The “belief” we’re in a simulation is more like a interesting idea than something people organize their lives around. Is it possible? Yes. Am I going to praise the great programmer every Sunday? No.
The belief in God in most cases is not just belief in some general higher power but a very specific deity with weird morality, silly mythology and bunch of scam artists behind it.
- I think there’s a higher power…
- Ok…
- that got mad at us for eating fruits but then impregnated a lady with itself and pissed us off so that we murdered him and he could say he’s not mad anymore.
- … WTF?
I more or less agree, but you keep using “believe” when you ought to use “belief.” Just FYI.
Ups, thanks. Totally missed that.
“Oops.”
Even more material for the “words you have been using wrong” thread.
English is an endless deluge of that experience, because our orthography is bullshit. People have tried to fix it. Their clever rules were partly adopted and became even more exceptions and special cases.
Yep.
I just learned of the Shavian Alphabet yesterday. It’s designed specifically for English and fits it well, except the sounds in it are so specific that when you write in it, you have to write in a specific regional accent. Fortunately it can’t become a new set of special cases because it’s an entirely new script not related to Latin.
At that point, surely we’d use the International Phonetic Alphabet instead.
Could an all powerful, loving God be real? Sure. Why not?
Could a powerful, all loving God be real? Yeah, seems realistic. In many ways, I am a God to an ant.
Could an all powerful all loving God be real?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
God is either inept, indifferent, or a straight up ass. None of those items are something I care to worship, even at the threat of the eternal damnation.
By their own book, the bad guy thought the stupid naked people should have a bit of an education and the good guy punished them for trying to improve their knowledge base. Serpents rule!
I was taught in school that the real battle in the universe is between chaos and order. They gave it a fancy name, Entropy, but that was the gist.
So Chaos is God and Order is Satan. Live all hunter gathering under God or just go to the Supermarket under Satan, and spend the rest of your time doing other things, like making art or scientific theories.
Even now the Church is against progress. Don’t let them Gays get married for fucks sake, the world will explode.
Hail Satan.
God is a programmer. That explains a lot actually. I guess he’s still working out the bugs (features)
Maybe the rapture is actual just the update to reality.
This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That “most” religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.
Religion’s weakest argument is the claim that the world was intelligently designed. When it so clearly isn’t.
Simulation theory doesn’t claim someone designed all this. They built a simulator where all this evolution and history happened, like emergent gameplay on steroids. It’s not the same kind of “design” we’re talking about.
Intelligent design is a broad, vague, and intensely mutable concept. It isn’t helped by the fact that there’s multiple kinds, with the pseudoscientific kind touted by the religious right in America and the more generic, very fucking old “teleological argument” which is also intelligent design at its core. To give a specific example of intelligent design philosophy that isn’t directly tied to a belief in a deity as an active participant, you can look at the deists, who believed that the universe’s fundamental laws were engineered by a kind of “clock maker” deity who left the universe running under its own principles but doesn’t have a direct, guiding hand in individual events. This is still a form of “intelligent design” and closely corresponds to simulation theory. At this point, you are redefining terms to suite your argument. Also, you can’t really say the world is or is not intelligently designed, as you have no evidence for either. The only truly “logical” position to hold for any of this is straight agnosticism.
The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed
The hypothesis of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.
The theory of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.
I think you mean “it may value nothing inside the simulation.” Because what you wrote doesn’t make any sense as it’s written. In either case, my “thesis” is not a thesis. It’s an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe’s existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it “created.” I think the only thing lacking here is your reading comprehension skills, as you’re clearly adding unfounded assumptions onto my observation independent of what was actually stated. Also, I posted that like a fucking month ago. Either you’re necroing dead threads looking to pick a fight or whatever instance you’re posting to fucked up its syncing with its federation.
It’s an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe’s existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it “created.”
The universe just getting created by an external force, and your phrasing that it is “intelligently designed” has no similarity. You are just escaping from what you had stated. You yourself assumed that the core similarity is intelligent design. There is nothing to observe here. The only one lacking in reading comprehension is you, or you are probably trying to find the little ounces of loopholes you think you can find because you’re just so disappointed by your thirty-day-old opinion but you also just can’t admit to it, or whatever else the situation may be.
Simulation theory does not share any core similarity with creationism. Just simulating a universe does not mean it is intelligently designed.
You’re getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. “Intelligent design” as an ideology and describing something as “intelligently designed” are not the same thing. The core similarity is what I’ve already described. You want me to mean something beyond what I’ve stated because you’re incapable of accepting what you read at face value. I have no interest in speaking further with someone without the intelligence to do something basic as understand the words they read.
