Hacker News Reader

Comment by DougN7 | Hacker News Reader

I've always thought the 'living in a simulation' scenario and creationism are pretty much the same thing, if the person that started the simulation felt some sort of rules ought to be followed (for the longevity of the simulation, or whatever reason they might have). That doesn't seem like a stretch - we do that with the Sim games, and we're hardly brilliant.

View on HN

If we are living in a simulation, it is a simulation of atoms, or quantum fields, or perhaps something deeper behind that. That got started with enormous energy in the form of hot dense quark gluon plasma. From there the rest follows.

It is not a simulation of humans.

We have zero indication there are rules at a higher level than the quantum or gravity. Like rules on what you ought to do in the bedroom.

Also earth nor humans were created by intelligence, just like how mineral crystals or fjords are not created by intelligence.

Hence we must conclude that bronze/iron age religions and maybe living in a simulator are not the same thing.

For the rest of this question of a creator, we cannot know, anybody claiming to know anything beyond "perhaps" or "maybe" is a fool, or will win a nobel price. By lack of the latter the rest of us will assume the first.

You're taking some mighty large liberties defining what our simulation is, and how it started. A simulation can begin with any state, including a hundred years ago with already written books and simulated Big Bang background radiation.

There is no difference.

Beings that find themselves in a universe that was created a minute ago but looks old, would be correct when they conclude it looks old. Anything else is unknowable and can not be used to further any theories.

Especially when such ideas are grounded in bronze age thinking.

"There is no difference." Indeed, if god exists or not, there is no difference ...

Well, there is no difference now. If someone has a big power button, or wants to inject things into the simulation later, or hold a final judgement, that will definitely matter. Not that we can stop it from happening either way. But perhaps we can please the Sim master...?

If we could have knowledge of such things, maybe.

But what if it turns out this is a simulation by some extremist party, who want to see how to stack people against each other using religion? In that case we would owe it to the people there in the real world that we don't ...

Plus you can rest assured that that the sim master himself lives in a simulated universe, somebody else will hold his big button. Buttons all the way down.

From the pit of unknowable things, people can dredge up any coherent story. They might believe it themselves or convince others. Fine when it offers some kind of solace or perspective on life. Not fine when it costs people their freedom or their live.

In essence, they are the same thing, but Darwinists won't admit this because "religion". Heck, just bringing up the thought got you downvoted.

> but Darwinists won't admit this because "religion".

I don't see how that follows. "Religion" doesn't just make the claim that there is a creator and leaves it at that. In fact I'd have more respect for religion if it did.

What I mean is that Darwinism's extreme anti-religion stance means that it won't accept any idea that even has a tiny whiff of creationism. This is why some Darwinists are going with the simulation argument to address the shortcomings of the theory.

Take a look at the kind of criticism the ID movement has been getting. Their whole argument is that "something" must have designed the universe. They do not explicitly argue for a God, and some proponents even accept the simulation argument! Nonetheless, Darwinisim wouldn't touch ID with a 60-foot stick.

The simulation argument is the same notion as Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com