6 ms·

Whenever this debate comes up, I find it interesting that it's rarely discussed the theological ramifications of this. God is generally described as a being wh

Whenever this debate comes up, I find it interesting that it's rarely discussed the theological ramifications of this. God is generally described as a being who is outside the plane of our existence, and created our existence. It's intriguing to me that those who argue we're in a simulation have much less trouble having faith in that premise despite the difficulty in proving it being exactly the same as proving the existence of God. If you think about it, the vast majority of the world which believes in a God essentially believes we're in a simulation.

ASipos 8y ago
That's because the simulation argument is the finitary version of the ontological argument.
- warent 8y ago
  I've never heard that a qualifier for the simulation hypothesis is that it must be finite. For example, there could be infinitely many simulations recursively, or there could be a sufficiently advanced extra-dimensional lifeform that has generated an unbounded simulation that we live in.
  - ASipos 8y ago
    I wasn't referring to the finiteness of the simulation, but rather to the fact that the notion of necessary truth (the box operator) is replaced by high probability. (I'm specifically referring to the modern modal versions of the ontological argument, which are not subject to Kant's objection.)
    - warent 8y ago
      There's too much jargon here for me to follow what you're saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "box operator" or "modern modal versions of the ontological argument", nor do I know what Kant's objection is.
gameswithgo 8y ago
I expect most people who believe the simulation idea to be true are Pagans, since they would believe in many Gods not just one.
AltruisticGap 8y ago
The simulation hypothesis is pretty much a materialist's way of postponing the "hard problem of consciousness". It's like Neo when he escaped the Matrix only to find himself in the subterranean world. What if THAT world was also a simulation? In fact it's hilarious because in the movie he would have far more ground to believe that he still wasn't free, seeing as he just escaped a simulation. Of course it's a movie... I really think that the simulation hypothesis is a positive development. It shows that people are at least considering the question. It's like dipping toes in the cold water. You can see there is the willingness to go there, but they have their feet still firmly planted in the materialist view. It's an attempt at bridging the gap... but like they say in some teachings... to reach the other side of the river, you have to leave this one first =) So you have guys like Bernardo Kastrup talking about idealism, or variations on it. There is an enormous difference between entertaining the idea, and actually grasping what it means. To truly grasp it, your world crumbles down. Everything you've built your life on, you have to see has never existed. Ultimately it's all from the same source. It's all for show. edit: didn't mean to be dramatic, but you would lose a lot of motivation in life, at least in the current paradigm. Or you have to live counter-current. Now you see your life as sacred and completely unknowable, but your values no longer fit in a society driven by separation and profit. A very uncomfortable position to be in? In fact now that I think about it it's funny, because that's exactly the same with this "simulation" theory. You can see there has to be a disconnect here. There is the idea, and there is what it actually means. In theory it should in fact be extremely freeing to truly grasp that we are "simulated" since that would mean you no longer need to worry about dying, or striving for anything at all. Because by the mere fact of being simulated, somehow someone deemed it worthwhiole to spend the energy to do so. Your entire life purpose and meaning is self evident. Yet we don't feel free, we still strive to "become" someone.. to "achieve" something... so that tells us two things: 1) we are merely entertaining ideas and 2) we are biologically wired to believe to we do exist, and that we are not simulated (much has to do with the left brain hemisphere, I am guessing).
Vraxx 8y ago
That's an interesting thought for sure, I hadn't made the direct connection that essentially the simulation creator would be "God". I think at least for me personally, I think the reason for "less trouble having faith" in this premise is the implications of believing it. Religion asks things of you to subscribe such as Sundays, cognitive dissonance with scientific findings (not all religions, I recognize generalizations are dangerous), tithing (again, some not all), and any number of social "requirements" of belonging to the community. Playing around with this idea asks nothing but idle brain cycles and maybe some funny looks for saying crazy sounding things. Every time this debate comes up for me I think "Oh fun, I'll go play around with this some more and see if I find anything new" and then I forget about it until next time. I don't shape my life around it, I don't make any decisions based upon it, I don't get upset if other people dismiss it or don't "believe" it, and I don't even necessarily engage with the topic every time I see it. Based on all of the last paragraph I'd say it's even a fair question how much I do "believe" this premise at all. My answer to that is that I don't believe in it in any sort of meaningful way, it's fun though.

