Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

[Sparko]

Science can't really opine much on the topic of what initiated the big bang. It wouldn't imply any scientific findings were wrong to discover it had been initiated inside a computer.

OK.

You're confusing time within the simulation with time outside it. Simulations can be fast-fowarded trivially easily from the point of view of the programmer.

No, that is exactly what I was saying. The "billions" of years could have just been either simulated in fast forward, or even easier, just planted in an finished simulation. Basically "Last Thursdayism" - either way it means everything science relies on is merely simulated. Your reliance on science to know the truth of the universe is as false as you claim theism is.

Could be. Again, absolutely nothing else they believe would be correct though. Claiming victory when 99.99% of your religion turns out to be wrong would be absurd. To some extent this is why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, because even if some of these ideas turned out to be correct, the religious people would still be wrong about everything else their religions teach.

I wasn't claiming victory. Just pointing out that if we are in a simulation, then a theists basic belief that everything we see was created by a "god" or intelligence is actually more correct than a non-theist who believes everything just happened naturally without a cause.

[Tassman]

I wasn't claiming victory. Just pointing out that if we are in a simulation, then a theists basic belief that everything we see was created by a "god" or intelligence is actually more correct than a non-theist who believes everything just happened naturally without a cause.

There is a significant difference between arguing that a simulated universe was made by our future, more technically-advanced selves and arguing that a creator-god did-it.

[seer]

Why obsessively try to reinterpret my view through the lens of your interpretation of Berkeley's view?

I merely pointed to the vague category of this type of view, I didn't say I held to everything Berkeley ever believed, and I especially didn't say I held to your interpretation of it and your interpretation of the consequences of it.

Perhaps you would find it less upsetting if I said I held the 'brain in a vat' / 'we're in The Matrix' view?

Except Berkeley's view totally depends on God, and that is not my interpretation, it is what he claims. But I grant that you probably did not know that. So back to my question - since you claim to be an idealist, which form of idealism do you hold to?

[Sparko]

simulation1.jpg

simulation2.jpg

[Tassman]

]

Actually, there is a significant probability that we are living in computer simulation.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

[Machinist]

It is what the “brain” does via its billions of nerve cells. Thoughts about London are grounded in the demonstrable fact of the bricks ‘n mortar city of London existing and indeed constructed by the thoughts and planning of preceding generations.

We can also have thoughts and imaginations of fictional cities by drawing upon memories of what bricks and mortar are, and memories of what streets look like, and what sidewalks look like, and bridges and lights and the noises of hustling and bustling and horns beeping and sirens and trains off in the distance, remembering the aroma of coffee wafting down the quaint alley way to our favorite tucked away and quaint hole in the wall coffee shop that makes us feel so nostalgic and safe.

[Sparko]

Actually, there is a significant probability that we are living in computer simulation.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

Tassman, always late to the conversation.

[seer]

Actually, there is a significant probability that we are living in computer simulation.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

So the theory of evolution is likely untrue...

[Stoic]

So the theory of evolution is likely untrue...

Depending on how long the simulation has been running...

And assuming that "it is in principle possible to implement a human mind on a sufficiently fast computer."

[seer]

Depending on how long the simulation has been running...

And assuming that "it is in principle possible to implement a human mind on a sufficiently fast computer."

But it wouldn't be natural evolution as we understand it. That was all a big fake...

[Stoic]

But it wouldn't be natural evolution as we understand it. That was all a big fake...

If it's all a simulation, then everything is a big fake. It's basically the same as the brain in a vat scenario.

Even if I concluded that there is a high probability that we live in a simulation, I don't see how that would have any practical effect on how I choose to live my life.

[seer]

If it's all a simulation, then everything is a big fake. It's basically the same as the brain in a vat scenario.

Even if I concluded that there is a high probability that we live in a simulation, I don't see how that would have any practical effect on how I choose to live my life.

Maybe not, but it would mean that our creators are devious...

[Stoic]

Maybe not, but it would mean that our creators are devious...

Not necessarily. The simulation could have started with the Big Bang, for example.

[seer]

Not necessarily. The simulation could have started with the Big Bang, for example.

I don't get that - a physical big bang? A physical, actual evolution process?

[Stoic]

I don't get that - a physical big bang? A physical, actual evolution process?

No, I'm saying that what we know as the Big Bang could have been the start of the simulation.

Whoever is running the simulation may not care (or even know) about us. So nothing devious about them.