Reminder, since the matrix is trending again, that simulationism is the creationist's watchmaker repackaged for people who think they are too clever to be creationists

@ackthrice Now that you mention it, it's pretty similar to solipsism isn't it? What makes you think they'd waste cpu cycles on your internal monologue?

@ackthrice But it is funny how quick they shut up when you say "Roko's Basilisk".

OCR Output (chars: 192) 

Quite a lot of this article will
make more sense if you
mentally replace the words
"artificial intelligence" with the
word "God", and "acausal trade"

with "prayer".

@ackthrice I agree there's an interesting relationship between these ideas but I don't think it's as simple as that. For example, a competent simulator wouldn't want to be mistakable for a creator --- unless they want people to know they're being simulated, there should be as few signs of it as possible, up to the point of there being plausible in-world mechanisms for life, etc arising. This makes them pretty unappealing as a watchmaker, compared to the usually-imagined creators.

@lukesci The point is not whether the watchmaker wants you to know they made the watch, the point is that the complexity of the watch requires a maker which is what both ideas fundamentally rely on

@ackthrice I don't think the simulation argument does require that - indeed, as usually presented, it's consistent with there being a non-simulated reality (sans watchmaker) at the root of it all.
In fact, this points out a weakness with the traditional watchmaker argument: if the watch requires a watchmaker, why doesn't the watchmaker require a watchmakermaker?

@lukesci Either its watchmakers all the way down or the simulation is irrelevant. But basically my original point was its just another unfalsifiable idea about the origins of our reality, that relies on stuff way outside the realm of (our current perception of) possibility for us to explain how we exist, and that doesnt actually make provable predictions about our reality.

@ackthrice I agree that it's basically unfalsifiable and doesn't impact any decision I can think of. Even if you assume the simulators are simulating their own past, the range of possible motivations they could have allows rationalizing almost any potential observation we make. It's basically of philosophical interest only.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Tabletop Social

We are an inclusive Mastodon community for everything tabletop (and more).