Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidarh | Hacker News Reader

As an atheist, the simulation argument, or variants about it, is the closest I've come to considering the belief in a "god". I still stick by my atheism on the basis that I don't feel someone simulating us would really meet what we think of as a deity, and in that sense it has even made me see a "god" as less likely, because I'd consider it more likely that if there were to be anything outside our universe it's just more layers of computation, and entities whose power - if any - would be more likely to just be linked to control of a device (the simulator), not inherent to themselves.

View on HN

Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in!

To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set of criteria to live by, best expressed in the Beatitudes.

If pressed I am probably more engaged by an agnostic understanding of the Abrahamic religions, but I can’t help to feel the overwhelming truth, love and warmth of all of existence radiate from the verses of the Bible, Old and New.

My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, to see the same love and energy in the multitudes of practice and expression, like the light in the center of a lamp, throwing subtlety different shadows on the walls from the inconsistencies in the making of the glass panes by human hands.

Perhaps with time the Simulationists will end up with their own window into the glory of our existence! I will welcome such a transformation with open arms.

I want to follow in Christ’s footsteps because it would make me a better person, no matter the fact that the struggle will never end. With God’s grace I am at least given the chance to try, fail and be forgiven for the limits of my human nature.

The emphasis should be on the practice of humility, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. The particular expression is in the realm of mere mortals and is as beautiful as any other artistic creation.

I expect downvotes, but that’s OK. Father, forgive them; they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

;)

A "Simulationist" who believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite no evidence is just holding yet another religious belief.

I see it as a possibility, but a possibility without evidence remains an interesting, untested hypothesis that might be grounds for speculation, not belief.

What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though? Or does a different standard apply to certain claims, like cultural axioms?

No, no, no.

I don't have to prove your claim to be wrong. YOU have to prove your claim to be right.

You are making extraordinary claims that is at odd with everyday observable lives we live in.

If you claims someone was walking on water, its not my job to prove you wrong!

I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting!

I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof, are certain claims off limits to challenge for some reason, and can that reason be shared publicly?

> I would very much like to hear the details of these claims I am making, they sound quite exciting!

Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity.

You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?"

Me: "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not"

> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof

The OP made no claims. An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.

Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776

> Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity.

> You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?"

If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof:

1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?]

I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"?

2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity

Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim.

As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s...

3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not"

a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front).

b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?)

>> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof

> The OP made no claims.

Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims).

> An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.

While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n...

>>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance....

In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions).

But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale.

tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!

You're misinterpreting what I wrote, so let's break it down.

1. If our hypothetical Simulationist believes we are certain to be in a simulation despite the hypothetical Simulationist having seen no evidence, then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief.

2. If they expect me to consider their belief as anything but a religious belief, then it rests on them to present the evidence they have seen. They're free not to, and I'm free to dismiss their unsupported hypothesis.

It's not my job to search for evidence for a claim made by someone else if I don't find it compelling.

"No evidence" did not suggest no evidence can and/or does exist somewhere, someplace, but that I have not seen any. My assertion that I have not seen any is all the evidence that is needed for the claim that I have not seen any.

But like Russel's Teapot, if someone claims to know that we are in a simulation, that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof lies squarely on them.

> You're misinterpreting what I wrote

Seems more like I interpreted what you wrote literally rather than ideologically (colloquially, as is current enforced fashion)...seems a bit unfair that religious people can't pull a similar trick and say scripture is metaphorical and nullify all criticism.

Ok, so let's consider "then it is my opinion they are just holding another religious belief":

For clarity: do you believe that it is necessarily true that there is no evidence for a God?

Is there some important meaning contained in "just holding another religious belief"? It seems like a phrase that is conclusive about something in some way (the "just" accentuating it, at least to my interpretation).

Does personal witness count as evidence for people who believe themselves to have witnessed evidence, and if not why not (I'm getting at what seems like at least somewhat of a double standard, and there's the thorny issue of difficulty of proof of existence vs disproof in play[1]...among other things, some in your favor, and some a derivative of temporal cultural norms of cognition).

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/black-swan-event

> My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions,

I don’t know much about Jesuits. Is this common in their beliefs or are you just mentioning that you yourself came to these conclusions? Just curious for my own sake.

It is common enough that it came out of the mouth of a priest during a theology lecture!

Edit: It is still astonishing to me that they let these hippies into the papacy!

PESRONAL OPINION AND EXPERIENCE:

I was SO LUCKY, growing up Irish-American Catholic, that I had so many local parish Priests that were Jesuits. THEY ECOURAGED QUESTIONING FAITH. Open Q&A, without saying a dogmatic response - sparking discussion instead.

These cats allowed myself and my peers the latitude to poke holes in all of it, pontificate (apologies on the pun) on our personal viewpoints and challenge any conflicts in Dogma or texts.

Jesuits help combine the scientific reality of our experience with the mystical / religious in a non-judgmental way (IMHO). Pretty powerful and not as evangelical as they may have been as an order in the past.

Wow you just unlocked a weird memory. Back when I was in High School Jesuits actually taught me the principles of microeconomics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com