3 ms·
This argument always leaves me scratching my head. I can’t see a difference between arguments for our living in a simulator and arguments for George Berkeley’s
by putzdown 7y ago
This argument always leaves me scratching my head. I can’t see a difference between arguments for our living in a simulator and arguments for George Berkeley’s Idealism. It really seems as if the simulator theory is an atheistic rediscovery of theism, with the word “God” scratched out and the word “aliens” or “future us” written in. And if so, there’s a very long history of philosophy and theology—Descartes’s Meditations come to mind—that can help inform our questioning and experimentation, not to mention ease (or redirect) our fears.
- albanread 7y agoThis seems worse than classic religion; we seek not just to believe the universe is a creative thought in Gods mind; we also plan to discover how Gods mind actually works; and look for flaws in creation. lets wish ourselves luck with that.
- bena 7y agoIn many ways it is. It's a universe controlled by some outside force. A universe in which the laws of physics can be suspended on a whim is a very different one from one where it can't happen. It would also be impossible to prove. As something with total control over the universe can just turn back the clock, tweak some settings, and "fix the glitch" if we ever found out. We could have been started last Thursday and we'd never know.
- lanstin 7y agoArguably a complete simulation of all physics is easier than a simulation that has detailed memories of last week (plus fossils and microwave background radiation) without actually simulating last week/evolution/Big Bang. In other words for similar reasons that we can stop worrying that God just created us just now (or that you are all just dream people etc.) we can stop worrying that Wednesday didn’t happen. In some Maths sense if Wednesday had to be fully calculated for today to be rendered then it happened.