What Simulation Theory Proves About Atheism

[@FreddyMontana69]

Simulation theory is tech nerds discovering theology.

[@john-paulgies4313]

"And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown, and as soon as they have heard, immediately Satan cometh and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." (Mark 4:15)

[@catholicguy1073]

😂

[@Onlyafool172]

It is so dumb, and is obviously a cope

[@nosuchthing8]

Not really. Is writing conputer code discovering theology?

[@Onlyafool172]

@nosuchthing8 thats litterraly irrelevant and a false analogy, because they are arguing for a organized universe, which is of the realm of theology, not computet codes, furthermore you change some terms of that simulation theory, make some adjustment to its flaws when its reduced to a infinite regress and voila congratlations you have 1% of what we argued for in summa theologiae

[@CMVBrielman]

I’ve long said that simulation theory is a way for atheist scifi fans to explore the idea of God without admitting they are.

[@Data-Expungeded]

its just atheistic theism

[@NGAOPC]

There’s a conscious level they’re playing with God-thoughts in (similar to what Joe obliquely noted as “on one level” physicalism being true), and also the collective subconscious level they’re all semi-unknowingly participating in. Believers in metaphysics might, as John Haught described, be simply acknowledging there are often layered explanations, layers of meanings. The water is chemically boiling, true. Completely self-contained true even. *And also* because in this instance of boiling, I want a cup of tea. The “paper” is pressed and dried pulp from trees, the “ink” is pigment and minerals. Yup. “All there is” to a book, nope.

[@Onlyafool172]

Lol

[@nosuchthing8]

You know we have low level AI like chapGPT? 18:25

[@BrianGondo]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate Joe's shirt game. It's always on point

[@OGDavidThomas]

Simulation Theory is unironically atheistic cope

[@brittoncain5090]

Yes, the universe is clearly designed, but they still refuse to acknowledge God.

[@timcollett99]

​@@brittoncain5090 What makes you think that the universe is designed? 🤔

[@brittoncain5090]

@@timcollett99 The amount of variables that are fine tuned to create a life sustaining universe

[@timcollett99]

@@brittoncain5090 What makes you think anything is fine-tuned to create or sustain life?

[@gostodesapohmm3090]

​@@timcollett99 because the constants of physics being life permitting at all is a insanely low chance, so low that it would've be insane to say its just a coincidence

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

I think part of why atheists are drawn to simulation theory is that unlike classical arguments for God's existence, simulation theory scratches the explanatory itch without requiring of them anything in terms of how they live their life.

[@ismarril]

In my atheist days, what struck me most was how atheists never lived according to their beliefs. They didn't think through what their belief entailed and never payed the toll to truth. It soon became clear that they don't take anything seriously. It's all vain pursuits.

[@john-paulgies4313]

Of course, no author of a simulation has a monopoly on what is good and what evil... because they're always *presumed* to be creatures like us [why?] And we're _definitely_ able to choose our own morality because morality doesn't exist... it's not a material thing, it's just a construct of our minds... wait-

[@Carlos-M]

If that! It's also a way for them to postulate something like the whimsical and capricious gods of ancient paganism while simultaneously being able to claim that they're above all that superstition. If you think I'm straw-manning, that's pretty much Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "bored teenage computer whiz in their parents basement" simulation theory version.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@Carlos-M Many pagans rejected these myths about their gods behaving in whimsical and capricious ways. YHWH in the bible is just as capricious and whimsical as the Gods in these myths though

[@tomasrocha6139]

None of the classical arguments like Aristotle's prime mover say anything about how people ought to live their lives

[@tommasorulez1949]

I wanted to call into your show about this yesterday because we are talking about this exact thing in my philosophy class. Thank you Joe and get out of my head😅.

[@MotherLovingChristian]

Is he really in your head, or is your brain Joe’s simulation?

[@iatecookiemonstor]

Joe i appreciate the frequent uploads

[@shlamallama6433]

Me too

[@Anthony-sm8wy]

Another great video by Seamus Potpourri!

[@glotree]

😂😂😂 I saw that too.

[@tarminas6805]

Seamus always smells great

[@marcondespaulo]

The omnipresent Closed Caption

[@stananders2333]

Ireland contines to create great theologians!😂

[@dennisblaul7228]

Besides pushing misinformation it’s great 😂. Neil doesn’t hold this view and is overtly spreading misinformation.

[@zacharyanderson8613]

Watched this twice and will definitely need to watch a 3rd time. Great video. Please make a sequel.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

The ethical implications of this fantasy are also really, really troubling. Anyone who’s watched their younger sibling play a game knows that there is a very sadistic streak in most of us that comes out in a world divorced from moral law. If we become convinced we live in a simulation, we may play life like it’s merely a game. Thank God we live in a moral universe.

[@Onlyafool172]

Those people already live like this, but they know they are playing on hardcore, so if they die they dont respawn

[@Quekksilber]

Also, if we lived in a simulation, ending someone's life for any reason has the same metaphysical weight as switching the light off or spilling some milk--it would be a thing that just happens and plays out according to the pre-set rules of the simulation.

[@nosuchthing8]

Good point.

[@rescuehamster1734]

Michael Knowles said that what helped him convert was realizing that every Christian he met was smarter than the atheists he met. The more I listen to atheists, the more I understand what he ment.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Have you ever had a discussion with an atheist?

