Simulation Theory: Possible in quantity does not Make Probable, Creationism is still Religious Zealotism

I’ve been thinking a lot about possibility versus probability lately, especially in the context of the Simulation Theory. It blows my mind how quickly Possible is twisted into Probable and even some of the most beautiful minds I know can't resist the idea of faith before dealing with the void of the unknown.

One of the core arguments for Simulation Theory is the statement that if we can create many virtual worlds, then the probability that we are living in the original reality decreases. Essentially, the more simulated worlds we create, the higher the chance that we ourselves are in one of them. But let’s think about this logic for a moment.

If I say I make up one god, there is a possibility that this god exists. If I now invent a second god, does that mean I’ve increased the likelihood of a god existing? Well yes, it would double, the problem is that I don't know what probability it has increased from and to, just that it is double. It is double within it's own sphere of probability, which depends on so many preconditions and circumstances outside of my idea of a god. Adding more hypothetical scenarios increases the probability but does not make it probable. Taking a step on a ladder brings me closer to the furthest star, but it does not bring me close to the furthest star. If I take two steps I will double my probability to walk into the furthest star compared to taking just one step.

Think about it. Is it possible we’re living in a simulation? Sure, in the same way, it’s possible that a god exists. But when we start talking about the probability of such scenarios, we’re in an entirely different ballgame. Probability isn’t just about possibility and being non contradicting; it’s about logical threads that tie back to something solid and coherent, each step where we don't know or can't calculate, becomes a leap of faith and hinders any true estimation of probability. There has to be a hard logical string; otherwise, there is no difference from any other spiritual movement. Simulation Theory might be non contradicting with our current understanding of physics, and that makes it an awesome premise for a sci-fi story or a 'Black Mirror' episode, but it shouldn’t be the basis for a worldview if you see yourself as a somewhat grounded and reasonable person. And that’s where Simulation Theory, to me, feels like it falls flat. It’s a concept built on ifs stacked on top of other ifs, without any concrete a logical thread.

This brings me to Max Tegmark and his statement that there’s a 50% chance AI will lead to human extinction. When I first heard it, I was more confused than scared. Fifty percent? Based on what? It felt like Tegmark wanted to say, “I don’t know,” but instead wrapped it up in an arbitrary number that made it sound like an absolute truth. It’s the same trap—confusing a vivid possibility with an actual measurable likelihood. He’s basically taking our collective fear of the unknown, slapping a probability on it, and then presenting it as a credible prediction.

This is exactly why I’m skeptical about the Simulation Theory and similar narratives. The language used is persuasive because it sounds scientific. Musk’s arguments about simulations are dripping with tech-savvy analogies and sci-fi appeal, but when you strip them down, you realize they’re not that different from any other creation myth. It’s just a story that fits neatly into the age of technology, designed not to break our current understanding of physics while giving us an answer to the existential “why are we here?” But what’s missing is the foundation—those clear, unambiguous logical threads that connect each step in a coherent way.

This is where real scientific discoveries stand in stark contrast. Take E=mc2, for example. When Einstein first presented this equation, it was a groundbreaking idea, and yet it wasn't plucked out of thin air. It was derived from first principles in his theory of relativity—a logical progression based on existing evidence and the known laws of physics. Even before it was empirically tested and verified, E=mc2 had a solid logical string backing it. There were no arbitrary "ifs" or loose assumptions; it was derived logically, with each step building on the last in a clear and coherent way. It was a conclusion drawn from a clear set of premises, each building on the one before it. That’s the difference between a scientific theory and a speculative idea like Simulation Theory: one has a logical integrity that is rooted in hard reasoning, while the other is built on a stack of hypotheticals.

And let’s not forget—just because something is possible doesn’t make it more or less probable. Just because something exists doesn't make it smaller or larger. And just because we don't know any better, does not increase the probability of theories. We just don't know how probable they are, and that's ok. Pretending like we do is not.

I don’t think Musk is misleading people because his evil, and I’m not saying that Tegmark isn’t sincere when he expresses his fears. I believe they’re both doing what they feel is right, maybe even what they feel they have to. At the same time we need to be very careful about how we let these possibilities influence our perception of what is probable. Maybe Musk knows or understands something beyond science, maybe he is right. But until he shows that logical path in a way that does not include elements of "we don't know but lets assume" then I will hug and love the "I don't know" and continue to nurture my relation to the unknown, rather than escaping it like an avoidant being asked if they are in love.

The conversation about simulation, AI, and the future of humanity is exciting—I get it. I’m as captivated as anyone. But let’s not lose our grip on what’s probable and what’s merely possible. Let’s keep questioning, keep demanding logical reasoning that we can tie into actual probability, rather than taking these leaps of faith, and keep fostering transparency through policies and technology. If we don’t, we risk handing over not just our freedom of action, but our freedom of thought to those who tell the most compelling stories—whether they’re based on solid reasoning or not.