You’re getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. “Intelligent design” as an ideology and describing something as “intelligently designed” are not the same thing.
They are different things, and I am not taking the phrasing in an ideological context. Something being intelligently designed and just being designed, are not the same thing either. Your previous reply elaborates the phrasing of yours that I quoted in a broader way that only you can come up with, because the phrasing simply had an entirely different meaning. I am also uninterested in having any discussion with somebody who throws up words on the internet, expects to be taken seriously, but is bereft of the mental competence to even phrase their words correctly.
There’s no hypocrisy here.
On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).
On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.
Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.
You’re assuming belief in the Abrahamic God to make your argument easier. But not all theists subscribe to such a position. And belief in a disinterested god who created the universe seems just as plausible as believing in a disinterested programmer who wrote a simulation.
Those conjectures aren’t just equally plausible, they’re the same thing.
I think their point is belief versus theory. One requires faith, the other thought.
It’s why it’s simulation theory and not Simulationism. People acknowledge it, but don’t follow it, nor believe it, since belief requires clearing unknown gaps with leaps of faith to reach an unknown destination. Theory seeks answers of the unknown with “could be this, could not be this” whereas belief is “it be this”.
This always points back to the paradox which all divinity falls into. The moment we know of a god to be real, it is old news and no longer divine. The next scientific step is “What made it so?” and moves right along to bigger things whether theists are on board or not.
Of the few words ending with -ism and -ist in science or theory, none have belief or faith.
Even the most apparent, such as the Big Bang Theory, are still marked a theory, after all. Believing in them—convinction without 100% knowledge—is foolish and closes doors of what may actually be truth.
What an amazing belief. We believe that a something we know nothing about maybe did something that we have no evidence for.
I’m not assuming anything. The image shown in the OP is an image of the god of Abraham and the initial premise is wrong. If there was a sizeable population of theists who believed in a disinterested god, we’d have somewhere to start a discussion.
I don’t know what you’d consider “sizable” but a lot of people these days are spiritual without being religious. Which is unsurprising. Atheism/agnosticism are on the rise, so it makes sense that people who believe in a god but don’t subscribe to a particular religion are also on the rise.
People who believe in a god but aren’t part of a religion would have to dictate the parameters for their god in order for it to be meaningful in any way. As stated before, the OP didn’t make the initial idea that nebulous. They were pretty specific.
God got bored lol. Yeah nah I’m spiritual, but I’m not much a of a theist.
I just trust that many that don’t believe in a higher power also often believe that they’re very important and therefore “above”. Essentially most old school religion is like a dam that withholds personal narcissism from overtaking society.
Of course it’s a belief. Any position held as fact in the absence of evidence is a belief, and is irrational by definition.
It also absolutely does not provide an explanation of “purpose”. Someone else already wrote a good comment about why that is.
Your comment added nothing to the discussion and provided no counters to what was said. What was the point of writing it?
It’s not a belief because there’s not an absence of evidence. There’s quite a bit of evidence for it. Whether you agree that it’s compelling is another story. Also, no one “believes” in simulation theory. It’s simply a theory to explain our current understanding of the world. In the same way that no one “believes” in the theory of gravity. It’s just a possible explanation of what we observe.
Except it isn’t a theory then is it? It’s a hypothesis.
And belief in a hypothesis that has not reached the quality of scientific theory, is just that: belief.
And it’s grossly dishonest of you to argue otherwise, so take your wordplay and nonsense somewhere else.
No. That’s why it’s not called “simulation hypothesis”. It’s called “simulation theory”. The hypothesis is the original, untested idea. The theory is the idea after it has been tested that fits as a valid explanation. It has been tested.
To be fair, though, the actual idea is called “simulation hypothesis” in the real world for that reason but it’s not a hypothesis because it can’t come to a falsifiable conclusion. There’s literally no way of knowing whether we are or aren’t in a simulation.
It’s the same idea as a god that controls everything but doesn’t intervene at all, is invisible, and unknowable. It could be true but it’s a moot point since we could never know.
I’m not being dishonest. You are, however, being dismissive and rude.
If you find dismissal of your inability to coherently explain the concept you brought up rude, that’s your prerogative.
You’ve said enough to demonstrate you don’t understand basic empiricism, have not done sufficient reading on the topic that - again - you brought up, and have contradicted yourself in your own comment.
You are dishonest, and we’re pretty much done here.
I’m not dishonest and I haven’t said anything that suggests I’m not arguing in good faith. I’ve sufficiently explained the concept and the idea that our observations can only extend to what we’re capable of. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself but I’m sure you’ll point that out instead of being nebulous and ignoring the points actually demonstrated…
On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist.
Now see. I think simulation theory is one of the possible explanations for our existence. But, I would disagree that it gives any credence to a purpose to our existence.
