5 ms·

Why do I find so many people willing to take the simulation hypothesis seriously, but are at the same time are not willing to take the idea of "God" seriously;

by brink 5y ago

Why do I find so many people willing to take the simulation hypothesis seriously, but are at the same time are not willing to take the idea of "God" seriously; which is a super-dimensional alien that found it in their good pleasure to create the universe? Disclaimer: I'm an old-universe Christian

mettamage 5y ago
Well, you haven't talked to me! :D I find the simulation hypothesis one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a god/gods. I also believe it is has an infinitesimally small chance to be the Christian god though (or any other religion for that matter). Then again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Though, I'm not fully sure how that works (and giving me potent DMT is cheating ;-) ).
platz 5y ago
Most theists would insist that even that super-dimensional alien would require a "first mover", or point of origin for causality, and the true god would be the absolute origin of anything that could exist even in theory. transferring ownership of the human universe just one level up doesn't solve the fundamental issue.
- vehemenz 5y ago
  But if the simulation hypothesis is correct, any empiricist worth their salt would say that you cannot infer anything about the "real" laws of nature, much less causality because these aspects of human knowledge are derived from experience (in the simulation).
  - platz 5y ago
    presuppositionalists claim that they receive knowledge through divine revelation i.e. direct access to God, which is objective, absolute, and true by definition.
    - vehemenz 5y ago
      I'm not sure stating the conclusion in a premise a particularly convicing argumentative strategy.
      - platz 5y ago
        Unfortunately any human empistemic framework is going to be circular or undecideable
skc 5y ago
Mostly because the "God" character of various religions comes with a lot of unnecessary psychological baggage. Why must we worship Him/Her exactly?
- jhgb 5y ago
  There's also a superfluous claim baggage. Even assuming that some divine entity existed, based on the fact that at least 70% of believers are wrong about all the superfluous claims (30% is the largest somewhat-cohesive group of claims, i.e., Christianity), it's clear that this is wonky epistemology at work, so the common claim of mere existence of a divine entity is probably wonky as well.
  - blix 5y ago
    I'm having a hard time interpreting this; are you saying that because people who believe in religions don't unanimously agree that implies all relgions are false?
    - jhgb 5y ago
      No, what I'm saying is that the ways in which they violently disagree mean that their epistemology is useless. At the very least N-1 of N religions are wrong, so I wouldn't ascribe too much weight to their claims in general. If I want to reduce my uncertainty about something in the universe, I won't go to the people who are at best 30% likely to give me a correct answer.
      - blix 5y ago
        While disagreement is often violent, I think if you look closely most of these disagreements are actually politically motivated rather than reflecting deep divisions in core beliefs. Prior to the advent of nationalism this was simply a good way to rally the troops for whichever geopolitical objective. In terms of core beliefs, I think your estimate is rather low. Obviously it depends on how you weight it, but the core beliefs of the Abrahamic relgions and even Hinudism and Buddhism have a lot in common. > At the very least N-1 of N religions are wrong I will take it further than this: 100% of all beliefs are at least partially wrong. Ultimately, one has to ascribe weight to something.
nobody9999 5y ago
>are at the same time are not willing to take the idea of "God" seriously; I can't speak for anyone else, but the Abrahamic[0] (and most other, but you appear to be referencing monotheistic ones) religions are based on "evidence" that is demonstrably false. The simulation hypothesis, just like your "Old-time religion" isn't falsifiable and, as such, can't be addressed in empirical terms. That said, given advanced/sensitive enough measurements[1] (which are unlikely to ever be viable), there are at least a few potential experiments that could falsify the simulation hypothesis. Abrahamic religions, OTOH, make claims that are, based on already collected data, demonstrably false. That's why I don't reject the simulation hypothesis out of hand (although I don't take it all that seriously either), while I do reject the claims of Abrahamic (and most other) religions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259212 (an, admittedly poorly formed, hypothesis, but something potentially measurable) Edit: Added link to "poorly formed hypothesis."
- blix 5y ago
  There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. >Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage. The former is a claim that I made explicitly. The latter is also true to a certain extent, but a whole raft of the claims made by those who hypothesize the existence of a "god" have been shown to be empirically false. The simulation hypothesis isn't falsifiable either, but it doesn't make demonstrably false claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." All that said, both are metaphysics[0] at best, and to paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar[1], a "bounteous harvest of gobbledygook" at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics [1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507
varelse 5y ago
TBF there are somewhat testable questions to the simulation hypothesis. As for the omnipotent omniscient All-Seeing creator, not so much beyond the arguably anthropic nature of the universe. Not big on either of these being true but happy to admit and embrace the mystery
jhgb 5y ago
Aside from the "prime mover" disagreement mentioned by a sibling comment, how do you know that those taking the simulation hypothesis seriously are not taking the idea of "God" seriously?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vehemenz 5y ago
Agreed. Take both seriously or neither seriously. From God, Cartesian skepticism, to brains in vats, to the simulation hypothesis—there are infinitely many unprovable metaphysical theories we could posit about the world. There doesn't seem to be much sense in favoring one over the other. We have a good understanding of the origins of religion via archaeological, historical, and anthropological accounts. Insofar as supernatural claims about God from religious texts can be made sense of, they are inconsistent with physics (or if you prefer, false). This leaves room for a more abstract "God", or a God-falsified history, but even if we ultimately know the genealogy of the idea, we should consider the possibility. We could say similar things about the simulation hypothesis. It arrives in the information age, at at time when the high-performance computing, The Matrix, and virtual reality are culturally salient. Out of context, the simulation hypothesis looks like just another metaphor/myth about the creation of the universe. Proponents of the simulation hypothesis suggest that the proof of the simulation can be found by examining inconsistencies in the universe's structure, as if that will eliminate all other improvable explanations. Hint: it doesn't, and even if you think it does, you can't infer anything about the "real world" without assuming it tracks with the simulation. Again, there is no reason to believe this. Some would say the simulation hypothesis is testable and that this marks an important distinction. But are any conceivable tests specific to simulation, and not generalizable to alternative metaphysical theories or to misunderstood features of the universe? Either way, I predict the simulation hypothesis will live on after the "tests" have failed time, and time again. Sound familiar?
e9 5y ago
There are many different ways to interpret what “God” can mean. For not so literal interpretation of the Bible and God that can excite some scientific minds, I highly recommend watching Biblical Series lectures by Jordan Peterson on YouTube.
tshaddox 5y ago
I suspect that most people who are willing to the simulation hypothesis seriously would be somewhat open to the idea of "God" in the very broad sense of some intelligent and powerful agent or agents that exist outside our current scientific understanding, but still not open to some specific idea of "God" in some specific organized religion like Christianity. The analogy would be some extremely specific hypothesis, like that our Universe is being simulated by a quantum computer built by Peter Shor in his basement in 1995.