[@sivad1025]

Many atheists have great technical intelligence but are so philosophically deficient. Trans ideology is really the perfect microcosm of this

[@Onlyafool172]

​​@@Theo_Skeptomaimany and its insane the amount of times when confronted by classical theism, they appeal to argue from silence, like oh no! It could be this way so your way is false (literraly not how logic works), or they say this doesnt prove God! (They dont have a satifactory response so they say this) or they use that Epicure argument which is absolutely stupid, because pressuposes a moral standard that God must be subject to (God cannot be subjected by a higher truth, only to himself) atheists just use misconceptions and attack poorly cathecized christians, my favorite argument that they use is why God doesnt heal amputees? Fun fact: he does, but the premisse itself is disonest, as I could ask any question like why doesnt God give me a girlfriend? Why does God just end suffering? In short they believe God is a lamp geenie

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@Onlyafool172 Are you willing to answer a few straightforward questions concerning your comment?

[@Onlyafool172]

@Theo_Skeptomai yeah sure go one at the time tho,

[@classicalteacher]

Joe, you have a grounding problem. There is a hum in the audio. Check your audio chain or signal to noise levels. Or maybe it's your interface. I hear it on my phone, so I'm sure others can hear it too. You could try cleaning the audio in post with RX11 before rendering the video and audio. You are an amazing apologist and you deserve to have equally good production. Thank you for your efforts.

[@shamelesspopery]

Yes, sorry! We realized it too late this week, but hopefully it's fixed for next week's episodes.

[@john-paulgies4313]

No no! this fits the theme excellently, especially considering the Matrix-esque outro. The simulation is breaking down! 😏

[@catholicguy1073]

Good video. Atheists inadvertently show there must be a designer of our Universe!

[@patrickdtx3638]

Joe Heschmeyer just casually proving God's existence on a Thursday

[@Quekksilber]

Joe, one of the things I love about this channel is that you fully develop thoughts I only have in the shower or on a walk.

[@shamelesspopery]

Hahaha! Those two places and driving are where the best content comes from.

[@vtaylor21]

21:50 I think that is the key point of the video. Simulation theory shows Atheists do believe in a god because they are arguing for a design of the universe. They think they are god if they believe they can give computers consciousness and create synthetic life.

[@nosuchthing8]

No one that works in AI thinks they are god.😂

[@Carlos-M]

@@nosuchthing8 eh, I dunno about that. Some of the biggest egos I've met are extremely brilliant computer programmers and other kinds of tech professionals. If they don't think they're gods, they certainly believe themselves to be equal (or above)! There's a reason why "mad scientist bent on massive megalomaniacal project" has such staying power as a science-fiction archetype.

[@reddhedds]

So Jesus was the only non-NPC?

[@john-paulgies4313]

The double negative is intended, right? You're saying Jesus was the only "playable character"?

[@Onlyafool172]

I always thinked like that, Jesus is the only playable character, but he was United with his essence of his "player"

[@processofelimination3099]

So Jesus came to turn us from npcs to pcs? 🤔 Sounds super cool but I can't shake the feeling that there's a heresy embedded in my statement somewhere.

[@holdintheaces7468]

I appreciate that you qualify your argument by the existence of the soul, because I agree with you that the argument and logic by Nick Bostrom is sound. That is why it's so convincing to atheists. They [atheists] seem to choose to ignore the qualifier of the argument requiring physicalism that Nick himself starts with. At the very least, they assume that physicalism is a forgone conclusion and proven truth already. I think my favorite argument against Simulation theory is that you still need an ultimate designer. Even if the universe we are in now is a simulation, the simulation (or the infinitely nested simulations) is running in a universe that needs a source of creation. Simulation theory just kicks the rock down the road. See Aquinas's causal regress and defining God simply as the First Cause.

[@nosuchthing8]

What a great post! I would say there is a flaw in your logic. IF we live in a simulation, we don't know what sort of reality that 'base' reality is. For example, we have 3 space dimensions. The base reality might have less or more space dimensions. There might be some explanation of the creation of the base reality. It's hard to second guess something you know nothing about.

[@holdintheaces7468]

@@nosuchthing8 That doesn't matter at all to the causal regress. And by the definition of God, he (it, whatever you want to conceptualize God as) is the first cause to everything and anything. If there's simulations inside of simulations inside of simulations, there still has to be a cause to the simulations. Aquinas called God the only necessary being upon which all other things in existence are contingent on. You have a fundamental misunderstanding in what Christian's mean by "God". God is literally what created the universe (in this conversation, the "base reality"), the nature of which we really know nothing about nor conceptualize. Whatever is "God" is, by definition, the creator of reality, which HAS to exist in order to avoid infinite causal regression.

[@Assaut19283]

These kind of question used to legitimately frightened me for some time. I eventually realized that, it frankly doesn't matter. I'm here now and I'll enjoy the time I have. Who knows! Maybe God created the simulation and if were good people he'll bring us into His reality after our death. Or, souls do exist, which mean god also probably exists in which case, I'll keep being a good person and Saint Peter will hopefully call my name at the end of my life.