It also doesn’t really answer the core question of how things began, it just defers them upwards to another civilisation. Unless you want to say it’s simulations all the way down, there needs to be be a root real existence somewhere and there the origins pose the same questions.
I’ve not yet heard any explanation as to how our universe came to be that I truly believe. All explanations are problematic. But even if simulation theory were true, I’d still be bugged by the fact that we still don’t get any closer to the answer of how it all began. It just explains how the universe as we know it exists.
It does bring up the interesting conundrum: is there one “base” universe? Then how did that start? Makes no sense. Is it turtles all the way down? That also doesn’t make any sense. And yet those are the only 2 possibilities (assuming a few intuitive things about logic and reality, which is a whole 'nother thing…).
Hypothetically, isn’t there also a third option that one eventually gets to a base universe, but that base universe has existed for an infinite amount of time and has no beginning?
I know it’s a few days later now. But I’m agnostic and not explicitly atheist and the reason is that, one of the few scenarios that made sense to me, I never thought of as simulation theory.
It was that the big bang doesn’t remove the possibility of a God. That God could just be an alien that exists outside our concept of time and created this universe with the concept of time as an experiment.
I suppose this could be a simulation too. That is, that alien outside our concept of time creates a simulation of a universe with a linear time.
But, you know it’s all thought experiments.
Im an atheist myself, though I’ll agree, the universe having a beginning does not preclude the possibility that it was created by an intelligent entity of some kind, a simulation is one way this can occur, but not the only one. I dont think such a creator likely, but I cant rule the option out. However, I dont think that an entity like this is really deserving of the title of god, because a simulator (or someone who has some kind of weird tech to mess with spacetime such as to create a new physical universe artificially) is still just as fallible as any other limited entity inside their own universe. Conceivably, if someone discovered a way to cure aging or something within the next few decades, its not impossible tho probably very unlikely that you or I might someday see the technology to create such a simulated universe developed, but if I were to create one, that would not really change what I am at all, or give me limitless knowledge or make me deserving of worship. This might be because I was raised in a family mostly full of Christians and therefore interpret the word the way Abrahamic religions do, but I dont think I could really consider anything less than an actually Omnipotent, Omniscient and therefore limitless and infallible being to be a god, and as I also believe that omnipotence is a logically impossible and self-disproving concept, and therefore, that it cannot exist in any reality no matter what rules may govern it, I feel as certain as I can be of anything that no such thing exists.
I’m using God as a generic term for creator. I do realise it’s a loaded term though.
But at that point, isn’t that no different than just saying the universe isn’t a simulation? If there is a base universe than that is the “actual” universe, and who cares about all the simulations beyond what we would care about a simulation we created? For this to be the case, I feel like there would need to be some additional features or complexities about this base universe that can’t be simulated and thus that allows those in it to prove that they are not a simulation. The issue the simulation universes have is that if they could create a simulation of their own universe they are immediately confronted with the conundrum that they themselves are probably not the first one to do this. But this theoretical base universe would have some characteristic about it that precluded them from this issue. Or maybe they don’t, maybe they think they’re simulation too but they’re not and have no way to prove otherwise, they just happen to be the base. However, if that is the case, then you can make that same argument for this universe can’t you?
I don’t personally suspect that anyone could truly create a simulation of their own universe at all. You could absolutely simulate a universe, but simulating your own universe (presumably your own universe at a point in the past since that’s what context the simulation argument generally gets made in) would have to have some kind of deviation from the real universe, be it that not all of the universe is simulated, or it’s only simulated to a certain level of detail or “resolution” and any physics on a smaller scale is simplified, or time runs slower or something. Because if you can simulate a perfect copy of your universe, or a universe of equivalent complexity and speed, then you can build a computer in that simulation equivalent to the one running it, and since that simulated computer doesn’t use all the resources of it’s simulated universe presumably, you can build several of them and get more processing power than you started with, which makes no sense. And if every “layer” of simulation inheritly has dramatically less possible complexity to it than the layer above, you should eventually (and I suspect rather rapidly) reach a level where further nested simulations are not possible
It doesn’t need to answer the question of how things began any more than our own understanding of our world answers that. The “Big Bang” is just the start of the simulation.
And I think you’re wrong to disagree about the purpose of our existence because the entire point of a simulation is to get information and data about the “real” world by running the options in a simulation. If we are indeed in a simulation, then the purpose is to give the creators of the simulation more information about their own world.
Ironically enough, it would also infer that these beings created us in their own image. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really be useful to them.
I completely agree that’s what this basically boils down too. ST was an interesting concept I read about once and only briefly recalled twice since. Nothing more. This could be a valid criticism of individuals putting more stock into the idea but for anyone else it’s a reach.
