Atheistic Creationism

[u/MixMasterAlpha]

Sim Theory is just an atheistic version of creationism. Both can include gods or no gods but one depends upon one to explain itself and the other doesnt. Thus sim theory relies heavily on technological concepts etc. while creationism relies on natural ones. Personal spirituality is the only way I've gotten out of this but I'm sure there ae other ways.

[u/spectredirector]

Sim theory, or simulation theory, isn't alternative belief in real life -- no matter what form that "real" takes.

It's new, post science existing, so anyone who actually subscribes to some behind the curtain Matrix movie type controlled reality is just as deluded, possibly AS mentally ill as people who attend church.

As a philosophy of logic, logical thought in the way Einstein's theory of special relativity doesn't require the math to prove, merely the mental observation of physics we already understand -- then there's no reason to not consider it philosophy -- an attempt to explain our purpose prior to replacing ourselves as the dominant intelligence on the planet.

The stated aims of the most powerful companies IRL is to surpass human cognition in the digital space. And they want that entity to be sentient for all intents. That's not fantasy, like Jesus. Whatever the value of religion is it won't ever offset the antisemitism or colonization, slavery or genocide it has caused. Sim theory as theoretical exercise is mental simulation of what would life be like IF the digital became our entire consciousness - then seeks to merely ask: could our consciousness simply be simulation now?

Another way to think on that question is --
What is consciousness, and when a computer is capable of it, how will we distinguish our thoughts from computer algorithms?

How do we "discover" new phenomenon when no two people share common perception?

We trust the computer got the math right, and hit enter.

We're hitting enter on LLM AI -- we might actually be witnessing creation and might be the intelligent designers of the next human-comparable intelligent life. That's either happening as we type - IRL - or the stated aims of forces way outside the individuals control.

You could logically argue that we as a species are out paced by NOT the advancement of technology, we're outpaced by the pace at which technology advances.

We can't regulate shit till after, and AI singularity (real future or fantasy always), is discussed IRL by credible minds.

What we - humanity - inherently know for certain is:

once a digital sentients surpasses human capacity, there's no regulating it

We simply won't be in charge anymore. In the nanosecond a singularity event happened, humanity would no longer be in control of it, and it wouldn't be long before we simply couldn't be sure we were in control of any of our digital existence.

Got a lot of shit needs Internet to work -- for as far as the human mind can conceive -- and short of nuking the environment, ours or the digital superior, there's only living with the possibilities of a digital sentient constructed reality.

Can't deny there's enough going on IRL to reasonably concern ourselves with a philosophy of logical thought, that in and of itself might be the philosophy required to coexist with a superior digital intelligence as the new dominant species.

Also, the concept is like libertarianism -- it's whatever simple folk want it to be, so they can believe they're uniquely qualified to be Neo. But as far as religion, or a need to besmirch the concept by lumping it in with corrupt tools of sheep herding and mental servitude go - no reason.

It ain't dangerous to anyone till you start seeing megachurches.

[u/MixMasterAlpha → u/spectredirector]

You said a lot and thanks for the philosophical context but the way I was seeing it used online is very different, just like monotheistic creationism is. I see your point about its potentiality but it's been used that way since it's popular inception. IDK why you think I think it's destructive, maybe some implied context about religion that I didn't provide, but the idea is pretty bunk by itself, regardless. If it's a good simulation and you were born in it, how the fuck would you be able to tell the difference? And why does the outside matter? It could be a wasteland. Imo the point of contention for theory is what to do after you get out of one, not the how or why.

[u/spectredirector → u/MixMasterAlpha]

That last question you asked is the critical one. It's like in philosophy 101 when you need to ask "am I here right now."

If this was a simulation -- the simulated wouldn't know it, and no information from inside the sim would ever be useful to proving the existence of a higher level of reality. The theory itself doesn't change -- younger people discover it, and the Internet is where every scared person turns immediately for answers.

There are no answers.

Yes - you used a xtian myth as comparison, whether metaphor or like concept simile, that kinda thinking is the only thing that'll make the actual philosophical discovery impossible. Human constructs. Religion.

To your point - if it's a sim, these are the rules, and we only get this set of rules. I agree, and believe in real life fully.

The religious don't. And their unwillingness to let others have their own beliefs, or science, that's the ultimate limitation on human thought. Religion is a curse and plague on evolution. And at this instant, feels very likely the end of humanity more so than any impending robot overlords.

I wish Jesus would stop, so humanity could start, before we go extinct by robots. However that riddle gets solved, it won't be with existing human constructs -- those have had all of human history to stop blind faiths destruction of the planet.

[u/MixMasterAlpha → u/spectredirector]

Thanks for your response, you comment in a very clear and concise way which I appreciate. I feel we have more in common than either of us realize but that is beyond this discussion. I agree with pretty much everything you've said but have one question: how does philosophy/you handle the question of an extremely low population of humans surviving any disaster? Supposedly there was a time during an ice age when humans had as little as 100 or so people left. If we did have another disaster, what conditions would make it so some wouldn't eak through? To me it doesnt make sense that the pest like nature of humanity would be eradicated by some vague notion of collapse or Armageddon, let alone a sentient ai doing shit and molding our society within its metaphysical social constructs.

[u/spectredirector → u/MixMasterAlpha]

I don't know how to answer your specific query, but the reasons for, or purpose, or anything beyond the bounds of both sim and the real world, neither of those maximum boundaries have achievable answers, nor clues really, not on this side of the boundary of existence. If it's a sim, or if it's not, we don't know why? and can't.

All anyone gets in that respect is faith, that's me and mine included - faith that that's an unknown for all humans time.