by brink 5y ago

mettamage 5y ago

Well, you haven't talked to me! :D I find the simulation hypothesis one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a god/gods. I also believe it is has an infinitesimally small chance to be the Christian god though (or any other religion for that matter). Then again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Though, I'm not fully sure how that works (and giving me potent DMT is cheating ;-) ).

platz 5y ago

Most theists would insist that even that super-dimensional alien would require a "first mover", or point of origin for causality, and the true god would be the absolute origin of anything that could exist even in theory. transferring ownership of the human universe just one level up doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

vehemenz 5y ago
But if the simulation hypothesis is correct, any empiricist worth their salt would say that you cannot infer anything about the "real" laws of nature, much less causality because these aspects of human knowledge are derived from experience (in the simulation).
- platz 5y ago
  presuppositionalists claim that they receive knowledge through divine revelation i.e. direct access to God, which is objective, absolute, and true by definition.
  - vehemenz 5y ago
    I'm not sure stating the conclusion in a premise a particularly convicing argumentative strategy.
    - platz 5y ago
      Unfortunately any human empistemic framework is going to be circular or undecideable

skc 5y ago

Mostly because the "God" character of various religions comes with a lot of unnecessary psychological baggage. Why must we worship Him/Her exactly?

jhgb 5y ago
There's also a superfluous claim baggage. Even assuming that some divine entity existed, based on the fact that at least 70% of believers are wrong about all the superfluous claims (30% is the largest somewhat-cohesive group of claims, i.e., Christianity), it's clear that this is wonky epistemology at work, so the common claim of mere existence of a divine entity is probably wonky as well.
- blix 5y ago
  I'm having a hard time interpreting this; are you saying that because people who believe in religions don't unanimously agree that implies all relgions are false?
  - jhgb 5y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that the ways in which they violently disagree mean that their epistemology is useless. At the very least N-1 of N religions are wrong, so I wouldn't ascribe too much weight to their claims in general. If I want to reduce my uncertainty about something in the universe, I won't go to the people who are at best 30% likely to give me a correct answer.
    - blix 5y ago
      While disagreement is often violent, I think if you look closely most of these disagreements are actually politically motivated rather than reflecting deep divisions in core beliefs. Prior to the advent of nationalism this was simply a good way to rally the troops for whichever geopolitical objective. In terms of core beliefs, I think your estimate is rather low. Obviously it depends on how you weight it, but the core beliefs of the Abrahamic relgions and even Hinudism and Buddhism have a lot in common. > At the very least N-1 of N religions are wrong I will take it further than this: 100% of all beliefs are at least partially wrong. Ultimately, one has to ascribe weight to something.