The belief system built around God affects me every single day of my life. I have family that are hardcore Christians that pester me about it regularly. Approximately half of the political ideologies being pushed in my country center around Christian dogma.
Honorable mentions: Foreign and domestic terrorism threat and future wars being incited.
What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?
I don’t think that religion is predicated on the answering of prayers, or in a Creator who takes a special interest in some particular human.
Also, I don’t think that either of those go against simulation theory; what if you’re a sim in some alien version of The Sims, and they’re going around fuckin with your life, removing ladders from your pools, etc.
What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?
Religion identifies the simulator and insists that its intermediaries can offer a liaison between you and them, and also that if you don’t believe in their particular simulator, you will be punished. It has been used for centuries to control the populace and to take their money.
A proponent of simulation theory isn’t likely to tell you that it solves any philosophical problems, or that they now understand the universe wholly. I’ve never heard anyone talking about it claim that they know who/what is behind the simulation.
So IMO the distinction between the two couldn’t be more clear.
I imagine there’s at least a couple wacko groups out of there trying to twist simulation theory into a purely religious endeavor, but that wouldn’t represent the mainstream conversation about it.
That’s an exceptionally narrow view of religion. There are plenty of religions that don’t threaten damnation for disbelief. They do what ST does and explain why humans exist (in this case because a simulation was set up such that they’d be created, intentionally or not).
And why can’t ST be used to scam people from money, like religion is?
This has the flavor of a true scottsman.
That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).
Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.
But how you’re describing ST isn’t incompatible with religion, only some religions. Nothing about religion itself says that the creators or some higher power need to be an active participant in the human experience.
And how doesn’t simulation theory allow for the simulation creator/admin to interfere with the simulation? You don’t have scientific equipment recording data on everything, everywhere, for everyone, and people claim to see wild shit all the time. But even ignoring the wild shit, it could be as simple as tripping someone, moving their keys, giving them some disease or disorder, or any of a million things that we can’t accurately predict even when explicitly looking for it.
In this instance it doesn’t. But in this universe almost every industry using simulations run many different ones with different parameters. It doesn’t make sense to assume simulation theory with only a single simulation without interventions, because that assumes the simulator already knew that what the simulation would produce would fit what they wanted and that’s not a guarantee (just for information theory reasons alone!)
I’m not sure where you came up with the assumption that there is only one simulation. No one said or inferred that.
Personally I sometimes wonder if the truth is hybrid. We’re a simulation and “god” is someone on the outside interacting with our simulation. Might also explain why god seems to be missing nowadays. Maybe he grew up, maybe he got bored, maybe he’s doing exams, maybe our simulation is owned by a company that went out of business and is only running because the electricity is still on and the backup generators still have fuel. Maybe we live in a forgotten universe.
I also sometimes wonder if we live in an educational simulation. Maybe we’re college students learning about the horrors of the 21st century in a fully immersive VR program.
The OG simulation operator has gone offline to direct another porno
It’s possible but the interaction part is what makes it unlikely. There’s neither evidence nor logic that would explain a god that was able to interact with the world they created with any kind of consistency.
What is the purpose of such a simulation if ST is “correct”?
Check out Ancestral simulation In a nutshell, it says that humans are living in far future and we are just a simulation from scratch so that they can study their origin, how they come to be etc
The purpose is to observe our behavior and how we react to stimuli. And it’s not that it’s “correct”, it’s just that it requires no intervention. If it’s “real”, then it was started by an outside force and is being observed like a Petri dish amongst other simulations.
Do “they” ever intervene or do you think its strictly regulated, like double-blind or whatever?
Like do you think they actually do or can pick favorites (protagonists/main characters) or is it way more sterile?
If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.
Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.
Checkpointing interesting points in simulations and rerunning with modified parameters happens literally all the time
Especially weather / climate / geology and medicine
They’re re-run, though. You don’t change the parameters in the middle of the simulation. That goes against the point of simulating something.
You don’t rerun everything from scratch. Especially weather simulations can be checkpointed at places you have high certainty, and keep running forks after that point with different parameters. This is extremely common with for example trying to predict wind patterns during forest fires, you simulate multiple branches of possible developments in wind direction, humidity, temperature, etc. If the parameters you test don’t cover every scenario that is plausible you might sometimes engineer it into the simulation just to see the worst case scenario, for example.
And in medicine, especially computational biochemistry you modify damn near everything
The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests.
How do you know? What if the guy running the simulation actually monitors what we think and reacts to it? What if the personally decides to give people cancer or cure it? What if he copies our minds to simulation of hell after we die? What if 2000 years ago he copied himself into the simulation to get crucified?