[@arthurbringel8610]

Viva la vida reference? Lol😂

[@Assaut19283]

@@arthurbringel8610 lol you caught me

[@arthurbringel8610]

@@Assaut19283 hahaha

[@tomdonovan3774]

Joe, great episode! I’ve been wondering if you have any takes on the history of some more recent attitudes towards the papacy as seen in the SSPX and FSSP, especially in relation to what I see to be a growing trend in young Catholics who are beginning to reject the Novus Ordo mass. I know that the movement has roots in rejecting Vatican II, so maybe the episode would start there? I’d be interested in hearing a solid defense of Vatican II, aside from the more basic arguments against it (e.g. rejecting the current papacy goes against papal indefectibility, or the principle that the Church is one, holy, and Catholic/universal)

[@rodrigodepierola]

Man, you outdid yourself today. This was just ridiculously good.

[@robertkrog2429]

Thanks, Joe. That was truly useful. I wrote a short story touching on the subject of AI several years ago. It was published, but you won’t have heard of it, Thursday Morrow: the Self-Winding, Mechanical Man. Imagined a material analogue to every aspect of the mind, or at least had the designer in the story do that. I was never satisfied with exactly how I explained the feat and left it something if a mystery how it really happened the Morrow came aware. You just explained why. I appreciate. C. S. Lewis’s essay, Transposition, helped too. If ever I wrote a sequel or touch in the subject again, you’ll have been invaluable.

[@calledtorome]

Joe, this is extremely interesting. I’m amazed by your knowledge and understanding!

[@shamelesspopery]

Thank you! That's very kind.

[@Mr.Anglo1095]

Great work as always. Any chance of interaction with Militant Thomist? He puts out great content

[@brianzmek7272]

I 34:13 see 2 major issues with this line of argument. 1: Why can't or won't God give souls to simulated minds? 2: The existence demonstrated by Descartes Cognitio argument is possessed by any simulated mind with actual consciousness just the same as a mind oppressed by his demon.

[@ModernPapist]

I would love to talk about, just not alone. I have a Master's degree in Statistics and deal with AI professionally. If you are open for a collab to talk about it, I would love to.

[@williampeters9838]

Excellent video.

[@MillionthUsername]

There's a sci-fi movie called The Thirteenth Floor that explores this idea with a nice twist at the end.

[@ellenroehl6022]

Who created base reality? It's the same problem as with "we were created by aliens" theory. Who created the aliens? It just moves the question of creation back one step. It doesn't eliminate the question.

[@shamelesspopery]

Not only does it not solve the creation problem, but it points to the fact that base reality is created, not accidental (since the mirror realities are created).

[@tonyl3762]

Epistemology takes more attention but is fascinating.

[@jeneric]

Great video Joe... by the way do you have a shirt sponsor?? Cos its always on point.😊

[@shamelesspopery]

Thank you! That's very kind. 😅 But for real, shirt sponsors, hit me up!

[@donatoe78]

Materialism, if pushed to its full implication arrives at nihilism . Nietszche was deeply aware of this. Or it arrives at self contradiction. The problem is, our awareness is in fact limited and we are creatures with a vast blind spots. Psychologists have plenty of evidence of this fact. So these materialist philosophers are mostly taking from their asses. I respect scientists who acknowledge their own limitations and circumspect on their theories and opinions and stay in their own domain expertise .

[@BensWorkshop]

Excellent and well argued.

[@Klee99zeno]

John Searle didn't just invent the Chinese room thought experiment; he has also written many great books about consciousness. I think the best of these is "the Rediscovery of t he Mind."

[@nosuchthing8]

Searles argument is pointless. Its like saying that color can't be based on physical reality, because since electrons have no color (their color depends on their temperature) something else must be responsible for color.

[@Klee99zeno]

@@nosuchthing8 - Searle does not talk about the color of electrons. He says that consciousness is a first-person ontology, but this is not the same as giving a third person description of your brain events.

[@High_Goblin_King]

I love the insight that simulation theory admits design! "Hello simulated person, so we have something in common. We both can see that the universe is designed."

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

How did you determine this universe is designed? Please include the data (or at the very least cite the source of such data) that you analyzed and describe the methodologies you employed to reach such a conclusion.

[@michalinarus9497]

Another outstanding video Joe! Please make more videos about topics similar to this one. Maybe you could make an episode about the interaction between soul and the mind/consciousness etc. or about the claim made by some famous transhumanists that it will be possible in the future to 'map' the human brain and eventually transfer our consciousness to the 'machine' etc. It would be very interesting to hear what you think... P.S. Your episode about Pope Benedict XVI and Nietzsche is one of your best episodes. Thank you Joe for your work.

[@chryphex]

Another great episode as usual Joe! I agree with everything you said, but if I could play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I think the reason why simulation theory is more convincing to many atheists than the existence of God is is that a simulation can have a fallible creator; things we observe that seemingly disprove the existence of a perfect creator would not necessarily disprove the existence of an imperfect creator. Now, I think there are good responses to this argument, but I think it deserves to at least be acknowledged as a difference between how we have to interpret evidence for intelligent design.

[@JonathanAcierto]

I remember running into this "we're not real" philosophy back in college around 2002. At the time, the simulation part wasn't combined with this philosophy. I think combining them only happened with the popularity of the first Matrix movie. As for being just around the corner with machine consciousness, totally agree, machines will only be able to imitate it, but can't truly be conscious. We don't fully comprehend the neural complexity of the human mind. To even come close to truly imitating a human's neural network, you couldn't built a computer big enough or powerful enough.

[@nosuchthing8]

You have to demonstrate why we can't imitate consciousness. Push comes to shove we build an atom by atom working copy of someone's brain in the future.