ASipos 8y ago

That's because the simulation argument is the finitary version of the ontological argument.

warent 8y ago
I've never heard that a qualifier for the simulation hypothesis is that it must be finite. For example, there could be infinitely many simulations recursively, or there could be a sufficiently advanced extra-dimensional lifeform that has generated an unbounded simulation that we live in.
- ASipos 8y ago
  I wasn't referring to the finiteness of the simulation, but rather to the fact that the notion of necessary truth (the box operator) is replaced by high probability. (I'm specifically referring to the modern modal versions of the ontological argument, which are not subject to Kant's objection.)
  - warent 8y ago
    There's too much jargon here for me to follow what you're saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "box operator" or "modern modal versions of the ontological argument", nor do I know what Kant's objection is.

gameswithgo 8y ago

I expect most people who believe the simulation idea to be true are Pagans, since they would believe in many Gods not just one.

AltruisticGap 8y ago

The simulation hypothesis is pretty much a materialist's way of postponing the "hard problem of consciousness". It's like Neo when he escaped the Matrix only to find himself in the subterranean world. What if THAT world was also a simulation? In fact it's hilarious because in the movie he would have far more ground to believe that he still wasn't free, seeing as he just escaped a simulation. Of course it's a movie... I really think that the simulation hypothesis is a positive development. It shows that people are at least considering the question. It's like dipping toes in the cold water. You can see there is the willingness to go there, but they have their feet still firmly planted in the materialist view. It's an attempt at bridging the gap... but like they say in some teachings... to reach the other side of the river, you have to leave this one first =) So you have guys like Bernardo Kastrup talking about idealism, or variations on it. There is an enormous difference between entertaining the idea, and actually grasping what it means. To truly grasp it, your world crumbles down. Everything you've built your life on, you have to see has never existed. Ultimately it's all from the same source. It's all for show. edit: didn't mean to be dramatic, but you would lose a lot of motivation in life, at least in the current paradigm. Or you have to live counter-current. Now you see your life as sacred and completely unknowable, but your values no longer fit in a society driven by separation and profit. A very uncomfortable position to be in? In fact now that I think about it it's funny, because that's exactly the same with this "simulation" theory. You can see there has to be a disconnect here. There is the idea, and there is what it actually means. In theory it should in fact be extremely freeing to truly grasp that we are "simulated" since that would mean you no longer need to worry about dying, or striving for anything at all. Because by the mere fact of being simulated, somehow someone deemed it worthwhiole to spend the energy to do so. Your entire life purpose and meaning is self evident. Yet we don't feel free, we still strive to "become" someone.. to "achieve" something... so that tells us two things: 1) we are merely entertaining ideas and 2) we are biologically wired to believe to we do exist, and that we are not simulated (much has to do with the left brain hemisphere, I am guessing).

Vraxx 8y ago

That's an interesting thought for sure, I hadn't made the direct connection that essentially the simulation creator would be "God". I think at least for me personally, I think the reason for "less trouble having faith" in this premise is the implications of believing it. Religion asks things of you to subscribe such as Sundays, cognitive dissonance with scientific findings (not all religions, I recognize generalizations are dangerous), tithing (again, some not all), and any number of social "requirements" of belonging to the community. Playing around with this idea asks nothing but idle brain cycles and maybe some funny looks for saying crazy sounding things. Every time this debate comes up for me I think "Oh fun, I'll go play around with this some more and see if I find anything new" and then I forget about it until next time. I don't shape my life around it, I don't make any decisions based upon it, I don't get upset if other people dismiss it or don't "believe" it, and I don't even necessarily engage with the topic every time I see it. Based on all of the last paragraph I'd say it's even a fair question how much I do "believe" this premise at all. My answer to that is that I don't believe in it in any sort of meaningful way, it's fun though.