I know because that’s not part of the theory. Simulation theory doesn’t offer any kind of mechanism for that and it would go against the entire idea of simulation.
On top of that, even if that was the case, then the person running the simulation would be acting inconsistently in a way that prevents us from understanding their intent. That would mean that it’s illogical and that there’s no way for us to actually infer anything about the world we’re in yet we are able to do exactly that.
Why does testing numerous different circumstances and consequences violate the idea is simulation? A sufficiently capable simulation engine could literally be used for social experiments
I think you misunderstood. Testing numerous circumstances doesn’t violate it. The simulation is likely only one amongst an entire series. Interfering with the simulation and changing parameters while it’s going is what violates the point. For one, we’d notice things changing without cause. For another, simulations test conditions based on parameters. There would be no reason to change parameters midway when another simulation with those changes can just be spun up.
To the simulated object there’s no difference between a fork of a simulation with different parameters vs directly changing parameters in a running simulation.
For one, we’d notice things changing without cause.
Maybe those reactions are part of the test? Or doesn’t affect it. Or they abandon instances where it was noticed and the test derailed.
There’s no “maybe”. We don’t observe things changing in our world without cause. Therefore, it can’t be part of the test. Our perception is unbroken. And if you want to make the argument that those simulations where we did are ended, which is what I think you’re implying, then, as before, it’s meaningless to discuss since there’s no way we could know that.
I’m not saying it happens, I’m just saying some of the arguments here aren’t logically justified
I don’t see the hypocrisy. If the universe is a simulation, that wouldn’t make whoever built the universe a god. There would be no analytical reason to conclude that, unless we started from the specially-crafted supposition that any being capable of creating something like the observable universe had to be equivalent to God, but at that point, you’re just defining your way into theism. If the universe is a simulation, which is not a terribly interesting thought experiment tbh, then it could be a simulation for any reason. The simulators could have been interested in the dynamics of gas and dust dispersion within galaxies and just so happened to create a sophisticated enough simulation that it could simulate the evolution of natural life. If the entire Universe had been “created” (although the point of defining it as a simulation is to point to how it doesn’t really exist, ipso facto if God is a simulator, then God is not a Creator in the sense theists mean) to study dust dynamics at the galactic scale, somehow I think theists would be dissatisfied and not feel like they had really found what they meant by “God.”
In theory, any type of Boltzman Brain could assemble itself at any time and start processing information, so in theory, a simulation could also be an entirely natural phenomenon occurring in a higher-order reality. The two ideas are different, even though Christians like to claim everyone is a theist and everything is theism even when they aren’t and it isn’t.
Anyways, the simulation hypothesis is sort of fun to think about sometimes, while “I invoke supernatural powers to explain phenomena I don’t understand” isn’t all that interesting.
that wouldn’t make whoever built the universe a god.
Well yeah they would have to open the console and type in.
sv_cheats 1
god
Then they would be god.
No I think the point is more or less how do you define the word “God” is this a living creator, or a living being that can perform complex simulations, and if so, what are we, relative to this being?
No? Ad logicum
Tbh if got was real I think we would just be left in a closet as some kind of hobby
Or perhaps some kind of faith farm
Over all not as important as people think we are so overall would have the same effect
I just wish god’s mom would hurry up and plug a vacuum cleaner into the wrong outlet and pop a breaker already…
The hypocrisy is in claiming to know the truth from a hypothesis with (currently) unknowable factors.
Can we possibly test for the simulation hypothesis? Not at the present. Thus, to say that it’s true is just as bad as claiming a sky fairy made the world in seven days
But no one believes simulation theory on faith so it makes no sense
I’ve literally never met someone who claimed we actually live in a simulation though
yeah its a strawman (checkmate athiest)
I cast ignite.
I cast manual breathing
I cast testicular torsion!
Strawman rolled a nat 20 on its DEX save, takes no damage sorry
I light our table on fire I hate this DM
Natural 20s don’t matter except on attack rolls RAW
I saw a theory by some physicists that there is some evidence we may be a hologram but I’m not smart enough to understand exactly what that means. Sounds neat
Yeah that doesn’t mean we’re running on an alien projector. Science communication of theoretical physics is horrible.
Anytime you find yourself getting excited about some galaxy brain SciFi stuff just clap out some chalk board erasers and inhale the dust. That’s about how pleasant and exciting theoretical physics is (and how worth doing, fight me you keyboard tapping nerds) and it should help you get in the mood for appreciating findings.
