I’m not assuming anything. The image shown in the OP is an image of the god of Abraham and the initial premise is wrong. If there was a sizeable population of theists who believed in a disinterested god, we’d have somewhere to start a discussion.
It’s possible but the interaction part is what makes it unlikely. There’s neither evidence nor logic that would explain a god that was able to interact with the world they created with any kind of consistency.
Actually, yes. If they’re able to do anything then they’re also able to correct their mistakes. That’s not something that can be assumed about the creator of a simulation. Just look at the current state of our simulations.
That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).
Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.
It doesn’t need to answer the question of how things began any more than our own understanding of our world answers that. The “Big Bang” is just the start of the simulation.
And I think you’re wrong to disagree about the purpose of our existence because the entire point of a simulation is to get information and data about the “real” world by running the options in a simulation. If we are indeed in a simulation, then the purpose is to give the creators of the simulation more information about their own world.
Ironically enough, it would also infer that these beings created us in their own image. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really be useful to them.
Your comment added nothing to the discussion and provided no counters to what was said. What was the point of writing it?
It’s not a belief because there’s not an absence of evidence. There’s quite a bit of evidence for it. Whether you agree that it’s compelling is another story. Also, no one “believes” in simulation theory. It’s simply a theory to explain our current understanding of the world. In the same way that no one “believes” in the theory of gravity. It’s just a possible explanation of what we observe.
I know because that’s not part of the theory. Simulation theory doesn’t offer any kind of mechanism for that and it would go against the entire idea of simulation.
On top of that, even if that was the case, then the person running the simulation would be acting inconsistently in a way that prevents us from understanding their intent. That would mean that it’s illogical and that there’s no way for us to actually infer anything about the world we’re in yet we are able to do exactly that.
If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.
Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.
People who believe in a god but aren’t part of a religion would have to dictate the parameters for their god in order for it to be meaningful in any way. As stated before, the OP didn’t make the initial idea that nebulous. They were pretty specific.
I think you misunderstood. Testing numerous circumstances doesn’t violate it. The simulation is likely only one amongst an entire series. Interfering with the simulation and changing parameters while it’s going is what violates the point. For one, we’d notice things changing without cause. For another, simulations test conditions based on parameters. There would be no reason to change parameters midway when another simulation with those changes can just be spun up.
No. That’s why it’s not called “simulation hypothesis”. It’s called “simulation theory”. The hypothesis is the original, untested idea. The theory is the idea after it has been tested that fits as a valid explanation. It has been tested.
To be fair, though, the actual idea is called “simulation hypothesis” in the real world for that reason but it’s not a hypothesis because it can’t come to a falsifiable conclusion. There’s literally no way of knowing whether we are or aren’t in a simulation.
It’s the same idea as a god that controls everything but doesn’t intervene at all, is invisible, and unknowable. It could be true but it’s a moot point since we could never know.
I’m not being dishonest. You are, however, being dismissive and rude.
There’s no “maybe”. We don’t observe things changing in our world without cause. Therefore, it can’t be part of the test. Our perception is unbroken. And if you want to make the argument that those simulations where we did are ended, which is what I think you’re implying, then, as before, it’s meaningless to discuss since there’s no way we could know that.
You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.
You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.
How are they not logically justified? You and I live in the world that is claimed to be a simulation. It’s entirely logically justified simply by virtue of the fact that we can verify these things. Again, to borrow your example, if parameters and material items are being changed and modified while the simulation is running then we’d have to observe those things happening in at least some instances. We don’t have any evidence of anything changing without cause. If those changes can be done without us knowing about them in every case, then it’s just as pointless as debating the idea that every person alive is only 1 day old.
It’s not unreasonable to exclude that possibility if there’s no way for us to ever know that. The same logic applies to scenarios like the one I mentioned before where everyone is only 1 day old.
You can’t prove that everyone alive isn’t one day old and simply born with memories of previous events. It’s a silly example but it’s the same argument as what you’re suggesting. If it gets reset in way that no one can possibly know, then, logically, the only option is to exclude it because you could never prove or falsify it either way.
I’m not dishonest and I haven’t said anything that suggests I’m not arguing in good faith. I’ve sufficiently explained the concept and the idea that our observations can only extend to what we’re capable of. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself but I’m sure you’ll point that out instead of being nebulous and ignoring the points actually demonstrated…
We can exclude that possibility because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means. If what you’re suggesting is true, that a higher being is interfering and modifying our reality, then we should be able to test that assumption. Anything that can have a physical effect in our world is testable in our world. Since we don’t observe that happening, and according to you can’t observe it since doing so would end the simulation, it’s a possibility we don’t have to consider because it’s impossible to prove it or test it or, most importantly, to falsify it.
Again, it’s the exact same argument as the one day old suggestion. It’s ultimately meaningless.
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
To be fair, it wasn’t Dave’s idea or something he supported. It was bassist Nate Mendel’s message that they were, admittedly, amplifying. Even the info on their website had a disclaimer that listed it as “being displayed at the request of Nate Mendel”.
I think they all regret being involved in amplifying that message too, including Nate. In the 20 years since they initially broke support with the people involved, they’ve played several shows in support of HIV/AIDS awareness groups, fundraised for Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, and every tour they do now has some kind of fundraising or auctions to support AIDS education or LGBTQIA+ rights.
It feels like they know now, in hindsight of course, that it was harmful and have at least tried to do more good to make up for it. Mendel was even quoted saying that the only reason he did it was because he thought he was helping people, not hurting them.
Bari Weiss is not someone to give your time to so thanks for posting that. Nearly everything she writes now is dishonest and she pretends to espouse liberal ideas while constantly taking conservative positions and then calling herself a “left-leaning centrist”. It’s hot garbage.
No one is hand waving anything away. Nate is a member of the band. The message on the website was clear that it was his message.
You make it seem like people can’t change their views based on new information. It’s not like they could go back in time and not do those things after the fact. They’ve done far more in support of AIDS education. It’s not fair to vilify them for something they did for a few years while ignoring everything they’ve done since for more than 20 years.
Except you did. You’re literally on a discussion where you posted Dave Grohl because of something he was a part of for maybe 2 or 3 years that wasn’t even his idea to begin with while ignoring everything he’s done for 20+ years since.
Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy (sh.itjust.works)
Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?