Implementing religion in AI life-simulations

How we can increase the possibility for our afterlife by subscribing to code rules when implementing simulations

Many people nowadays are interested in the ‘Simulation Hypothesis’ , especially after Elon Musk declared himself a subscriber to the concept. It argues that we are actually objects being hosted in a computer simulation created by an advanced intelligence. 
This is not as terrifying as it may sound, because it gives us an actual influence to develop our own afterlife.

We just start by subscribing to a rule:

Gnostic Code Ethics rule for AI simulations
A declared subscriber to this rule, shall, when implementing a simulation with objects that develop a self-awareness of their environment, inform these of the existence of the simulation upon reaching the end of their object life cycle.

We could of course go one step further and let the objects close open issues in their lives, spend ‘time’ with other objects that they had close relationships with or enable a dialogue similar to Andy Weir’s short story ‘The Egg’. That would be fair.

Or one could simply give the objects the death that they believed in. This would be fair, too. So this is how that could look like in Java:

onDeath(){
switch (mBeliefsystem){
case CATHOLIC:
Simulation.getJudgementDayQueue().add(this);
break;
case REINCARNATION:
new Class.this(this);
case ATHEISM:
System.gc();
[…]
}

This is of course a joke. But the interesting part is — if implementers start subscribing to this rule, we are increasing our own possibilities for an afterlife. Because doing so increases the possibility that it is more common to develop such ethical rules. And if we live in a simulation, this may include the reality in which our own simulation had been developed.

And that may mean that we get an afterlife fair to us.