I’m also not smart enough to understand it completely but I think they meant something strange could be happening with dimensions (think Flatlanders) rather than us being a computer program. anyone with more understanding please elaborate tho
There’s an argument that because some of the physical limits we see around entropy density (due to singularities) are proportional to the area of a sphere around the volume, together with math indicating it’s possible to translate physics in a 3D volume to a 2D surface, the whole universe might be a projection from the 2D surface of a sphere
It’s a hell of coincidence that this is the second time I heard of this, the first being 2 days ago in a video game. Said video game is full of crackpot conspiracies though.
Musk said it in Rogan a few weeks ago, and it became a justified belief overnight. It had huge flaws in logic when he said it, and no one who is parroting the talking point today is thinking beyond “the real life Ironman says we live in the matrix”.
Pretty sure simulation theory has been around since the late 80s. Just not in the main media zeitgeist anymore like when matrix came out so Elon just revived it in mainstream media
I mean, Descartes had brain in a vat theories well before the 1980s, and Plato’s allegory of the cave is fundamentally the same. My position was that “the reason we’re talking about it again all of a sudden is because one idiot got on the podcast of another idiot and poorly explained it to the throngs of their uncritical fans”.
The whole simulation theory stems from observations about how fast technology is advancing as a whole, and kind of plays hand in hand with the fermi paradox. Either we are a special advanced civilisation that will continue to advance until we could in theory simulate an entire species/planet/civilisation or whatever or we are doomed to die out before we can advance enough to achieve either that goal or potentially other goals such as building replicating space exploration technology that might be capable of exploring/consuming/adulterating part of the galaxy or even the galaxy as a whole.
Both theories are basically an extrapolation of our current technological progression with some large assumptions made about the way things in this universe operate as a whole. I don’t think they are particularly far fetched, but I also don’t really see much evidence to support either being a possibility, except maybe the whole we are fucking up our ecosystem and heading towards some type of collapse before we get too advanced parts of the fermi paradox.
Another theory that I’ve heard which is really just a statistics thing is that it’s most likely that we are an average civilisation that lasts an average amount of time in an average part of the galaxy and that it’s likely we are right about in the middle of the total number of humans that has or will ever exist (about 100 billion came before us, probably another 100 billion to go) which could be a couple centuries or millenia left of human reign over planet Earth.
All being said, it’s pretty likely that since the future hasn’t happened yet we just won’t know how it all turns out until it does. We’re all just as uncertain as anybody else, and whoever preaches the gospel of kingdom come is just as ignorant as you and I.
Meh, when we find big space monoliths or mega structures in the asteroid belts we’ll probably feel a lot less special
Sounds like someone saw the devil in a screen during a brief but short psychosis and then extended this idea into his own depersonalisation/derealization experience of his whole life
Yeah not the first to think something like that, kind of like people once thought their whole lives were a dream lol
If you take your opinion from either of those sources I really can’t help you they aren’t representative of what the majority or anyone worth their shit thinks
You have a level of happiness most of us can only briefly imagine as being possible.
They are similar in that neither are scientific theories, as they are equally non-falsifiable. We may live in a universe where it is impossible to see the face of god or a glitch in the matrix by construction.
Given that impossibility, how then could you perform an experiment or make an observation that contradicts the theory? To be reductive, science isn’t about proving. It’s failing to disprove. If there isn’t a set of circumstances in which a theory can be disproven, it isn’t scientific.
Unless you are a string theorist. Then you just say whatever the hell you want.
I don’t think anyone actually believes the latter except room temperature IQ tech bros. It’s mostly just a hypothetical.
Could (a) god(s) exist? Possibly, it’s hard to rule out the supernatural in natural terms since it’s SUPERnatural
Could the universe be a simulation? Possible too, but also on of those things that’s almost impossible to prove.
At the same time, it could be that your e a Boltzmann brain, and that literally nothing existed before and that your brain just kinda formed together spontaneously with all your memories.
All those are possible options that are over 99% likely to be false, but their cooouuullldd be true.
Point is not to rearrange your life on the off changlce that one of those are true. Especially religion, since religions tend to be “believe our particular god(s) or you go to hell for eternity” followed closely by “if you don’t believe our particular god(s) we will help you go to hell right now”. Nearly all human conflicts in Earth’s history were either based on religion or used religion as a tool to whip up the masses to go kill the others.
There are also hundreds of Gods and over 3000 different religious figures out there and they’re all pretty much exclusive or, they all claim to be the right one and the rest is wrong. Bold claim to make when it’s all based off goat herders texts that were first abused for a completely different god (hello, Christianity!) and constantly conflicts with each other.
Simulation theory and Boltzman brain ideas are fun to entertain and talk and think about, but they’ve never been used to control who can love and have sex with who, they’ve never been a used whereas religion just IS abuse and control in every way possible.
