3 ms·
I don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates ou
by Vecr 2y ago
I don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates our universe, fully contained inside theirs. Yes, that person is outside our time, and started our time, but in their universe, they are 1) constrained by physical space 2) not all-encompassing at all 3) have a whole lot of stuff in there with them that is external to them.
Sure, you can go into infinite regress arguments, but they hit both of our arguments just as hard.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoOne cannot just "assume there's an uncreated universe". There's no evidence for that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if we're going to use it to make conclusions, there's has to be some logical or observable basis for it. My arguments are based on logic and observation. It would be impossible to find the truth if we just dream up any possible scenario without actually drawing conclusions from the evidence in front of us.
- Vecr 2y agoAssuming it only as part of that hypothesis, not assuming it for all reality. If it's not impossible, since we can't observe the evidence, its only detriment is complexity by either hypercomputational Simplicity priors (if we don't think we can fit it into logic) or extended Occam's priors (if we think we can). As well as all the other hypotheses we can't meaningfully differentiate from it, almost none of them recognizable as your "God".