410
submitted 6 months ago by darcy@sh.itjust.works to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ExLisper@linux.community 95 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The "belief" we're in a simulation is more like a interesting idea than something people organize their lives around. Is it possible? Yes. Am I going to praise the great programmer every Sunday? No.

The belief in God in most cases is not just belief in some general higher power but a very specific deity with weird morality, silly mythology and bunch of scam artists behind it.

  • I think there's a higher power...
  • Ok...
  • that got mad at us for eating fruits but then impregnated a lady with itself and pissed us off so that we murdered him and he could say he's not mad anymore.
  • ... WTF?
[-] 5wim@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago

I more or less agree, but you keep using "believe" when you ought to use "belief." Just FYI.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] RIPandTERROR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Could an all powerful, loving God be real? Sure. Why not?

Could a powerful, all loving God be real? Yeah, seems realistic. In many ways, I am a God to an ant.

Could an all powerful all loving God be real?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.

God is either inept, indifferent, or a straight up ass. None of those items are something I care to worship, even at the threat of the eternal damnation.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago

There’s no hypocrisy here.

On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).

On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.

Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 18 points 6 months ago

You're assuming belief in the Abrahamic God to make your argument easier. But not all theists subscribe to such a position. And belief in a disinterested god who created the universe seems just as plausible as believing in a disinterested programmer who wrote a simulation.

[-] conneru64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 6 months ago

Those conjectures aren't just equally plausible, they're the same thing.

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think their point is belief versus theory. One requires faith, the other thought.

It's why it's simulation theory and not Simulationism. People acknowledge it, but don't follow it, nor believe it, since belief requires clearing unknown gaps with leaps of faith to reach an unknown destination. Theory seeks answers of the unknown with "could be this, could not be this" whereas belief is "it be this".

This always points back to the paradox which all divinity falls into. The moment we know of a god to be real, it is old news and no longer divine. The next scientific step is "What made it so?" and moves right along to bigger things whether theists are on board or not.

Of the few words ending with -ism and -ist in science or theory, none have belief or faith.

Even the most apparent, such as the Big Bang Theory, are still marked a theory, after all. Believing in them—convinction without 100% knowledge—is foolish and closes doors of what may actually be truth.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Of course it's a belief. Any position held as fact in the absence of evidence is a belief, and is irrational by definition.

It also absolutely does not provide an explanation of "purpose". Someone else already wrote a good comment about why that is.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (66 replies)
[-] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 44 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don't see the hypocrisy. If the universe is a simulation, that wouldn't make whoever built the universe a god. There would be no analytical reason to conclude that, unless we started from the specially-crafted supposition that any being capable of creating something like the observable universe had to be equivalent to God, but at that point, you're just defining your way into theism. If the universe is a simulation, which is not a terribly interesting thought experiment tbh, then it could be a simulation for any reason. The simulators could have been interested in the dynamics of gas and dust dispersion within galaxies and just so happened to create a sophisticated enough simulation that it could simulate the evolution of natural life. If the entire Universe had been "created" (although the point of defining it as a simulation is to point to how it doesn't really exist, ipso facto if God is a simulator, then God is not a Creator in the sense theists mean) to study dust dynamics at the galactic scale, somehow I think theists would be dissatisfied and not feel like they had really found what they meant by "God."

In theory, any type of Boltzman Brain could assemble itself at any time and start processing information, so in theory, a simulation could also be an entirely natural phenomenon occurring in a higher-order reality. The two ideas are different, even though Christians like to claim everyone is a theist and everything is theism even when they aren't and it isn't.

Anyways, the simulation hypothesis is sort of fun to think about sometimes, while "I invoke supernatural powers to explain phenomena I don't understand" isn't all that interesting.

[-] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago

that wouldn't make whoever built the universe a god.

Well yeah they would have to open the console and type in.

sv_cheats 1

god

Then they would be god.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 31 points 6 months ago

They are similar in that neither are scientific theories, as they are equally non-falsifiable. We may live in a universe where it is impossible to see the face of god or a glitch in the matrix by construction.

