this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
401 points (77.0% liked)

Memes

45171 readers
3480 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?

I don't think that religion is predicated on the answering of prayers, or in a Creator who takes a special interest in some particular human.

Also, I don't think that either of those go against simulation theory; what if you're a sim in some alien version of The Sims, and they're going around fuckin with your life, removing ladders from your pools, etc.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?

Religion identifies the simulator and insists that its intermediaries can offer a liaison between you and them, and also that if you don't believe in their particular simulator, you will be punished. It has been used for centuries to control the populace and to take their money.

A proponent of simulation theory isn't likely to tell you that it solves any philosophical problems, or that they now understand the universe wholly. I've never heard anyone talking about it claim that they know who/what is behind the simulation.

So IMO the distinction between the two couldn't be more clear.

I imagine there's at least a couple wacko groups out of there trying to twist simulation theory into a purely religious endeavor, but that wouldn't represent the mainstream conversation about it.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

That's an exceptionally narrow view of religion. There are plenty of religions that don't threaten damnation for disbelief. They do what ST does and explain why humans exist (in this case because a simulation was set up such that they'd be created, intentionally or not).

And why can't ST be used to scam people from money, like religion is?

This has the flavor of a true scottsman.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).

Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

But how you're describing ST isn't incompatible with religion, only some religions. Nothing about religion itself says that the creators or some higher power need to be an active participant in the human experience.

And how doesn't simulation theory allow for the simulation creator/admin to interfere with the simulation? You don't have scientific equipment recording data on everything, everywhere, for everyone, and people claim to see wild shit all the time. But even ignoring the wild shit, it could be as simple as tripping someone, moving their keys, giving them some disease or disorder, or any of a million things that we can't accurately predict even when explicitly looking for it.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In this instance it doesn't. But in this universe almost every industry using simulations run many different ones with different parameters. It doesn't make sense to assume simulation theory with only a single simulation without interventions, because that assumes the simulator already knew that what the simulation would produce would fit what they wanted and that's not a guarantee (just for information theory reasons alone!)

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I’m not sure where you came up with the assumption that there is only one simulation. No one said or inferred that.