I do not like religion
Agree with most of what you said except the “over 99% likely to be false”.
Like you mentioned it’s not possible to prove either way so it isn’t meaningful to describe it as likely or unlikely. We have no way of knowing (at least currently) so the likelihood is simply undefined
Eh, we can prove that human DNA is 99% primate and that there was no great flood. Seems unlikely to me.
It sounds like you’re referring specifically to Christian theology but the comment was just about whether a god or gods exist in general
The mere fact that humans are 1% removed from apes serves to undermine creationism in general.
We’re not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism
Considering that the overwhelming majority of religions out there are creationists, yes we are.
I understand your point and I feel like maybe I’m sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.
I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that’s a different argument to the point I was making.
Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn’t mean that a god or gods couldn’t hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.
If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether “a god(s) exist” and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn’t even come into it.
You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you’d be right, but you can’t settle the question of “whether a supernatural being exists” because there simply isn’t a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.
It isn’t just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable
One of those is a belief and the other is a theory.
One requires the absence of evidence and the other requires evidence.
deleted by creator
Agreed however stimulation was put forth as something that would require evidence whereas a God needs faith which requires blind trust and the lack of evidence. You are not allowed to even try to test if a god exists because that itself is a lack of faith.
Okay. But no. You can find evidence of god or a simulation the same way. Confirmation bias. There is no way to prove either belief.
If you try to prove the existence of a god then you do not have faith so you are not a believer. Having faith in itself means evidence has no value for you.
Every time someone doubts the Simulation Theory in a big way, we change one letter of a major fast food franchise. :)
Enjoy your Chic-Fil-A.
Beans. That explains my MacDonald’s yesterday.
Does it also explain why I’m wearing a Taco Belt?
You mean Cosmcs?
It’s disturbing how much I wanna try this.
Are you a farmer? Because you have an awful lot of straw!
Does anyone base their lives and their worldviews around the simulation theory?
Its such a philosophical dead end. I know a few people who really want the world to be a simulation but I cant understand why. I think they want an excuse to have nothing matter and be shitty.
But i would not live my life any differently if we found out that this is a simulation. Because its still real to me and there’s no reason to believe I can exist outside the simulation any more than my sims can exist outside the game.
bad religion bait post is bad
We do live in a simulation and I can prove it.
Stick your whole hand up your ass and push the secret eject key.just did this. didnt work but i learnt something about myself.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Both are just as unlikely as the other and have as much evidence, I’d find anyone who possesed both beliefs to be weird.
One is obviously made-up by ancient peoples who knew fuck-all about the world, but insists it’s eternal truth beyond debate. Even the parts that contradict the other parts.
The other is an openly hypothetical idea based on what we expect is just beyond our current capabilities… and it relies on that we’re-just-atoms materialism.
That’s not true
- We have no evidence about either and both are non-falsifiable
- Living in a simulation is one idea. Each individual religion is a whole bunch of assumptions rolled into one system.
Therefore “we live in a simulation” is just as likely as “there’s some higher power”, while “the Matrix is a documentary, everything will happen exactly like in the movie” is as likely as “the Christian god is real, just as described in the bible”.
We have plenty of evidence that were just a “random” assortment of atoms following natural laws. We see those laws around us everywhere. We manipulate them to build crazy things. We have no evidence were anything BUT that.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Nothing I said is incompatible with what you said.
I’m just saying that the original meme makes no sense.
Why being in a simulation is unlikely? How do you estimate the probability of that?
I use the same estimation on the likelihood of vampires or the Norse gods, it’s an interesting thought and I can’t prove those things don’t exist (nor do I have to due to the burden of proof) but since we have no good reason to believe they’re true I don’t have to entertain the ideas.
That which is brought forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Ok, so you also don’t believe there’s any extraterrestrial life in the universe, right? And it’s as likely to exists as Norse gods? I mean, there’s no proof for it after all.
Nope. You’re trying to make a false equivalence.
Aliens aren’t gods. If they exist, they’re life forms in some capacity similar to us. We know life can exist, since we do, so it stands to reason that since life exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about aliens conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for studying.
Now compare that to gods. Do we have visible or verifiable gods on earth? No, we have a lot of conflicting claims about gods from various belief systems. If we don’t have supernatural creatures/entities on earth, then there’s no reason to believe they exist anywhere else. Whether that’s Pluto or five galaxies away.
You made the exactly same false equivalence between gods and computer simulations. That was my point.
"We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for. "
Simulating entire world only requites different computational scale which we also know is possible because we keep improving our computational capabilities.
“We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for.”
