there is a script like a film, the beings inside the simulation, thus us, aren’t sentient beings but mindless bots. We would be less than worms. Real worms at least decide for themselves how to grovel and when, so there would be no reason whatsoever for our creators to respect the rights we imagine we have.

Latest revision: 16 August 2025

Simulation argument II: Adding information

nivtricLeave a comment

Will we soon create simulations of humans who act like humans and even believe they think? Will we invent a Holodeck like in Star Trek? And will we expand it to civilisation-size simulations? Nick Bostrom dares not to assess the likelihood of that. However, you don’t have to look far for answers. We are already close to doing it. Imagine a world where you can be king or queen. You can even create the world as you like and build your paradise. You can lead the life you desire. You can design the ideal spouse who fulfils your deepest romantic and sexual desires. And no one frustrates your ambitions.

Your dream can be your life. And you don’t have to wake up. It is simply too tempting for many of us to resist. Your life is not great. Your spouse is not perfect. Your job is mediocre or worse. Other people make you miserable. Your boss ignores your ideas. Your ventures fail. You think you deserve better. Likely, at least one of those options applies to you. If we could make our dreams come true, we would. We will spend a lot of time there if we ever invent something like the Holodeck from Star Trek.

You might think you won’t do it, but others would, so there will be demand for such a toy. What you have just read is information, specifically insights into human nature. We will make our dreams a reality if we can. We can also consider the advances in artificial intelligence, extrapolate them, and demonstrate that simulations of humans will be feasible at some point, likely soon. Hence, we probably live inside a simulation and are someone’s fantasy. Showing it is possible or likely, however, doesn’t prove it. So, how can we do that? It is possible with the information we have.

Scientists have established the laws of nature, which determine what is realistically possible and what is not. Simulations can be realistic in many ways, but they can also be unrealistic in some aspects. If we can establish that unrealistic events occur, thus breaching natural laws established by science, we could be living in a simulation. Instead of speculating about us living in a simulation by guessing the probability of post-humans existing and their abilities, resources, and possible motivations, we can look at what we know about our universe. That is information. We can establish that we live in a simulation as follows:

  1. When this universe is genuine, we can never be sure about it. A simulation can be realistic and feature authentic laws of reality.
  2. This universe may have fake properties, but we can’t establish this because we don’t know the properties of an authentic universe.
  3. Breaching the laws of reality is unrealistic in any case. If it happens, we may have evidence of this universe being virtual.

Science can establish the laws of reality or the properties of this universe. Only science can’t determine whether they are real or fake. Perhaps there is no gravity in a genuine world, even though we deem it unlikely. But the breaching of these laws suggests we live in a simulation. If we believe science is correct, breaching its laws proves the simulation. We have a body of evidence for the scientifically established laws of reality. These laws of reality and breaches thereof are information about our universe. Science has established, among others, the following:

  • The laws of physics always apply inside their realms. Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
  • The universe started with the Big Bang. Life on this planet emerged from chemical processes, and evolution shaped it. There is no evidence of a creator.
  • We are biological organisms made of carbon and water, and our consciousnesses reside in our bodies. There is no spirit or soul.

Evidence to the contrary indicates this world is fake. Meaningful coincidences suggest there is an intelligent force directing events. The paranormal defies the laws of physics. A ghost pushing you breaches Newton’s laws of motion. Credible reincarnation stories challenge the claim that we are biological organisms. However, meaningful coincidences can materialise by chance. There may be laws of reality we don’t know. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that consciousness resides in the body, while only a few people remember a previous life. And ghosts, have you seen them? It may be time to take your pills.

Still, if a sufficient number of credible accounts of breaches of the established laws of reality exist, we can assume we live inside a simulation. We may still differ on what a sufficient number is or which accounts are credible. The proof can’t be scientific because science can’t prove we live inside a simulation. We can’t verify that we live inside a simulation by doing experiments, as breaches of natural laws are unpredictable. But we can check the accounts of violations of these laws. It remains speculation, akin to living in the dark and assuming that cows exist and make a mooing sound, even though we have never seen them, and believing that our hearing of a moo proves their existence.

Latest update: 18 July 2025