Given that impossibility, how then could you perform an experiment or make an observation that contradicts the theory? To be reductive, science isn't about proving. It's failing to disprove. If there isn't a set of circumstances in which a theory can be disproven, it isn't scientific.

Unless you are a string theorist. Then you just say whatever the hell you want.

[-] DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 28 points 6 months ago

I don't think anyone actually believes the latter except room temperature IQ tech bros. It's mostly just a hypothetical.

[-] Tetra@kbin.social 28 points 6 months ago

Idk what's the exact purpose of this meme but I really do see a lot of similarities between God creating the world and simulation theory. Obviously ST and religion are wildly different in their impact on society and how many people genuinely believe in them, but ST is pretty silly too.

It's just a "what if" scenario, one that's potentially possible but wouldn't change or explain anything if it was true. All you're doing is moving the existential problems up a layer and forgetting about it, it's the same as saying God made us: at the end of the day both the beings in charge of the simulation AND God have to come from somewhere, they live in a "real" universe, and you're not explaining that.

Why can't it be that we simply live in a real universe? That's the simplest answer, the one that requires the fewest assumptions. It doesn't have a convenient, satisfying reason as to why we're here, or how reality came to be, but it's easily the most plausible.

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago

Why can't it be that we simply live in a real universe? That's the simplest answer, the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

The argument goes that: a sufficiently technologically advanced society would run ancestor simulations. Those simulations may also run simulations. There's no ceiling on the number of nesting simulations. It's the height of conceit to think we're the top level when there are squillions of simulated universe.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2535

[-] Tetra@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

"there are squillions of simulated universe."

Huge assumption there lol, but I guess I see your point. If you assume simulations of this scope and quality are possible (again HUGE assumption), then your odds of being in one go up a lot, obviously.

Again though, at some point you have to hit actual, non simulated reality, and when everything seems to point towards that being the case for us, and absolutely nothing hints at a simulation, I don't see why we couldn't just be in that actual reality. I can't help but see that thought experiment as just an attempt to answer "the big question" in some way, even though in actuality it just moves it out of view.

It's Russell's teapot, impossible to disprove and theorically possible, but there's nothing backing it up besides fantastical assumptions. In that regard yeah, I think the comparison with God is warranted. The creators of our simulation, and especially the ones up above that are actually real would need such absurd levels of technology so far beyond our comprehension that it would be magic to us, and they would absolutely be our Gods.

I don't see much of a difference, it's kind of just a tech themed spin on it, with the same fallacies plaguing the whole concept, IMO. It's cool to think and write scifi about, but that's about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 months ago

Could (a) god(s) exist? Possibly, it's hard to rule out the supernatural in natural terms since it's SUPERnatural

Could the universe be a simulation? Possible too, but also on of those things that's almost impossible to prove.

At the same time, it could be that your e a Boltzmann brain, and that literally nothing existed before and that your brain just kinda formed together spontaneously with all your memories.

All those are possible options that are over 99% likely to be false, but their cooouuullldd be true.

Point is not to rearrange your life on the off changlce that one of those are true. Especially religion, since religions tend to be "believe our particular god(s) or you go to hell for eternity" followed closely by "if you don't believe our particular god(s) we will help you go to hell right now". Nearly all human conflicts in Earth's history were either based on religion or used religion as a tool to whip up the masses to go kill the others.

There are also hundreds of Gods and over 3000 different religious figures out there and they're all pretty much exclusive or, they all claim to be the right one and the rest is wrong. Bold claim to make when it's all based off goat herders texts that were first abused for a completely different god (hello, Christianity!) and constantly conflicts with each other.

Simulation theory and Boltzman brain ideas are fun to entertain and talk and think about, but they've never been used to control who can love and have sex with who, they've never been a used whereas religion just IS abuse and control in every way possible.

I do not like religion

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

One of those is a belief and the other is a theory.

One requires the absence of evidence and the other requires evidence.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Are you a farmer? Because you have an awful lot of straw!

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 months ago

Does anyone base their lives and their worldviews around the simulation theory?

[-] themelm@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Its such a philosophical dead end. I know a few people who really want the world to be a simulation but I cant understand why. I think they want an excuse to have nothing matter and be shitty.