[@nosuchthing8]

I have seen examples of people that have crunched the numbers. You might need to convert a planet into a giant computer to do a proper simulation of billions of people . Difficult, not impossible.

[@shamelesspopery]

@@nosuchthing8 We *can* imitate it, but we can't create it. Assuming that's what you meant, I think it's difficult to empirically debunk the (seemingly non-falsifiable) claim that we will someday and somehow be able to materially create consciousness. But I think a strong argument against it would be that if this claim were true, we would statistically be almost certainly in a simulation and not reality.

[@cindydeponti253]

Joe you're my favorite. I love this talk.

[@joshuacooley1417]

Basically it comes down to this... If we grant this incredibly unlikely implausible thing, then this other incredibly unlikely, implausible thing is probably also true.

[@MrGoodwell]

Even if materialism is true, there are a bunch of assumptions that need to be made. There need to be multiple realities; their reality needs to have enough energy to simulate our entire reality and simulating conscious minds needs to be practically feasible and not just theoretically feasible. So, it's still more likely that we are the base reality.

[@Carlos-M]

To be fair, that's the multiverse theory, not the simulation theory. The latter is often proposed by the same proponents of the former, but they are distinct. I will add that no one has OBSERVED alternative universes either despite many of the proponents claiming to be some sort of empiricists.

[@MrGoodwell]

Also, the piano of Theseus. 🤣

[@shamelesspopery]

Exactly!

[@NGAOPC]

The connection to ID thinking and creationism corresponds well in a sense to ID and creationism among theists in STEM (Jewish Christian Muslim et al); there’s some tendency towards ID and Creationism (not just the general belief in a God responsible for Creation for whom evolution, geological timescale etc might be among his ways), among engineers and less in say Biological sciences, as noted several times by Br. Guy Consolmagno, chief astronomer at the Vatican Observatory.

[@NGAOPC]

And at the same time Musk isn’t contradicting himself when he asked on Rogan that we vote AS IF our lives depended on it”.

[@KathleenHughes-gm3jx]

Joe, you are becoming the C.S. Lewis of this generation! The link between creation of life and creation of artificial consciousness is perennially explored in SF, and I love to read about it, but it is just part of the contemporary mythology. It's harder to accept genuinely brilliant people actually believing it, except insofar as it enables them to escape responsibility for their actions.

[@skydancer1867]

"smartest" shows Neil DeGrasse Tyson uhhh...

[@ChristianEncyclopaedia]

yeah, none of them are very smart..

[@wazzuptrey]

I thought the same thing when he mentioned Joe Rogan right before he said "...so many smart people..." Yeah, thats a stretch.

[@shamelesspopery]

I originally was going to say "some of the people regarded as..." but "regarded as" wouldn't have made sense for describing Joe Rogan as influential or Elon Musk as rich, since they objectively are. So that would leave it as just an apparent potshot against NDT, which felt snarky and unfair (he is quite smart on some topics, after all...).

[@robertrenato]

Materialists creep me out. There's something deeply unsettling about denying what indeed is a core part of us human beings.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

On introspection, I'm not certain we can infer that the base reality has to be designed. We can say that the base reality must feature consciousness, but under the premise that consciousness is an emergent property of entirely physical processes, that's not the same thing as saying the base reality had to be designed. One potentially troubling implication of that premise is not just that AI can in principle be conscious, but it's not actually clear to us that other configurations of matter *aren't* conscious as well. If the chemical processes between the neurons in my brain produce consciousness and the electrical processes in transistors can also produce consciousness, how do we know that the wind blowing the leaves on a tree isn't producing consciousness? How do we know that the tectonic activity within the earth isn't producing consciousness? We've already noticed the similarity in structure between neural networks and galactic clusters, how do we know that the universe as a whole isn't conscious? It seems to me that until the materialist has actually solved the hard philosophical problem of consciousness, they can't actually make the Bayesian argument that the way the universe is designed is more conducive to creating consciousness than any others. In this situation, the important thing is not that there exists consciousness that looks like us, just that there exists consciousness at all. If consciousness can potentially exist without looking like us, the design element of simulation theory seems to fall apart. Under the materialist theory of consciousness, it might be that consciousness can exist in any possible kind of universe. I'd worry that we are making too anthropocentric assumptions if we try to infer more than that.

[@dalejohnson2682]

The simulation theory maps onto the Mormon concept a little, with an unending line of Gods creating universes that generate new Gods that create more universes.

[@vonKobra]

I just find the entire concept that the simulation is perfect and undetectable by conscious beings inside of it despite being created by a limited material being ends the entire argument. Also simulation theory relies on consciousness being false and deterministic. I thought quantum uncertainty put determinism to bed for good.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Viewed from the top down technological progress actually seems weirdly slower than it should be, and our innovation rate is slowing down in all fields at the same time due to social/human capital reasons

[@qrplife]

The claim that MC is just on the horizon is really just a pitch to enable funding of their grift.

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

Prometheus indeed. The smarter they are, the dumber they are. God Bless you Joe Heschmeyer!

[@StephenGaffney-l4n]

We are in a simulation? Amazing how our programmer Came into his own simulation and allowed his virtual creation to nail him to a cross, thank you Lord Jesus Christ

[@MathAdam]

Is that shirt a bug or a feature?

