Smith points out--rightly, I think--that this appeal to the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence for the idea that our universe resembles the Matrix movies is ironic, given that advocates of Intelligence Design, who cite the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an Intelligence Designer are routinely "scorned" for their scientific heterodoxy. Why then, the respect given to this "untestable conjecture"? Smith suggests that "it is because embracing the Matrix Scenario and the idea of infinite universes [the "multiverse" hypothesis] allows their propounders to remain materialists in good standing."
I suspect that Smith is right in believing that both the "Matrix Scenario" and the "multiverse" hypothesis are simply ways of dodging the theological implications of cosmological fine-tuning. Moreover, I suspect he is right in saying that the "Matrix Scenario" is "untestable," just as the notion of a multiverse is unprovable. However, I would add another objection to this idea that the universe is a computer program--where did the putative programmer of our universe come from? How did such a super-intelligence emerge? It would seem to me that the "Matrix Scenario" merely pushes the question of how the universe originated further back in time, but does not actually answer the question. It is no more an answer to the question than is the notion of a multiverse --since we can always ask why there should exist a multiverse containing a universe which is fine-tuned for the emergence of life. Other than a philosophical commitment to materialism, for what reason should anyone believe either of these hypotheses?
Image of blue galaxy from Wikimedia Commons