3 ms·
> the implicit assumption that if there is indeed a simulation then it is limited to human capability, which would almost certainly be wrong. Yes, totally. But
by KineticLensman 5y ago
> the implicit assumption that if there is indeed a simulation then it is limited to human capability, which would almost certainly be wrong.
Yes, totally. But the danger then is that if we say "it is more complicated than we can understand", then the simulation hypothesis essentially becomes a faith-based argument, where 'simulation' essentially means 'god', and then all the bets are off.
- colordrops 5y agoOk, but we shouldn't artificially limit what would be likely if it were the case just because it results in outcomes undesirable to you. It's already faith based at this point anyway. Most religion is basically a simulation hypothesis.