[@MotherLovingChristian]

救命，我被困在中文房间里了。

[@shamelesspopery]

搞笑的 🤣

[@MotherLovingChristian]

@@shamelesspopery I don’t know the meaning of the word 😏

[@Onlyafool172]

The irrefutable flaw of a simulation argument is that, the people who make the simulation would face the same likeness to be in a simulation, its a infinite regress that implies absolute insanity

[@BiteTheHook]

The song at the end is bit crushed

[@nosuchthing8]

You make a mistake at 22:00. The main issue is that non supernatural arguments always take precident over supernatural arguments. If you hear a noise while sleeping, you rule out natural explanations (cat, something fell, etc) before you turn to supernatural arguments like a ghost. Same applies with a designed universe. If its simply a matter of time and tech, that is a more likely explanation.

[@shamelesspopery]

The idea that non supernatural arguments should always take precedence over supernatural arguments appears to be an irrational bias. What defense could you offer for this? After all, there are some extremely improbable naturalistic explanations (the noise in my house is a delegation of aliens who would like to negotiate with me). Why should I treat those as (prima facie) more probable than a supernatural explanation?

[@manub.3847]

If you follow these scientists, emotions are also just a physical reaction. How is it then that a single person reacts emotionally differently even in almost identical situations. Not to mention that different people react emotionally differently in the same situation. If we all only exist in a "virtual reality", shouldn't our emotions automatically be unified by analytical actions?

[@jakubratajczak9269]

If this is only a simulation, it sucks, because of all the suffering and death. What kind of game dev would create a game like that? Why we, characters from this game, aren’t immortal? Why don’t we respawn? No one in the base world would use this simulation. It wouldn’t sell.

[@davivman6009]

If materialism were true, that would mean that objective reality is defined by what a human being can directly or indirectly perceive which his senses. The assumption that there are no things that exist which cannot be measured/detected would require that human ability measure/detect different types of things is limitless. I think it is more likely that materialism isn’t true.

[@john-paulgies4313]

6:38 - "And he seduced them that dwell on the earth, for the signs which were given him to do in the sight of the beast: saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make the image of the beast which had the wound by the sword and lived. And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast: and that the image of the beast should speak: and should cause that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast should be slain." (Apoc. 13:14-15)

[@dennisblaul7228]

Neil doesn’t hold this. I would do more research then pushing misinformation ❤ he has a good argument against and it’s posted which showed me you didn’t do any research

[@killianmiller6107]

Anyone else think the outtro song sounded scuffed?

[@SimiSanctaInVia]

I always forget about the existential crisis that is atheism how do they cope 🫥

[@timcollett99]

What do you imagine as being difficult about not professing to know the fundamental nature of reality?

[@SimiSanctaInVia]

⁠@@timcollett99 it was extremely painful for me when I was more agnostic, I became highly afraid of death, and every single pain included added anxiety that I would die and disappear, obviously some atheists are content with the nothingness that they believe to be the afterlife, but like Joe said, even the simulation potential/idea leads to a creator, and I just think it’s a much more likely reality that God exists

[@tomasrocha6139]

"Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore, a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer. " Epicurus - Letter to Menoeceus

[@timcollett99]

@@SimiSanctaInVia Hmmm forgive me, but it sounds like your belief in a God is born out of your fear of death, and that you are now claiming God's existence as "more likely" as sort of a post hoc rationalisation. Why fear my inevitable non-existence? I didn't exist for 13.7 billion years prior to my birth, and it didn't bother me one bit!

[@SimiSanctaInVia]

@@timcollett99 No it wasn’t born out of my fear of death, my anxiety got a lot better after I stopped getting random chest pains a few years ago, this year I established my relationship with God and it’s been great

[@AmandaFessler]

A teenager in his garage won't hold you accountable for your sins.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

I haven't committed any sins.

[@starlightHT]

If we are just matter... we should all have the same sexual and food tastes... And all the same level of intelligence...

[@tookie36]

Do we personally have consciousness? Or are we consciousness being reflected in so called material states?

[@StanleyPinchak]

Base Reality = I Am

[@donatoe78]

If we are in simulation, then crimes, vice, virtues, the Justice system are meaningless. The only meaningful pursuit then is power or the power to engage the being above us and get that hooked until our simulation takes over that being and makes him think he’s a simulation?

[@danielhoven570]

The multiverse theory has always been the philosophical concession by its proponents that the sub-space of conceivable physical realities that ours inhabits is unreachable through ergodic processes. Simulation theory is a similar concession that consciousness cannot be defined within the matrix of neurobiology. In the case of physics, our current universe cannot be reproduced through probabilistic models unless the “N” mapped by those models is incomprehensibly larger than the N containing all known time, space, and matter. In the case of neurobiology, the argument of physicalism (which is really the old argument of scientism as re-casted by thinkers like E O Wilson and Dawkins) is a non-sequitur. It is the syllogistic equivalent of arguing that an electrical engineer studying a television will arrive at sufficient knowledge to understand the next movement in the Gulf War, which is being displayed in images on the television. In both cases an external reality is mapped to electromagnetic interactions within a known mechanism, and the logical leap is made that those interactions are themselves the reality being mapped thereby.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Read about Roko's basilisk

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

In the same way that simulation theory is just a design argument for atheists, Roko's basilisk is just the ontological argument for atheists.

[@LostArchivist]

Didn't Elon Musk recently mention something about believing in a Creator though? Or waa this a false report?

