4 ms·
It's essentially the question of God, only in disguise. It's absolutely untestable (just like the existence of God), so it's a matter of faith and nothing else.
by V-2 10y ago
It's essentially the question of God, only in disguise. It's absolutely untestable (just like the existence of God), so it's a matter of faith and nothing else.
If God - as understood by major human religions - does exist, then the world IS a simulation. I mean, all atoms and particles are "real", but ultimately they form a simulation device, one that invokes the sense of existence in sentient beings.
- okket 10y agoI'd say God is a different question: Even if this entity can't help you while you live, you still can gain points for the supposed afterlife (I guess that is the mayor selling point of religions these days?). There is no such concept in the Simulation Argument.
- Houshalter 10y agoThe difference between God and simulation, is there is no particular reason to believe in God. Religions have traditionally argued that the universe needs a creator, therefore there must be a God. But then who created God? There is a reason to believe in the simulation hypothesis. We already have a massive industry devoted to making world simulations, video games. We know our computing technology advances steadily every year. So it's not unreasonable to suppose it's likely we will someday create such simulations. The second belief is also untestable, it's a prediction about the future. But a prediction about the future seems much more grounded than religion. It's taking into account our observations of the world, and what future outcomes seem probable. Not just making stuff up.
- tpeo 10y agoThere were reasons to believe in a God some two thousand years ago. Those might have been wrong reasons, but still the belief in gods reflected people's understanding of the world at the time (i.e. pretty much none at all). I personally don't see much difference in the two. Before modern astronomy, people looked at the frequency of the revolution of visible planets and thought their ratios resembled musical ratios, and that this had to be the work of someone (such was the belief of Pythagoreans, Stoics and Neoplatonists). Nowadays people look at some other physical quantity and think that this has to be the work of someone. In this sense, they're pretty similar. And if the error of those ancient philosophers lies in that supposition, I don't see how the degree of reality of our idea of who's doing it (e.g. aliens vs. a hazy concept of a "Demiurge") makes it any better.
- Houshalter 10y agoWell people believed in wrong things a thousand years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying we probably shouldn't have any beliefs at all, because they might be wrong a thousand years from now? That's just silly. Clearly we know a lot more than the ancients do. E.g. the concept of a "simulation". And so we can make more accurate predictions than they would have been able to.
- tpeo 10y agoI wasn't really pushing a point. I was trying to add some perspective on the issue. But if I were to push one, I'd say that the question of whether or not our experience is "real" should really be considered a pseudo-problem, because it's a question that can't be really answered. I don't see an issue with believing things that might be considered incorrect in the future, but I do see an issue with asking the wrong questions over and over again. I see no particular reason why someone ought to be responsible for the patterns of experience. Thinking it so is the crucial mistake here.
- V-2 10y agoWell, it's based on some totally arbitrary assumptions, such as that people in VR wouldn't typically be aware that they are in VR. This is certainly not the case nor the intention with video games (from which the whole argument is extrapolated), no matter how realistic they can get