But i would not live my life any differently if we found out that this is a simulation. Because its still real to me and there's no reason to believe I can exist outside the simulation any more than my sims can exist outside the game.

[-] DarkenLM@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago

I know one person who does. And, of course, everyone thinks he lost his marbles.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We do live in a simulation and I can prove it.
Stick your whole hand up your ass and push the secret eject key.

[-] darcy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

just did this. didnt work but i learnt something about myself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 months ago

bad religion bait post is bad

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Both are just as unlikely as the other and have as much evidence, I'd find anyone who possesed both beliefs to be weird.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Godric@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Makes me miss my old roommate, who didn't believe in God but believed this all could be a simulation. Hope you're doing well buddy, wherever the fuck you've wandered!

[-] minnieo@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago

honestly, who is this targeting? conspiracy theorists?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] OnopordumAcanthium@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Reading all these comments... People love to judge. ffs let people believe whatever they want. You can disagree with their preferences without declaring them as dumb or misguided. It's even pretty arrogant to dismiss others view of why reality exists when literally no one knows the answer to that.

[-] DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 months ago

Its preety arrogant to believe anything without hard evidence tbh

[-] OnopordumAcanthium@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago
[-] AsterixTheGoth@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago

The arrogance lies in the claim of knowing the unknowable. I can't know for sure how the universe formed. I can't know for sure what happens when we die. I can't know for sure that there is or is not a force guiding the world around me and the events that occur. But if you believe in a god (or any form of faith that has answers to these questions or questions like them) then you are saying "I don't know, but I know who does", or to simplify "I don't know, but I know".

On the other hand if you read a study, or a science article, that says it has found evidence of the big bang and you say "I read in an article that a research team has found evidence of the big bang." well now you're claiming that you know you read an article. That's a claim that is easy to accept and contains no contradictions. It doesn't take much convincing for me to say that I do think that you read an article. No arrogance, just a declaration of an action.

The nuance here is that there is a difference between reading a study about the big bang, and believing in the big bang. If you're being completely scientifically honest, you know that there is a possibility it could all be wrong. It might be a slim possibility. But it is impossible for all of us to examine all of the evidence in all of science, so while it looks like belief, it is instead maintaining a perspective that the people who are studying it are doing their best, and so far their best is pointing in a direction. That's all. No need to burn people at the stake, no need to write anything in stone. Just people looking for clues and reporting that the clues are all indicating a given conclusion. Or maybe the clues they're finding are pointing all over the place. Or maybe they did the math and the math said that they needed nine spacial dimensions to make an idea work but if they had them, all the clues would point to a given conclusion. And then people living in reality said "how do we test something in nine spacial dimensions?" and all the shrugs eventually resulted in youtube videos that made me say "huh, that's interesting, it looks like maybe nobody knows how that works".

One last stupid question: Have you ever noticed how the faithful hate it, or at least express friction, when you bring up things that would bring their explanatory framework crumbling down? Meanwhile scientists are like "This poses fundamental questions about our theory of blabblegabble. I'm super excited, I might have some really serious questions to answer very soon, and we might need to really do some serious sciencing. Where's my [insert stereotypical scientific tool here]?"

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] confluence@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Dr. Blitz called Simulation Theory religion for tech bros and I can't get it out of my head 😅

[-] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 7 points 6 months ago

Damn theists really are fucking morons, huh?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's always the worst people who believe this too. The only interpretation of Simulation Theory that I will even remotely entertain is the one that we're all information stuck on the surface of a black hole, because it's the only one that isn't just there to feed tech bros' god complex.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

both have people believe humans are part of a greater design

both include some otherworldly figure either observing or mandating how we live our lives

both reject the idea that maybe we’re just fuckin’ here because we are just fuckin’ here

Love how some people are legitimately proving this meme in the comments.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 5 points 6 months ago

Uh, not random. Evolution has a system.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago

Evolution is just random. The "system" is just the good random changes live and the bad don't.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
410 points (77.5% liked)

Memes

44108 readers
2825 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS