5 ms·

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in! To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set of criteria to live by, best expressed in the Beatitudes. If pressed I am probably more engaged by an agnostic understanding of the Abrahamic religions, but I can’t help to feel the overwhelming truth, love and warmth of all of existence radiate from the verses of the Bible, Old and New. My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, to see the same love and energy in the multitudes of practice and expression, like the light in the center of a lamp, throwing subtlety different shadows on the walls from the inconsistencies in the making of the glass panes by human hands. Perhaps with time the Simulationists will end up with their own window into the glory of our existence! I will welcome such a transformation with open arms. I want to follow in Christ’s footsteps because it would make me a better person, no matter the fact that the struggle will never end. With God’s grace I am at least given the chance to try, fail and be forgiven for the limits of my human nature. The emphasis should be on the practice of humility, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. The particular expression is in the realm of mere mortals and is as beautiful as any other artistic creation. I expect downvotes, but that’s OK. Father, forgive them; they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34) ;)

vidarh 3y ago
A "Simulationist" who believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite no evidence is just holding yet another religious belief. I see it as a possibility, but a possibility without evidence remains an interesting, untested hypothesis that might be grounds for speculation, not belief.
- mistermann 3y ago
  What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    No, no, no. I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right. You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in. If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!
    - mistermann 3y ago
      I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?
      - me_me_me 3y ago
        > I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" Me: "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" > I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof The OP made no claims. An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.
        mistermann 3y ago
        Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 > Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. > You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof: 1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?] I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"? 2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim. As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-strategy-for-equals-and-gethashcode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s... 3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front). b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?) >> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof > The OP made no claims. Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims). > An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief. While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20not%20wrong https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n... >>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance.... In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions). But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale. tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!
runlaszlorun 3y ago
> My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, I don’t know much about Jesuits. Is this common in their beliefs or are you just mentioning that you yourself came to these conclusions? Just curious for my own sake.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  It is common enough that it came out of the mouth of a priest during a theology lecture! Edit: It is still astonishing to me that they let these hippies into the papacy!
  - jprd 3y ago
    PESRONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENCE: I was SO LUCKY, growing up Irish-American Catholic, that I had so many local parish Priests that were Jesuits. THEY ECOURAGED QUESTIONING FAITH. Open Q&A, without saying a dogmatic response - sparking discussion instead. These cats allowed myself and my peers the latitude to poke holes in all of it, pontificate (apologies on the pun) on our personal viewpoints and challenge any conflicts in Dogma or texts. Jesuits help combine the scientific reality of our experience with the mystical / religious in a non-judgmental way (IMHO). Pretty powerful and not as evangelical as they may have been as an order in the past.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Wow you just unlocked a weird memory. Back when I was in High School Jesuits actually taught me the principles of microeconomics.
newthrow 3y ago
[flagged]
- williamcotton 3y ago
  This war never took place but that the story was passed down to future generations implies that the narrative has a deeper meaning or intent. There has been plenty of pontification on Numbers 31 over the millennia!
  - newthrow 3y ago
    [flagged]

vidarh 3y ago

A "Simulationist" who believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite no evidence is just holding yet another religious belief. I see it as a possibility, but a possibility without evidence remains an interesting, untested hypothesis that might be grounds for speculation, not belief.

mistermann 3y ago
What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?
- me_me_me 3y ago
  No, no, no. I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right. You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in. If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!
  - mistermann 3y ago
    I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?
    - me_me_me 3y ago
      > I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting! Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" Me: "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" > I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof The OP made no claims. An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776 > Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. > You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?" If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof: 1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?] I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"? 2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim. As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-strategy-for-equals-and-gethashcode https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s... 3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not" a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front). b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?) >> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof > The OP made no claims. Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims). > An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief. While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20not%20wrong https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n... >>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance.... In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions). But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale. tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!

runlaszlorun 3y ago

> My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, I don’t know much about Jesuits. Is this common in their beliefs or are you just mentioning that you yourself came to these conclusions? Just curious for my own sake.

williamcotton 3y ago
It is common enough that it came out of the mouth of a priest during a theology lecture! Edit: It is still astonishing to me that they let these hippies into the papacy!
- jprd 3y ago
  PESRONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENCE: I was SO LUCKY, growing up Irish-American Catholic, that I had so many local parish Priests that were Jesuits. THEY ECOURAGED QUESTIONING FAITH. Open Q&A, without saying a dogmatic response - sparking discussion instead. These cats allowed myself and my peers the latitude to poke holes in all of it, pontificate (apologies on the pun) on our personal viewpoints and challenge any conflicts in Dogma or texts. Jesuits help combine the scientific reality of our experience with the mystical / religious in a non-judgmental way (IMHO). Pretty powerful and not as evangelical as they may have been as an order in the past.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Wow you just unlocked a weird memory. Back when I was in High School Jesuits actually taught me the principles of microeconomics.

newthrow 3y ago

[flagged]

williamcotton 3y ago
This war never took place but that the story was passed down to future generations implies that the narrative has a deeper meaning or intent. There has been plenty of pontification on Numbers 31 over the millennia!
- newthrow 3y ago
  [flagged]