Moderator: Moderators
I agree.Yes the simulation theory potentially reconciles creation with evolution because we can be in a simulation (which includes evolution) that is in reality, created.
The idea does help me with understanding it from the ST perspective.It does, however, have limited usefulness to those of us inside the simulation. This reconciliation doesn't help us deal with our world in any way unless it helps us escape, which is probably impossible.
Agreed.What it does help us do is not regard something that apparently conflicts as automatically false, which imo we should be doing anyway - regarding all possibilities as true simultaneously - because that, I've found, helps to avoid bias.
I'm sure they can be if we make certain assumptions, but should they be?William wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 2:44 pm Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/
Q: Can these separate theories be reconciled?
Should the 'certain assumptions' be made? Hard to say, without being notified as to what these are.I'm sure they can be if we make certain assumptions, but should they be?
I am not sure as to why that would matter. Perhaps if you were to explain what you mean by that...ST strikes me as a far more specific theory than Gen 1, so reconciling them would arguably reduce the semantic range of the latter.
Or - "biblical theory" already set off on that path which is why it evolved into something which was unable to reconcile CT with ET or ST.This could set us off on the wrong foot in understanding it (or biblical theory more generally).
I don't think so. It's incredibly unlikely that we're real people and much more likely that we're just part of the simulation. If we are real people perhaps there's a rescue option.
No, the question was more whether we should reconcile these theories. i.e., we probably can, but should we?William wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:02 pm [Replying to theophile in post #4]
Should the 'certain assumptions' be made? Hard to say, without being notified as to what these are.I'm sure they can be if we make certain assumptions, but should they be?
For ST to be reconciled with Genesis 1 we'd have to close down a lot of open questions that lurk within it, and that are pretty explicit in ST (back to my 'certain assumptions' point...) e.g., ST clearly assumes that this world, as a simulation, was created within certain constraints decided by God. That God sets the parameters, so to speak, versus a world with undefined parameters, and that is a lot more open-ended (for God included). Not to mention two worlds versus a single world we all find ourselves in...
ST may be an evolution of CT, but is it an advancement? Not so sure about that one.
I'm sure they can be if we make certain assumptions, but should they be?Should the 'certain assumptions' be made? Hard to say, without being notified as to what these are.
Yes - I think so. I think if the theories can possibly be reconciled, then it would be remiss of us not to at least, attempt do so.No, the question was more whether we should reconcile these theories. i.e., we probably can, but should we?
There does not appear to be any kind of restraint set by The Creator of the simulation, other than what is already found by those within it.For ST to be reconciled with Genesis 1 we'd have to close down a lot of open questions that lurk within it, and that are pretty explicit in ST (back to my 'certain assumptions' point...) e.g., ST clearly assumes that this world, as a simulation, was created within certain constraints decided by God. That God sets the parameters, so to speak, versus a world with undefined parameters, and that is a lot more open-ended (for God included). Not to mention two worlds versus a single world we all find ourselves in...
We can wrangle about that, as we continue this conversation...Neither of those concepts specific to ST are explicit in Genesis 1, and so assuming them starts to narrow our interpretation and take us down a path that has real implications that may not be warranted... (e.g., if God set the constraints, then theodicy becomes much more of an issue, right?
It would matter in the same way that Gamers move their Characters/Avatars through the gameplay in the hopes of levelling up - to play the next level...something many who support CT already believe is what occurs...this simulation should 'matter' to the Game-Piece [us having the human experience] as our personality grows - hopefully...Also, if there is a real world behind our simulated world, then what does this life matter?...)
Q: Can we figure out what the nature of the game might be, if it is not to find a way to escape?
What I am asking is why you think an escape is necessary, given I pointed out that we were not within this simulation for very long, since our Avatars eventually die.I don't think so. It's incredibly unlikely that we're real people and much more likely that we're just part of the simulation. If we are real people perhaps there's a rescue option.
Yes, but. In the process there needs to be a pruning. Not everything from all theories should make the cut before they are reconciled into some sort of unified field theory.William wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 5:51 pm [Replying to theophile in post #7]
Reader Reference.
ST = Simulation Theory
ET = Evolution Theory
CT = Genesis One.
I'm sure they can be if we make certain assumptions, but should they be?Should the 'certain assumptions' be made? Hard to say, without being notified as to what these are.Yes - I think so. I think if the theories can possibly be reconciled, then it would be remiss of us not to at least, attempt do so.No, the question was more whether we should reconcile these theories. i.e., we probably can, but should we?
If any theories can be reconciled - such as reconciling Quantum Mechanics with Relativity - attempts should be made to do so, rather than do nothing, or worse - to actively work against such.
In ST the Creator designs the simulation, right? And somehow has the power to bring it into being? i.e., it assumes God has the computational power to unilaterally execute God's designs, and create new, simulated worlds that we live and play within? That's how I see it anyways, and it means God sits outside our world in another world entirely, which is not quite what I see happening in CT...William wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 5:51 pmThere does not appear to be any kind of restraint set by The Creator of the simulation, other than what is already found by those within it.For ST to be reconciled with Genesis 1 we'd have to close down a lot of open questions that lurk within it, and that are pretty explicit in ST (back to my 'certain assumptions' point...) e.g., ST clearly assumes that this world, as a simulation, was created within certain constraints decided by God. That God sets the parameters, so to speak, versus a world with undefined parameters, and that is a lot more open-ended (for God included). Not to mention two worlds versus a single world we all find ourselves in...
Parameters are already set and are what make this particular simulation able to be experienced as it is.
The 'two worlds' are already within the storyline of CT in that the "Us" existed already, and created the simulation which "we all find ourselves in"...
), there is just one world, and God (spirit) is in that world creating with the other things in that world whether simulated or not. So God simulates things, sure, but in such a way that God provides the basic design (and perhaps the beginnings of a codebase) but that other beings-in-the-world need to provide the 'computational' power to execute... (because God - as spirit - is essentially powerless. Pace more traditional CT / theology...).Sure. I would say ET fits nicely into CT because CT portrays a pre-existing, chaotic material world that God (spirit) creates with. And ET ties nicely to this explicit Genesis 1 concept, i.e., tehom / the deep.
I think that life whether in a simulated or real world is still life, and can have meaning as such (which is what I take to be your drift here). But how do we know how to level up in ST? What's the objective of the game? I know it's clear in a video game, but this simulation is anything but, right? It has an inscrutable objective and as such may as well have none. At least so far as I can see...William wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 5:51 pmIt would matter in the same way that Gamers move their Characters/Avatars through the gameplay in the hopes of levelling up - to play the next level...something many who support CT already believe is what occurs...this simulation should 'matter' to the Game-Piece [us having the human experience] as our personality grows - hopefully...Also, if there is a real world behind our simulated world, then what does this life matter?...)
Imagine being a Gameplayer of this simulation, who's Character/Avatar believed this life didn't matter, and having to find out ways and means of transmitting information which would change that Avatars outlook to something more aligned with the overall Game-Play...Games on at least those two related levels...