[@wms72]

A LOT OF SHALLOW NONSENSE: the idea that we are an unreal simulation

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Some people like digital cookies.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Whenever an atheist brings this up, I can't even take it seriously. Not for the sake of condescension, but because my immediate impression ia that they're being sarcastic and glib in order to dismiss metaphysics frivolously as a way to preempt scrutiny

[@davivman6009]

Even if the consciousness that humans experience were material in nature, AI will almost certainly never replicate it. AI and machine learning models are all algorithmic in design. We have no evidence that human consciousness is algorithmic in nature and thus no reason to believe that AI could replicate it.

[@andrewgunawan4502]

I don’t really follow how the designed simulated reality suggests that “base reality” is designed as well

[@crusaderACR]

A simulation is a mirror of base reality, with perhaps some twist. Every simulation tells you something about the thing simulated. If a designed simulation from what we can observe seems plausible, then the reality that it's attempting to simulate must share those traits.

[@timcollett99]

@@crusaderACR That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that a painting of a rock must have the exact property set of a rock, despite it being a deliberate attempt to emulate one.

[@shamelesspopery]

If simulation theory is true, then I think the following things follow: 1. The only traits we can know or suspect about base reality are ways in which it resembles our reality. (That is, just as you could draw an imperfect picture of a society by watching its fictional films, the most we can know about base reality is seemingly something like knowledge by analogy). 2. All of the traits of our (simulated) reality are designed, and thus, are consistent with being designed. 3. Therefore, every known or suspected attribute of base reality is also at least consistent with being designed. You're right that this doesn't prove design, but it does disprove every argument against design. If you have an argument X that you think disproves design, (4) that argument can't be true of our universe, and (5) since that's where we're drawing all of our knowledge about base reality, seemingly can't be true of base reality, either.

[@Calmage]

​@@shamelesspopery I don't see how you can assume point 1. I am not sure one can really make any assumptions about what a reality above ours would look like, except that base reality would have to have some sort of intelligent consciousness. 1 only follows if you believe our reality was purposely designed to be the way it is. What if our reality was not purposely designed, but rather emergent from the set of physical laws of our physical universe. In other words, some creator created a universe with physical laws like the nuclear forces and electromagnetic force, an initial state of our universe for time=0 (such as the big bang), and watched what happened. Imagine how widely different this universe would be if you changed the value of any of the forces, or even removed one - life as we know it would not even be comprehensible to us. Thus, I'm not sure you can say that a base reality would resemble ours in any meaningful way.

[@malcolmkirk3343]

"Base reality"? Who identifies what if this is at all identifiable as "base" how is the observer of "base reality" able to identify it as such? if, as it must be alleged, it is identifiable at all.

[@averh6347]

Us "Garbage" people think simulation theory is garbage in the true sense!

[@jamesmonahan9408]

They've been sniffing too much silicone.

[@nosuchthing8]

You make another mistake at 23:00. There are SOME things about the universe that would line up with a computer design, for example. If we were writing a game that simulated motion, you would have to track the speed. So for example a star is moving at 150,000 km per sec. We can use the floating point variable to store this speed in the x, y, z directions. But what happens if you keep accelerating? You could easily travel so fast that you overwhelm the variable, causing an overflow. Computer variables have limits. In theory the real world doesnt need limits. You could just keep moving faster and faster? How do you deal with this limitation in a program? Well you could introduce a rule in your 'game' that as you go faster and faster, you gain mass. It takes more and more energy to keep accelerating. And as you approach some limit, your mass approaches infinity. Lo and behold, we HAVE a speed limit. Its called the speed of light. If this reality was constructed by a deity we wouldnt expect such limits.

[@davethesid8960]

Then who created those running our simulation? - this would be my first question.

[@shamelesspopery]

Indeed.

[@josephhaddas5707]

Isn't this a rick and Morty episode??

[@ApostolicStorm]

The real problem which atheists don’t comprehend is that the Enemy is blinding them, keeping them in bondage to sins and repulsive to repentance. If only they’d humble themselves, then Jesus will ‘manifest’ to them. And scientifically it’s as simple as this: there cannot be everything or even something out of absolutely nothing. Art testifies of an artist, as creation testifies of the Creator who we know historically, archaeologically, and experientially is Christ.

[@marcondespaulo]

The quick answer I can come up is "Simulation Theory is unfalseable, as is God. Since God is an older ''theory', I will stick with the original." Also, if we are in a simulation, why do anything at all? That looks a bit nihilistic.

[@eucharistenjoyer]

Seeing how some atheists, both prominent and some close friends, took the idea of simulation (and, therefore, simulators) seriously but laughed at the idea of God as a designer was one of the things that flipped a switch in my atheist mind three years ago. It seemed hypocritical to say the least.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Are you asserting this 'God' designed the universe?

[@eucharistenjoyer]

​@@Theo_Skeptomai That's not what I'm asserting, even though that's what I know to be the truth. What I asserted was pretty clear: that it was hypocritical for atheists to swallow the simulation theory up (and hence a designed reality) while at the same time making fun of a reality designed by God. As an atheist back then, this , among other things, made me question whether atheists in general were really looking for truth or just excuses for their own atheism.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@eucharistenjoyer Are you asserting ALL atheists accept this simulation theory? Yes or no.

[@eucharistenjoyer]

@@Theo_Skeptomai No.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@eucharistenjoyer So, moving on. You stated that you know that this 'God' designed this unverse. Did this 'God' design every single phenomenon occurring within the universe? Yes or no.

