RE: The Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Deism, and Time... (Part 2) - Could Deism be the Same?

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

I enjoyed reading your child memories and those of your young adult years. I find it important to deal with the (hi)story of the family.

Thanks for integrating my questions. Language can only so far make it clear what one wants to tell or ask.

I will read your response to them again, to take my time.

From your feedback on this question in particular, I feel, you may have brushed over it a little too quick (?):

Or is it, that you may mean it in the sense, that we, the organic living beings, create this simulated reality by letting it become a "mega-trend" (belief-system) and so it has the potential to become real, whether it's real or not?

Nah. It doesn't have anything to do us other than the fact if it is true then we are in it. We are either the simulants, the players, or perhaps both.

What exactly do you mean by " simulant"? How is the simulator different from the player?
Don't you underestimate the influence of the players on what happens in the game, because elsewhere I see it confirmed that the inventor of the game (the creator) would see little progression in the game without the creativity and ingenuity of the players.

Could it be that through Christian imprinting you root that a creator is a purposeful omnipotence in love with detail? For my part, I can tell I found it extremely difficult to shed that root (and often still have those difficulties).
What do you think instead of the assumption of a potency that is effected by the many actors in the earthly and supernatural universe and themselves in alternation?

In the end though, I think that I understand "simulation" in almost the same way you do.

To the rest I may come back later on.

Cheers. :)



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

What exactly do you mean by " simulant"?

The things being simulated. If we are simulated entities ourselves then I've called that the "simulant" which now that you point it out might not be an accepted word. I've used it off and on for years now. I'll hit on that a little more now that you point it out when I write today's post.

How is the simulator different from the player?
Don't you underestimate the influence of the players on what happens in the game, because elsewhere I see it confirmed that the inventor of the game (the creator) would see little progression in the game without the creativity and ingenuity of the players.

Not all simulations have players. Some just have observers. That is why I differentiate. I steal from gaming and refer to someone that can interact with the simulation as it is running as a player. A player would not be an NPC. I'm getting ahead of myself though as I do have plans for a post that will delve into some ideas about this. :) I know it is an interesting subject though and it is easy to get sucked in and have lot's of ideas and questions. I am only holding back so I can try to keep from turning my posts into a chaotic mess. :) After I've done what I plan I'll likely do some more freeform posts if it is warranted. Also feel free to do your own and tag me in them. :)

Could it be that through Christian imprinting you root that a creator is a purposeful omnipotence in love with detail? For my part, I can tell I found it extremely difficult to shed that root (and often still have those difficulties).

Nope. Not it all. I don't personally think the creator is omnipotent. I also do not think they are likely omniscient.

Yet I still discuss the possibility. To me personally omnipotence and omniscience would be extremely boring very quickly and if we are supposedly created in "his image" according to Christians and a few other faiths then I find it highly implausible. Easily resolved if I consider the bible to be the "Words of Man" and not God. Which is my stance.

What do you think instead of the assumption of a potency that is effected by the many actors in the earthly and supernatural universe and themselves in alternation?

Yep, getting ahead of where I plan to go. I have hinted at this when I gave quick statements at the bottom of the first post when I said "Monotheism - Check", and a few moments later "Polytheism - Check". Basically that was me saying "Monotheism, yep this can potentially explain that just fine." "Polytheism, yep we have a possible explanation for that as well" all logically worked out in simulation hypothesis.

Here is some foreshadowing of things to come:
Simulant = Simulated being/life form that only exists within the simulation. (NPC)
Player = An avatar of something else from outside the simulation that is able to interact with the simulation. If they have mastered immersion they may LIVE lives inside the simulation while their actual being comes from outside. They may not be the creator, but someone/something using the created simulation as design just like we use games. When you play games the world responds to you but you certainly did not create that game.
Creator(s) = The thing(s) that actually designed and created the simulation or the ability to create instances of the simulation.

Interesting thing about the Player aspect is it also meshes nicely with the concept of reincarnation, and with the concept of a soul.

0
0
0.000