Can science and religion meet with Simulation Hypothesis?

a reply to: Archivalist

For the foreseeable i imagine.

If you make the claim then the burden of proof is your own obligation.

That's just how we roll around these here parts.

As to senses just 5 that i am aware of mate.

a reply to: daskakik

The difference is betwixt the ( possibly ) religious belief-systems like Science™ and Christianity™, and everyday science and Christianity.

Science™ is Big-Science™, and all of the institutions, corporations, NGOs, Governments™, etc... that it has taken-over, and controls to do it's biding today.

EX : Pfizer™ and Moderna™ are commonly called science companies, when any analysis shows they are predatory corporations, like the vast majority of corporations.
Anybody still referring to them as science companies sends-up a red-flag.

Is a supposedly scientific experiment, where the procedures are pre-geared towards a specific result : still science ?

For me : it has then prostituted itself already, and will refer to it as Science™.
And any one who believes in it, and defends it, is in my opinion, religious.
Because they either believe in it for no objective reason, or they pretend to believe in it for a potential advantage of some kind.

The term " Settled-Science™ " would also be a belief, as the scientific-method is always ready to integrate new info, and make adjustments if new info comes-along.

Scientism™ is one of the names for this belief-system, that is not in the realm of " real " science.

In a similar way : Christianity™ differs from Christianity.

So here we are wondering which aspects of those, are possibly able to reach some common-ground surrounding Simulation-Theory.

Or for a fervent believer : Simulation-Theory™ ... LoL !!!

a reply to: Nothin
Science™ doesn't ask you to deny any gods either, both Christianity and Christianity™ do and that is why they are not the same, with or without the ™.

a reply to: daskakik

Agreed that both Christianity and Christianity™ may ask, or demand the denial of other potentially stronger belief-systems.
( Not withstanding whatever nonsense they are up-to these days. With the ' Rapprochements™ ' with other Faiths™, and faiths. )

Will offer that the scientific-method stands on it's own, and needs no defending. ( At it's most basic. )
But Science™ : does require defending.

a reply to: andy06shake

No, no - you forget: "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"

a reply to: Nothin
I'm not opposed to the distinction you made between Science and Science™ but even split, neither is really religious in nature, even if one needs defending.

My point, of course, was against the calling of Science™ religious when there is nothing religious about it, unless an individual chooses to act that way about it.

If you think about it those all in with Science would probably be the ones talking about there being no proof of a simulated reality while some down with Science™ would probably be more open to it.

Science is a religion based on knowledge; religion is a science based on faith. And both are based on ignorance.

Both are faith-based to a great degree. People downplay the fact of faith in science, but without faith, science would crumble. Most of us cant prove in our mind that the world is round or that atoms exist, yet we almost automatically( because science says so) accept those postulations. That’s called faith.

Nor do we know medical procedures like vaccines and medicine work, yet we take them on faith.

We go to a stranger, a doctor, and on faith, trust them. Again, that’s called faith.

Religion has many postulates but has an element of time in its philosophy, so some of its claims can’t be proven until a specific period of time. But some of its moral teachings are very scientific and based on empirical knowledge.

They’re based on ignorance since both claim to fill a vacuum of our own state of not knowing.

a reply to: peaceinoutz
Not every act of faith makes something a religion.

I climb a ladder having faith it will not slide out from under me or that a rung will not break, that doesn't make it a religion.

This is the type of logic religious folk use to try to point the finger at someone asking for proof and say you are the same as me. It might be in some cherry picked examples but not generally.

Also, it isn't the same type of faith. I shouldn't need to explain that.

ETA: I guess I kinda did explain it with the ladder example.

a reply to: daskakik

You're right. I didn't try to say it's faith in science that makes it a religion. It has differences from traditional religion, of course. But it amounts to a secular religion. It even has rituals like a religion, such as saluting the flag.

I'm not pushing religion, BTW, just trying to point out the similarities of faith and science and that faith is intrinsic in life on a philosophical level.

I've always been puzzled by scientists that castigate religion and don't realize that the prevalent religiosity in humans should in itself be a subject for scientific curiosity.

Religion like science is only a means to an end. The scientists and religionists both often forget that.

a reply to: peaceinoutz
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you again.

First off I have never read a science book that said I have to salute a flag.

Now, take someone who ritualistically has breakfast exactly the same way every morning, we can call that a ritual but it doesn't make it a religion. There isn't necessarily any faith involved in something like that, just a habit.