[@mjul84]

This is precisely why I was never persuaded by simulation theory. As an atheist myself, I felt it was too much like theism for me to accept. I think it's cope.

[@shamelesspopery]

I agree that it seems to logically point to theism, but what would you say to the argument that simulation is the most likely state of affairs if physicalism is true?

[@mjul84]

@shamelesspopery Difficult to say off the cuff. I think there are too many assumptions made here that proponents gloss over. Why would someone simulate a perfect universe? How would they do it? What do they gain? What is our purpose? Which are the basic questions of philosophy that have been debated for millenia. Simplifying it to a "teenager in a basement" I think is disingenious and basically means: because they can; which tells me nothing of substance. I think it's not a logical conclusion of a naturalistic pov, because the hypothesis itself is meaningless. If I am in a perfect simulation, I might as well act like not being in one, since I could never tell a differnce anyway. And the simulation HAS to be perfect for this to work. Sort of a reverse Pascal's wager.

[@mjul84]

@shamelesspopery second attempt, first apparently got eaten by the youtube demons. Difficult to answer off the cuff. I think the premise itself is flawed. Proponents of the hypothesis are, in my opinion, jumping over several steps. Why was the simulation created? For what purpose? What is our role in it? These are of course basic questions debated by philosophers for milennia already. Boiling it down to a "teenager in a basement" is, is think disingenious. I don't think it is a logical reault of naturalism. If it is a perfect simulation, and it has to be a perfect one considering the state of the universe, then we will never realise we are in one. Therefore discussing it ia immaterial. Sort of a reverse Pascal's wager.

[@JohnFinch-i8e]

The simulation is in your mind

[@Calmage]

Hi Joe, love the show but I take some issues with this episode. I am not a philosopher, but I am a computer scientist and mathematician (and faithful catholic) who is very familiar with the simulation hypothesis and is something I've thought about a lot. Firstly, this episode seems to conflate belief in simulation theory implies one is an atheist / materialist / physicalist / etc., but as you point out, the theory is, fundamentally, a belief in a higher creator or creators. If we concede that we do not fully understand the mystery of the soul, nor the mystery of the mechanics behind how God created our universe, nor the mystery of the spiritual world that is heaven is, it seems like it is possible to both believe in the existence of the soul and simulation theory simultaneously. Secondly, I think your statement and arguments that base reality must be similar to our reality is fundamentally wrong. Its hard for me to approach this subject without knowing how deep your understanding of physics and computer science go, but I think it can most easily be refuted with concept of emergence. It seems like you are coming to your conclusion based deeply from a "design" perspective - that is, "I am a human, so I am going to create a universe with humanoid creatures doing humanoid things" similar to just about every video game ever. Instead, consider the idea of creating a universe with some basic physical properties and then observing the universe that emerges from those properties. For example, consider the game of life [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life], where from a few, simple, hard set rules and the variable placement of the original cells can emerge extremely complex patterns. In fact, so complex, you can program the game of life into the game of life itself and run the game of life within it that in no way resemble the original structure. Finally, you are ignoring the most important evidence for simulation hypothesis and that is the evidence we see in the physical universe. Just as in the classical era where recognizing the emergent geometric patterns in nature, such as in rocks and flowers, lead to an understanding of the Euclidian nature of the universe (and much later noticed in cellular structures or the structure of the atom) - in modern times, as our understanding of mathematics grew, we have begin to notice the mathematical nature of reality. In fact much of what we have discovered over the past 100 years was seen in mathematics before being observed in the physical universe. Likewise, as computer science is just a super set of mathematics, as we went deeper in trying to explain the universe mathematically, structures that we use in computer science begin to emerge. At this point, for me personally, it was hard not to consider the idea that the nature of our reality is analogous to a computer program created by God. I also feel like your ending is irresponsible or at least incomplete. You point out that some scientists, across vastly different fields and time spans, have made promises that "synthetic life is coming soon" so one should be skeptical of scientists. But this cuts both ways - theists, across vastly different religions, have been making many miraculous claims for 1000s of years. But I wouldn't apply the unfounded claims of Asatru as marks against the evidence for Christianity. And, although I don't think its unfair to hold science to a higher standard of evidence, it feels wrong to claim one should be skeptical of scientists generally because some have made unsubstantiated claims about creating synthetic life.

[@shamelesspopery]

My argument is that if physicalism (P) is true, then the simulation trilemma (Q) seemingly follows. By contraposition, then, if the simulation trilemma is false, it is seemingly so because physicalism is false. But I don't think that's inconsistent with the idea that Q might obtain under other conditions. It's true, I also make the point that Bostrom's theory of mind seems to take for granted a form of physicalism, but I think even if this was rebutted (or if simulation could be defended upon other grounds), it wouldn't answer the three core arguments I'm making: 1. If P, then Q; 2. Simulation is a form of design, so the odds of design are higher than the odds of Q; 3. If ~Q, ~P.

[@shamelesspopery]

On your second point, I don't want to commit to what (if anything) people in a simulation would be able to know or deduce or suspect about reality... except to say that all knowledge would be coming from the (designed) simulated world. So I think a cleaner form of my second argument would be this: 1. Any argument against base reality being designed would seemingly be an equally strong argument against the simulated world being designed. (There may be some rebuttal to this that I haven't thought of, but I can't imagine what it would be, if all of the knowledge underlying the argument is coming from the simulated world, and we have no direct knowledge of base reality). 2. But these arguments are false, as applied to the simulated world. 3. This doesn't prove that base reality is designed, but it does defeat all arguments against design.

