What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?
-
This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy.
A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too.
-
Counter question; would it make any difference?
It's questionable whether it's even a well-founded question because of this. Like, it depends on your choice of theories about ontology and epistemology. This shows up if you try to do math about it, which I mentioned a bit in my own reply.
-
thanks Baudrillard
wrote last edited by [email protected]There is no connection because consciousness is not fundamentally tied to society (although obviously its contents can be heavily influenced by it).
-
This post did not contain any content.
So I guess it depends on what you understand by "simulation". What is really simulated as opossed to being "real". Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it's also a simulation of the real thing. Where's the line that makes something really "real"?
-
about 3.50
God damn you love ness monster!
-
Either 100% or 0% so pascal's wager 50/50.
Just like the lottery, I either win or I lose, its a 50/50.
And the whole thing is "does it matter?". To us, no, it doesn't matter at all.
-
The modern Christian God is mostly a passive observer, whenever him or his agents have visited us there have been tons of miracles and magical shit, but that does not happen very often, and we've been basically alone for millenia while He is busy in his own realm. If Christ visited again, it would likely portend the end of the world, at least in a lot of Christian world views.
He might be passive but the implication is that you're supposed to live certain way or you'll end up in hell. This most likely isn't the case in a simulation.
-
Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy.
A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too.
The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics.
-
Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict".
The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world.
-
This post did not contain any content.
In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.
-
50%. We are or we aren't.
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
-
God damn you love ness monster!
Loveless monster? Oh poor thing...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I hope so
Also, can somebody please turn it off? I think we took this one as far as it's worth
-
This post did not contain any content.
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
-
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
-
You can't prove a negative.
The positive assertion is "we live in a simulation". All that can be done is gather evidence to support this assertion.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can't prove a negative.
That principle doesn't apply here, because you can use simple language to turn the words around, and then you have a positive, while the task of proving it remains the same.
Specifically: when you say you can't prove that we don't live in a simulation, then it is the same as saying you can't prove that we do live in reality.
But "we do live in reality" is a positive. Now the words are different, but the task is the same: prove that we live in reality.
-
I figure that we are all definitely living in a simulation because, even if the world has real physical existence, consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain to make sense of the world.
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
-
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
Did you really interrupt my minecraft game to make me read that?
-
Counter question; would it make any difference?
A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about
-
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
- Whoosh
- Given the lack of any meaningful information to base an estimate on, they essentially are.