Seems to me you are focusing on things that they might have in common but totally disregarding the major differences. Religion, science and a morning routine might have some similarities but they are not the same.

a reply to: daskakik

You know, saluting the flag and standing at attention in the classroom is a secular ritual. Graduations are secular ritual-like events the Hippocratic oat also is a ritual.
And again, science is a worldview-religious like philosophy
So is secular communism, which is also religious-like.
Not all political movements, wokism, conservativism, liberalism, aren't IMO religious-like, as some people do believe. I won't go that far
But science as a worldview is on another to some, not all.
No one said they were the same thing just that science is faith-like and the philosophical basis of a secular defacto religion.
Not all science adhering people are members of that religion, as we see in the anti-vax phenomenon.


But, we can disagree no problem.

a reply to: Nothin

In my opinion, science is most often considered a "religion" by people who don't have a fundamental understanding of science. The distinction should be made with the application of a base scientific method and as such, the people who label it as religion have failed in applying the scientific method as the distinguishing factor.

Science is open in that it allows for eventual correction and addition.
Religion is closed in that it is absolute and final.

I think some thought of simulation as theory of existence stems from the terminology of Alpha, Beta, etc. found in society like software or OS versions having 1.0 and 2.0 etc. seeing how there is unconscious dialog and a lot of it since the computer age entering mainstream out of a subculture that was more accepting of it; I suppose it was inevitable that it would eventually become cause for a theorem.

Oh no these aren't glasses these are eyes 2.0

Oh no it's not smoking it is an E-cigarette analog is stinky and gross...

Picking apart the narrative that has entered the consciousness sub-consciously to it's source(got code?) then the theorem is just tossed into the arena/hat as just another possibility.

What is nice however? It is a modern day take on how such phenomena arises among the masses; over course it is just a futable/irrefutable as any other making it have it's place in debatable form as all the others that have come before it or that come after it.

Perhaps it wasn't engineered with intention; but arose out of exposure and the effect of which without a finger in the origin gave rise to a viable theory to help it make it's own sense out of whatever did not previously in those lacking a basis or platform that didn't quite fit or work for them in the classical sense, affording or allowing a stage for such people that such a thing makes absolute sense; is not something that should be denied in an open society or one not closed minded in informational exchange of a beneficial nature, even when the exchange could be seen as negative? Such instances when looked at are valuable as the gaining or garnering of wisdom.

Such a stance in the classical sense would be called the devils advocate; but not taking any stance and willing to hear both out is the very forum called mediation and seeing the value and validity from all views and the points that they bring to the table; just as one miss throws a dart allows some adjustment so the next throw is better, of course hilarity is bound to occur when one over corrects and the throw is even worse as subconsciously, it was already corrected before trying to "think" correction to it.

I noticed an article saying there was a re-cent goal to inject "intelligent design" purposefully into the mainstream narrative which is virtually the same thing as "creationism" and then to purposefully ad-homonym as a sort of "Beta" test. What the goal is for such a thing is likely to garner statistics of various sorts of the populous, to see if changing the name changes their opinion or stance on what one refuses any new information on and seeks out only information that validates their position the strengthen their attacks when feeling attacked for holding whatever view they may have.

Sounds absolutely futile and silly a thing imho... like oh no this gun caliber isn't good eventually needing more and more caliber more and more steel to the point it cannot even be lifted or fired without breaking ones arm if it were even managed but whatever.

Perhaps the OP was just sort of this seeding...

Not interested in perpetuating the rowing around in circles; much like the Jews got tired of wandering around on that light in the sky will descend from the heavens and take you to heaven if you follow it long enough?

At some point one has to throw up their arms and say I've been had! Good luck everyone I'm out.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Changes result from new scientific observations and experimentation that allow us to glean better data which when refined then go on to produce new theories and/or supplant current theories.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
Not all political movements, wokism, conservativism, liberalism, aren't IMO religious-like, as some people do believe. I won't go that far

Really? Conservatives were not the ones making a big deal out of people not standing for the national anthem at sporting events or the ones asking for prayer to be allowed in schools?

We can agree to disagree but you definitely showed your bias with this post.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Archivalist

For the foreseeable i imagine.

If you make the claim then the burden of proof is your own obligation.

That's just how we roll around these here parts.

As to senses just 5 that i am aware of mate.

Andy06shake and Archivalist,

Heres something to tweek your curiosity.

www.sensorytrust.org.uk...

bigthink.com...

a reply to: Skyfox81

Looking at the links in the OP, is this simulation belief mainstream?

If this world is a simulation, then what is it simulating?

WIKI says an example of simulation is a fire drill.

From a religious perspective, then one might draw a conclusion the world and its suffering nature is a simulation of Hell, and its pressure and joy elements a simulation of Paradise


What does the scientific theory of simulation think the world is a simulation of?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

That's essentially what the Gnostics say, the world being hell that is.

Or at least a poor facsimile of something else.