• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).

    Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But how you’re describing ST isn’t incompatible with religion, only some religions. Nothing about religion itself says that the creators or some higher power need to be an active participant in the human experience.

      And how doesn’t simulation theory allow for the simulation creator/admin to interfere with the simulation? You don’t have scientific equipment recording data on everything, everywhere, for everyone, and people claim to see wild shit all the time. But even ignoring the wild shit, it could be as simple as tripping someone, moving their keys, giving them some disease or disorder, or any of a million things that we can’t accurately predict even when explicitly looking for it.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In this instance it doesn’t. But in this universe almost every industry using simulations run many different ones with different parameters. It doesn’t make sense to assume simulation theory with only a single simulation without interventions, because that assumes the simulator already knew that what the simulation would produce would fit what they wanted and that’s not a guarantee (just for information theory reasons alone!)

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure where you came up with the assumption that there is only one simulation. No one said or inferred that.