You're viewing a single thread.
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?
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
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.
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.
Even more importantly: God is omnipotent, which means they don’t make mistakes. A simulation doesn’t imply a higher power that is perfect in every way.
God is omnipotent, which means they don’t make mistakes.
Actually, no - the dictionary definition of omnipotent is literally being able to do anything. God being faultless is a different thing entirely and depending on how you interpret scripture, that is a false statement. He regrets making humans, so you could argue he sees humans as his own mistake - which is an entirely different kind of fucked-up for another day’s topic.
So whomever is running the simulation would be omnipotent, because they are literally making whatever happens in our universe happen by running a simulation of a universe.
EDIT: meant “everything” instead of “anything” but fuck it
I mean, the creator of a simulated universe isn't omnipotent though, for two reasons: first, there are plenty of things that they cannot do in their own universe, being just some regular person there, but more importantly, there must be limits on what they can do in the simulation, because that simulation has to exist on a computer which presumably has finite hardware limitations. "Framerate" or equivalent won't matter as much because time doesn't have to pass at the same rate, but the computer still is only going to have so much storage and memory space, or whatever equivalent the technology involved uses, and so nothing that would exceed those limitations can be done in the sim.
“able to do anything”
I’m all set up right there, thanks.
It'll be a new day in 30 minutes. Can you continue this thread?
Actually, yes. If they’re able to do anything then they’re also able to correct their mistakes. That’s not something that can be assumed about the creator of a simulation. Just look at the current state of our simulations.
How can a programmer or simulation operator have a mistake?
Great point. For all we know, we’re a simulation created by ancestors who are just as imperfect as we are.
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
That is outside of our scope of vision and equally as unknowable as the true purpose of God.
I like the other answer betta no offence 🎅
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
You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.
Simulations of boats in water don't care about what's happening to the water much of the time yet it needs to be there, you seem to be way too confident in your conclusions
You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.
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
How are they not logically justified? You and I live in the world that is claimed to be a simulation. It’s entirely logically justified simply by virtue of the fact that we can verify these things. Again, to borrow your example, if parameters and material items are being changed and modified while the simulation is running then we’d have to observe those things happening in at least some instances. We don’t have any evidence of anything changing without cause. If those changes can be done without us knowing about them in every case, then it’s just as pointless as debating the idea that every person alive is only 1 day old.
I'm not arguing any specific purpose of controlling a simulation in these ways, just that the arguments saying it wouldn't happen are too weak. A multipurpose simulation (imagine one shared by many different teams of simulation researchers) could plausibly be used like this where they mess with just about anything and then reset. Doesn't mean it's likely, just that it's unreasonable to exclude the possibility
It’s not unreasonable to exclude that possibility if there’s no way for us to ever know that. The same logic applies to scenarios like the one I mentioned before where everyone is only 1 day old.
You can’t prove that everyone alive isn’t one day old and simply born with memories of previous events. It’s a silly example but it’s the same argument as what you’re suggesting. If it gets reset in way that no one can possibly know, then, logically, the only option is to exclude it because you could never prove or falsify it either way.