4 ms·

God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly su

God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting. Why wouldn't someone be able to create a simulation like ours at some point? I am not following why Musk's belief is stupid? Yeah, obviously there's another layer above, and this doesn't explain that much, but I don't understand the stupid part. God is something else. For one, not all gods in religions are the same. The Christian God is not a mere simulator. He's everything that ever was (i.e., final level), he's super powerful, and, most importantly, as far as Christianity is concerned everything that God does is right.

milesf 10y ago
Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.
woofyman 10y ago
To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.
- projektir 10y ago
  That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.
placebo 10y ago
>The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.

milesf 10y ago

Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.

woofyman 10y ago

To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.

projektir 10y ago
That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
- woofyman 10y ago
  You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.

placebo 10y ago

>The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.