On Randomness, Probability and Evolution in a Simulation. On the Argument for Design vs Evolution.
There is no need to complicate matters in computationalism by using terms used by theoretical physicists; that is a different branch of theoretical science. The methods of designing and programming simulations are anyway actual, specific, non-accidental and not theoretical,
For example, among my best selling items are collections of hundreds of trees, plants, flowers and landscaping items, many of which are animated and have shadow effects and particle effects, which produce birds, insects and butterflies around the items. You could write a program which lays all these out in a planetary landscape randomly (such as in the game “No Man’s Sky), and then claim that you can produce billions of different landscapes randomly. This is not really such an amazing claim and it requires no miracles. Let us say that we calculated that these landscaping kits could be re-arranged in 184-quintillion different ways. The “probability” of repeating the same identical layout twice would be thus one in a 184-quintillion (I have no idea how this claim has been arrived, and and I think it more likely that there are infinite variations which are not calculable). There is no mystery to this and it is not “natural” evolution and it is all the consequence of programming. The producers of “No Man’s Sky” are programmers and designers and not miracle-makers or stage magicians and they do not claim to be; there is a science behind game design.
Adding many of the terms from theoretical physics and Darwinian evolution fo Computationalism seems to just create a mystification and confusion in the minds of those for whom computer game design is mysterious.
Computationalism is an argument for design; i.e. our world is derived from a civilisation of computer programmers, designers and hardware engineers in all probability (I cannot think of any other scientific possibility), and an argument which Tom Campbell, David Icke and other proponents of New Age Woo, Christians and theists are attempting to transform into a thesitic belief system on the basis of Computationalism.
Campbell has also attempted to fit the square peg of Darwinian evolution into the round hole of computer programming and design. There is simply no way that this world evolved naturally or randomly, unless it was programmed to do so. A monkey banging on a keyboard for eternity would never produce the 50 million plus lines of code that is MS windows; and the human consciousness program is far more complex than this; and the vast myriads of objects and animated lifeforms which the human consciousness program observes would each be the consequence of complex programming. If you were to just bang on a keyboard and insert random text into programs, they would most likely malfunction, and I have only discussed the programming and not the hardware which would be required to operate this simulation, and there is also no possibility of that just having evolved naturally, anymore than you PC could evolve naturally.
There is no such thing as Darwinian, natural random evolution in computer game design or in hardware engineering. A computer game could be programmed to “appear” that way, however it would still be the consequence of programming and design.
There is no need for miraculous deities in Computationalism. A belief in miraculous deities is generally derived from the mystery of the First Cause question, and Computationalism as a science cannot answer that question and neither can the theists and the materialists. Insufficient data. Cannot compute.
“Religion poisons everything.”