This is still a false equivalence. The only way this argument works as a foil to mine is if we had already created a computer simulated universe where simulated individuals were convinced it was the real world. Under those circumstances we would have to accept that ours is possibly the same. Since we have no such technology we can’t say for sure if it’s even possible to emulate a sapient being in a computer, it’s not just “time and computational power” as you suggest.
Meanwhile the animals that prove life can exist on at least one world are walking through my apartment right now and give direct observable and testable evidence that life can evolve. Under that assessment based on observation and the knowledge of how many other worlds there are, we have no additional leaps in logic to believe in alien life. No further technology or understanding is required.
However, you have to assume that it’s possible to emulate a feeling, thinking entity as computer code to make your claim. We don’t know if that’s even possible, which is why it’s the same as suggesting a god of some variety. You’re basing your entire argument on something we haven’t yet proven to be real, and your claim that it’s “just a matter of time and computer resources” is flimsy as hell.
Come back when Alicization from Sword Art Online exists, and then we’ll talk.
Yes, I agree but you see the difference between computer simulation of a single planet (you don’t have to simulate the entire universe to simulate our civilization) and Norse Gods, right? You see how one is fairly reasonable extrapolation of our current capabilities and the other is fantasy? Of course we don’t know if it’s possible to create a conscious, intelligent being in a computer but we also don’t know what actually makes as conscious and intelligent so we can’t say it’s definitely not possible. Similarly we don’t know exactly how life on earth originated (complex life even less so) so we don’t know how probable it it’s it exists in other places. Simulation theory is definitely more similar to extraterrestrial life than Norse Gods. And when it comes to it’s probability we simply don’t know.
Reading all these comments… People love to judge. ffs let people believe whatever they want. You can disagree with their preferences without declaring them as dumb or misguided. It’s even pretty arrogant to dismiss others view of why reality exists when literally no one knows the answer to that.
Its preety arrogant to believe anything without hard evidence tbh
How is that arrogant?
The arrogance lies in the claim of knowing the unknowable. I can’t know for sure how the universe formed. I can’t know for sure what happens when we die. I can’t know for sure that there is or is not a force guiding the world around me and the events that occur. But if you believe in a god (or any form of faith that has answers to these questions or questions like them) then you are saying “I don’t know, but I know who does”, or to simplify “I don’t know, but I know”.
On the other hand if you read a study, or a science article, that says it has found evidence of the big bang and you say “I read in an article that a research team has found evidence of the big bang.” well now you’re claiming that you know you read an article. That’s a claim that is easy to accept and contains no contradictions. It doesn’t take much convincing for me to say that I do think that you read an article. No arrogance, just a declaration of an action.
The nuance here is that there is a difference between reading a study about the big bang, and believing in the big bang. If you’re being completely scientifically honest, you know that there is a possibility it could all be wrong. It might be a slim possibility. But it is impossible for all of us to examine all of the evidence in all of science, so while it looks like belief, it is instead maintaining a perspective that the people who are studying it are doing their best, and so far their best is pointing in a direction. That’s all. No need to burn people at the stake, no need to write anything in stone. Just people looking for clues and reporting that the clues are all indicating a given conclusion. Or maybe the clues they’re finding are pointing all over the place. Or maybe they did the math and the math said that they needed nine spacial dimensions to make an idea work but if they had them, all the clues would point to a given conclusion. And then people living in reality said “how do we test something in nine spacial dimensions?” and all the shrugs eventually resulted in youtube videos that made me say “huh, that’s interesting, it looks like maybe nobody knows how that works”.
One last stupid question: Have you ever noticed how the faithful hate it, or at least express friction, when you bring up things that would bring their explanatory framework crumbling down? Meanwhile scientists are like “This poses fundamental questions about our theory of blabblegabble. I’m super excited, I might have some really serious questions to answer very soon, and we might need to really do some serious sciencing. Where’s my [insert stereotypical scientific tool here]?”
Religion is arrogant when they use that as an excuse to decimate the population of indigenous people, when to force people to give 10% of their earnings to an institution, when they try to infiltrate their belief into a secular system, when they judge you for not having their same belief system… and, as a personal anecdote, when even the teachers bully you in your religious school because you chose not to go to church with the classroom.
Believing in something with no evidence or statistical confidence is arrogant because your belief says that everyone else’s belief is wrong.
A more humble approach would be to just accept your ignorance. Specially when you try to push your belief into reality, like politics, like most religious people do.
That isnt religion, its church youre talking about.
“I know you’re a leprechaun because I believe that. You must be a leprechaun.”
Lemmy will never become more than it is right now, just because it’s full with people like you all.
Makes me miss my old roommate, who didn’t believe in God but believed this all could be a simulation. Hope you’re doing well buddy, wherever the fuck you’ve wandered!
