▲ 50 ▼ What are the odds that we are all in a simulation? (lemmy.world) submitted 11 months ago by OneSpectra@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world 104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 80 points 11 months ago (5 children) Counter question; would it make any difference? permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 38 points 11 months ago (1 child) That's the point - it wouldn't. People seem to expect that things would be different or meaningless if we did but I've never understood that logic. Even if we do live in the base reality it could just as well be a simulation and nothing would need to change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I'd argue it would not matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (2 children) This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 child) Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy. A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent [–] khannie@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (2 children) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gilokee@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Ignorance is bliss! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago Just connect me to my reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago Then he got wacked by Tony Soprano. permalink fedilink source parent [–] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves? How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived? It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago (2 children) A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago Fictionally, sure. Realistically, humans could hack a simulated universe like fish can hack the aquarium. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago It's questionable whether it's even a well-founded question because of this. Like, it depends on your choice of theories about ontology and epistemology. This shows up if you try to do math about it, which I mentioned a bit in my own reply. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 38 points 11 months ago (1 child) That's the point - it wouldn't. People seem to expect that things would be different or meaningless if we did but I've never understood that logic. Even if we do live in the base reality it could just as well be a simulation and nothing would need to change. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I'd argue it would not matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (2 children) This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 child) Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy. A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I'd argue it would not matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (2 children) This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 child) Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy. A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (2 children) This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 child) Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy. A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 child) Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child) Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy. A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 child) The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use. And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] khannie@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (2 children) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gilokee@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Ignorance is bliss! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago Just connect me to my reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago Then he got wacked by Tony Soprano. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gilokee@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 child) Ignorance is bliss! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago Just connect me to my reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago Just connect me to my reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago Then he got wacked by Tony Soprano. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves? How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived? It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves? How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived? It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago (2 children) A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whaleross@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago Fictionally, sure. Realistically, humans could hack a simulated universe like fish can hack the aquarium. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago Fictionally, sure. Realistically, humans could hack a simulated universe like fish can hack the aquarium. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 11 months ago It's questionable whether it's even a well-founded question because of this. Like, it depends on your choice of theories about ontology and epistemology. This shows up if you try to do math about it, which I mentioned a bit in my own reply. permalink fedilink source parent