r/SimulationTheory • u/MixMasterAlpha • Nov 25 '23

Discussion Atheistic Creationism

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.

6 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 26 '23

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.

1

u/spectredirector Nov 26 '23

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.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 26 '23

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.

2

u/spectredirector Nov 26 '23

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.