Simulation Theory Is Sci Fi Theism For Atheists

[Anonymous No.14544920]

https://youtu.be/WT7q36ENzns
I hate a bunch of you, but some of you are nice and helped me with this and other things, so I'm paying it forward with something new for everyone to shit on.
"We" need to focus on the algorithmic fine tuning that's going on which is collapsing the waveform of human free will as we speak, and talking about simulation theory detracts from that.

[Anonymous No.14544926]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NXj1og0SYo

[Anonymous No.14544928]

If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.

https://www.jetpress.org/volume7/simulation.pdf

[Anonymous No.14544931]

One argument against the simulation hypothesis is that the reality we live in isn't a utopia. If the creators of the simulation are utilitarians, there's no reason they would create a reality that sucks as much as this one.

http://magnusvinding.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-simulation-hypothesis-is-almost.html

>As a general matter, speculations about a world beyond, or behind, our own are bound to be highly speculative. Because, first, we do not know whether such a world exists, and, second, even if it does, many things we know from the world we observe cannot necessarily be applied to say anything about other worlds. This is one reason to seriously doubt the simulation hypothesis: it rests on the assumption that the world in which the simulation is supposed to take place is much like our own, and given the vast space of possible simulations, this seems fantastically unlikely. So, strangely, if we accept the hypothesis that we are living in a simulation, the purported basis of the simulation hypothesis itself seems of questionable validity, and that is rarely a good sign for a hypothesis – when it seems to pull the rug under its own feet.

>There are better reasons to doubt that we should be living in a simulation, though. For the simulation hypothesis also rests upon the assumption that we will one day be running realistic simulations of our past. Yet just how likely is it that we, ourselves and our descendants, will run such functional, conscious copies of our own past? This is finally a question that does not borderline on the extremely esoteric, as it relates directly, and exclusively, to the world we know and can know, and we should therefore – unlike when it comes to answering the question about whether a world wherein our world is simulated would resemble our world the slightest – at least be able to provide some sort of hint as to what the answer to this question might be.

[Anonymous No.14544983]

>>14544928
>you should care less about others,
Nah, not an atheist
My life is valuable "because" I have people that are more important to me than me.
By the same sim theory logic, nothing matters and I should just kill myself

[Anonymous No.14544985]

>>14544920
>>14544928
>>14544931
Wouldn't even work without the theological framework of quantorelativistic metaphysics btw

[Anonymous No.14544992]

>>14544985
I'll say yes while pretending I didn't just google quanto/quantum relativistic metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14545004]

>>14544992
It's just spacetime and quantum nonsense about nondeterminism. They can't rule out the simulation hypothesis even on principle because once you allow reality to be n-dimensional and multiple worlds it's a free for all for all sorts of quackery, like the simulation hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.14545008]

>>14545004
I hate that stuff so much. We should be on Mars by now.