3 ms·
So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was funde
by blix 5y ago
So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P
The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was fundementally unfalsifiable, and then pointing to its falsifiablity as a reason to prefer it to other belief systems. Your edit made it more clear, but there is still a contradiction there.
Given that a sibling comment is expressing very similar criticisms, I think my interpretation of your argument reflects something present in your text. If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary.
- nobody9999 5y agoHopefully my explication here[0] will resolve your confusion: I didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false. I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims. >If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary. I hope I've been able to do that. As to "shame," that was a rhetorical flourish. Please feel free to ignore it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001