[@shamelesspopery]

On your third point, it seems like you're looking at order and design and saying that this is evidence for simulation. But it's just evidence for design, and divine design is (in my view) an obviously superior explanation for design than simulation. All that I intend to argue for in the second of my three points in the video is that arguments against design are false, not that this necessarily proves design (much less divine design), so I don't make the arguments for divine design vis-a-vis design by an inferior intelligence. *Analogous to* a computer program may be true, but the language of analogy is doing a lot of work. A beautiful sunset is analogous to God as a painter with a canvas, but if I then concluded that the sunset was made of paint, I would be making an obvious logical error. As for the last part, I'm not saying "some scientists are wrong, therefore all scientists are wrong." I'm instead saying that since there have been many prior claims about synthetic life, and none of these have ever come true, then we should be more skeptical of claims about the possibility synthetic life. Similarly, given false reports of miracles, there is an appropriate level of skepticism there, too. (I wouldn't take the position, for instance, that we should lightly believe all miracle claims, and did an episode on that after the assassination attempt of President Trump, as well as an episode on the intellectual and scientific rigor behind miracle investigations). But unlike miracles (where several purported cases have passed scientific muster), *no* synthetic life cases have ever been verified. It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation of the failure of ANY claims of synthetic life to come true is that it's impossible, but I realize that claims about synthetic life are somewhat non-falsifiable, since they're rooted more in metaphysics than science.

[@Calmage]

@@shamelesspopery Joe, first of all, I just want to say how grateful I am for your reply. As a convert to Catholicism, these are the kind of topics that I've always wanted to explore but never knew anyone with both the Christian theological knowledge and knowledge of physics to meaningfully seek advice from, so I deeply appreciate the time you've taken to respond to myself and others. I use the word analogous only because I don't want to presume how God created our reality - but the mathematical nature of our physical universe does seem computational to me. Because computers are just electronic devices to do complex mathematics (mathematics that would be possible, but arduous to do long hand with a pencil and paper), it seems plausible to me that an all knowing and infinitely intelligent creator could compute, or "simulate", our reality in their "mind". I fully desire to be an orthodox Catholic, so I am fully open to being corrected if I am falling into heresy, but I guess my fundamental confusion is that, in my mind, I can't see a meaningful difference between "divine design" and "simulation created by what we would call God". Just as it is acceptable to both believe in the truth of genesis and the evidence for evolution, is it heterodoxical to believe in all the revealed truths we have of God, and that we could also exist in some form of a simulated reality?

[@CathNcamo2]

If your argument against intelligent design being self evident is to reducing the odds to rolling six but not knowing how many sides the dice are… maybe you didn’t realize that equals infinity which equals God. Now your back to intelligent design just like he said in the video of sim theory.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Intelligent design is NOT self-evident to me. I observe nothing in this universe that points to a design by this 'God'.

[@tookie36]

Advaita Vedanta ❤

[@LostArchivist]

Assuming they are sincere it seems to be the wage of the Enlightenment to place human reason as supreme and in rebelling against God being brought to a fundamental futility and foolishness that leads to loops of self refutation in the theory leaving only naked pride to prop it up. After all, God created human nature and reason we utilize and would know such implications to such thoughts and it seems both just in regards to God's own Divine Majesty being infringed upon, challenged, and rebelled against to lead such to futility. And it seems merciful as it is a bitter medicine to lead those living by such folly as the Enlightenment cult of reason sort of philosophy to return to the much deeper, richer, more profound truth of God by the very road they sought to get away from Him with, rather than let humanity drift infinitely and incomprehensibly farther and farther from God. Human reason when it attempts to crown itself on the Throne of God as absolute, sees its true limitations andu worthiness and unfittingness for such a position by its very attempt and so is brought down by its own nature and attempt to rebel in trying to use itself as a substitute for God. Thus leading man back to his own true place in the bosom of his Creator and Father. Only ruinec forever if he does not return to his Father, if and when he does return to God he is deeply shaken and greatly humbled but unharmed when he returns to Him. Thus it is that the best minds of several generations seeking a paradigm apart from God have been brought to futility in this effort save for creating another inadvertent argument for God. It is as our Lord Jesus Christ told Saint Faustina that whether they know or will it or not His creatures do His Will. That is to say, the depths of the abstract, heights of knowledge, and our very existence and that of all that was, is, shall be, and ever could be, all are in His grasp and so there is no escape from God either in the seen or the unseen. And we can only say, praise be to God for He is Love and does all He does, for our good without stopping us from truly being free as He made us. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

[@RyanSantos-cn5ij]

This people are heaving all the things that they want without struggles that their brains are bored enough to think about fantasies.

[@hynjus001]

Simulation theory is digital Mormonism

[@skydancer1867]

A great breakdown and refutation of simulation theory from another Catholic KZbinr: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGrGkoNjh9V7nKs

[@charlesanderson7214]

Thinking themselves wise, they became fools

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

To whom are you referring?

[@bigdog1106]

when the theory is boiled down...they do not want to go the church....

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Is there a reason for me to attend church (again)?

[@bigdog1106]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I do not know you. Yet, His sheep know our Lord's voice and come running to Him.

[@Easternromanfan]

Simulation hypothesis is just a cope to the fine tuning argument