/sci/ - Science & Math

Is the simulation postulate a threat to the theory of common descent, to materialism because it’s suggests that the world is illusory?

Do atheists reject the simulation idea because it’s necessitates an intelligent programmer?

>>9646014
>How would changing shape via different chemicals cause different angles and aspects of reality to come to light?
The trick is they cause the *belief* reality is "coming to light," along with your behavior around that notion. They don't literally conjure up non-physical visuals to present to you even though we tend to very strongly believe something like that is what happens when we "see" something.
Aside from that sort of conjuring not making any sense when scrutinized, it would also fall victim to the interaction problem (if there's some new non-physical thing we need to start accounting for then how does it interact with the physical stuff we're already familiar with, and why have there been zero cases total in the history of formal physics where some impact on physical material was identified as caused by this alleged non-physical stuff?) and to the cartesian theater / infinite regress problem (if visual stimuli causes literal visuals to be presented, then it raises the question of how the thing viewing those visuals in your head is able to see them, which raises the question of how the thing viewing *those* visuals inside the first thing's head is viewing them, etc).
Everything starts making shitload more sense once you make the leap that nothing is literally being presented to you and the brain mostly just deals in beliefs and behavior (and physiology which I have to mention so some smartass doesn't show up and try to gotcha me about shit like increased blood pressure in response to "pain" stimuli).