RE: The Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Deism, and Time... (Part 3) - How can you tell?

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

I posted a reply to Part 2, wherein I explained my view (from a Christian perspective) as to the lack of incompatibility between the Simulation Hypothesis as you've defined it and orthodox Christian theology.

Here, however, I take exception (sort of) to your assessment that we could conceivably know if we are part of a simulation.

This is the same exception I take to Scott Adams' statements about 'The Simulation' (his personal take on the Simulation Hypothesis).

Both you and he are assuming a simulation that is limited or bounded by a creator having finite resources.

The Christian view of the Creator is that He is limitless, that His knowledge and power know no bounds. If this view is correct, then we would most likely never find any 'boundaries' to the simulation (unless He intentionally left them there for us to 'find').

Similarly, there would be no need (or requirement or 'benefit') to the creator for 'reusing code' (a recurring theme within Scott Adams' discussions of 'The Simulation').

So, in summary, although I agree with your notion that finding those boundaries probably represents the only way we could find evidence supporting the Simulation Hypothesis, this assertion only holds if the creator is limited in resources or has at least chosen to limit the resources available for the simulation itself.

A limitless simulation created by a limitless creator would not provide such telltale evidences.


Posted via proofofbrain.io



0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

Both you and he are assuming a simulation that is limited or bounded by a creator having finite resources

Actually. No I do not make that assumption. That is an assumption many make and it is the assumption Scientists on the Panel with Neil DeGrasse Tyson made.

I do not share it. I am well aware of procedural content and procedural generation.

Using that you can make what seems to be boundless.

Also I am not stating WHAT IS. It is humans that tend to do that.

I am only stating possibilities.

There is another interesting boundary that I'll talk about today. That is TIME itself. Time is very, very interesting when you think of it in terms of a simulation hypothesis.

Likewise... In seeking the bounds of infinity in a simulation there is no guarantee we would find them.

You are also presuming the Christian God did not create a Universe with bounds.

How could you possibly know that?

I suspect it is mainly discomfort and a desire to defend that which you don't need to defend.

Christianity as it is defined everywhere I've seen, in fact every other religion as well that has a creator can fit in it without changing a thing.

Whether it is a simulation or not should have zero impact on a Christian.

On the other hand people that don't handle "have faith", or "it just is" type explanations might be more receptive because it adds a fabric that can explain how we could have a creator and potentially justify any of the religions you want without having to blindly trust another human, or a book written (and edited so many times) by humans in human tongue. In language that is not even close to being able to define the scope of reality.

Yet even to people like that. The simulation hypothesis makes it seem possible.

(NOTE: I had paragraphs in this response that I have deleted. I have my knowledge and understanding of Christianity. It's actually more extensive than most people. Yet I don't want ANY of these posts on simulation hypothesis to be about criticizing any faith. Except it does challenge those who don't believe in a creator. With this subject that is unavoidable.)

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are also presuming the Christian God did not create a Universe with bounds.
How could you possibly know that?

I apparently was not clear enough in my reply. I was not implying that I know that, or even that such is the case. I was simply saying that, although you are correct that boundaries in the simulation are possible and that, if they exist, that would be one way to discover evidence in support of the Simulation Hypothesis.

I was pointing out the obvious -- that a creator with infinite resources could (but might not) create a boundary-less simulation, and if that were the case, we would not be able to find such boundaries. And, because I am coming at this from a Christian perspective and because the Christian view encompasses an infinite Creator with infinite resources, I am doubtful that we would ever find any boundaries -- I am convinced (but not dogmatic) that we will continue to find smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles and that the more we peer into space the more expanse we will discover.


I suspect it is mainly discomfort and a desire to defend that which you don't need to defend.

Nope. No discomfort here.

Whether it is a simulation or not should have zero impact on a Christian.

Agreed.


I had paragraphs in this response that I have deleted. ... Yet I don't want ANY of these posts on simulation hypothesis to be about criticizing any faith.

Feel free to DM me via Discord or OpenHive.Chat if you want to discuss specifics privately (so others won't perceive you as criticizing; I won't make that assumption -- and even if you do 'come across as criticizing', that won't bother me at all -- a belief system that can't stand up under scrutiny is not worth having, imho).

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As to my criticisms. They are largely in relation to the bible and honestly whether I see problems or not I do think Christianity has a pretty strong record of doing more good that harm, and the harm is generally speaking when someone manages to get into a position of authority within the religious hierarchy and then convince people of that faith the do bad things. This is not unique to Christianity. It is just the one I know the most because it is what I was raised as, and when the attacks started coming at me it was from that direction, so in my teens I started researching. That has never stopped but I don't do it that often.

I used to invite the Jehovah's Witnesses into my house (with 3 other college roommates) when I was in college early 90s. I liked messing with their heads. The period where I liked to mess with people's heads was short lived. Lasted probably 5 years tops.

I tend to only attack religion if someone is pushing it upon others or demanding action against others based upon their faith.

I think one of the wisest things the Founding Fathers did was to advocate for freedom of religion.

You can't unify a lot of people if you begin dividing them by their faith. If we were divided we would not have stood a chance against England.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was pointing out the obvious -- that a creator with infinite resources could (but might not) create a boundary-less simulation, and if that were the case, we would not be able to find such boundaries.

Yes. And thus I'd be able to prove nothing. I instead focus on what might be possible to prove. That doesn't mean it will.

As to the smaller particles and strange things happening...

What we have seen at the quantum level has really messed with physics. There are many different theoretical models people are trying to make to explain things. They haven't proven them yet.

That does not mean will not. The strangeness may at some point not be strange and you could be correct that we'll go beyond that.

I find the aspect of quantum behavior in responding to the observer to be a lot like procedural content being generated as needed to fill a need in a simulation. Does it mean that is what it is? No.

0
0
0.000