nobody9999 5y ago

>are at the same time are not willing to take the idea of "God" seriously; I can't speak for anyone else, but the Abrahamic[0] (and most other, but you appear to be referencing monotheistic ones) religions are based on "evidence" that is demonstrably false. The simulation hypothesis, just like your "Old-time religion" isn't falsifiable and, as such, can't be addressed in empirical terms. That said, given advanced/sensitive enough measurements[1] (which are unlikely to ever be viable), there are at least a few potential experiments that could falsify the simulation hypothesis. Abrahamic religions, OTOH, make claims that are, based on already collected data, demonstrably false. That's why I don't reject the simulation hypothesis out of hand (although I don't take it all that seriously either), while I do reject the claims of Abrahamic (and most other) religions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259212 (an, admittedly poorly formed, hypothesis, but something potentially measurable) Edit: Added link to "poorly formed hypothesis."

blix 5y ago
There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. >Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage. The former is a claim that I made explicitly. The latter is also true to a certain extent, but a whole raft of the claims made by those who hypothesize the existence of a "god" have been shown to be empirically false. The simulation hypothesis isn't falsifiable either, but it doesn't make demonstrably false claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." All that said, both are metaphysics[0] at best, and to paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar[1], a "bounteous harvest of gobbledygook" at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics [1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507

varelse 5y ago

TBF there are somewhat testable questions to the simulation hypothesis. As for the omnipotent omniscient All-Seeing creator, not so much beyond the arguably anthropic nature of the universe. Not big on either of these being true but happy to admit and embrace the mystery

jhgb 5y ago

Aside from the "prime mover" disagreement mentioned by a sibling comment, how do you know that those taking the simulation hypothesis seriously are not taking the idea of "God" seriously?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vehemenz 5y ago

Agreed. Take both seriously or neither seriously. From God, Cartesian skepticism, to brains in vats, to the simulation hypothesis—there are infinitely many unprovable metaphysical theories we could posit about the world. There doesn't seem to be much sense in favoring one over the other. We have a good understanding of the origins of religion via archaeological, historical, and anthropological accounts. Insofar as supernatural claims about God from religious texts can be made sense of, they are inconsistent with physics (or if you prefer, false). This leaves room for a more abstract "God", or a God-falsified history, but even if we ultimately know the genealogy of the idea, we should consider the possibility. We could say similar things about the simulation hypothesis. It arrives in the information age, at at time when the high-performance computing, The Matrix, and virtual reality are culturally salient. Out of context, the simulation hypothesis looks like just another metaphor/myth about the creation of the universe. Proponents of the simulation hypothesis suggest that the proof of the simulation can be found by examining inconsistencies in the universe's structure, as if that will eliminate all other improvable explanations. Hint: it doesn't, and even if you think it does, you can't infer anything about the "real world" without assuming it tracks with the simulation. Again, there is no reason to believe this. Some would say the simulation hypothesis is testable and that this marks an important distinction. But are any conceivable tests specific to simulation, and not generalizable to alternative metaphysical theories or to misunderstood features of the universe? Either way, I predict the simulation hypothesis will live on after the "tests" have failed time, and time again. Sound familiar?

e9 5y ago

There are many different ways to interpret what “God” can mean. For not so literal interpretation of the Bible and God that can excite some scientific minds, I highly recommend watching Biblical Series lectures by Jordan Peterson on YouTube.

tshaddox 5y ago

I suspect that most people who are willing to the simulation hypothesis seriously would be somewhat open to the idea of "God" in the very broad sense of some intelligent and powerful agent or agents that exist outside our current scientific understanding, but still not open to some specific idea of "God" in some specific organized religion like Christianity. The analogy would be some extremely specific hypothesis, like that our Universe is being simulated by a quantum computer built by Peter Shor in his basement in 1995.