The philosopher, who coined the term "The hard problem of consciousness", sees a real statistical argument for the possibility of a god. It is the methodology Richard Carrier likes most. The science of probabilities via analysis.
quote:
WIRED
Mar 9, 2022
It's been said that the simulation hypothesis is the best argument we moderns have for the existence of a godlike being. Chalmers agrees: "...the simulation hypothesis has made me take the existence of a god more seriously than I ever had before
Is this "Scientific Creationism"?
Whaaaaaaaaaat
quote:
The simulation hypothesis is perhaps attractive to a wider culture because of its nature as a cosmic-scale conspiracy theory as well as an apparently scientific version of Creationism. The inconceivably advanced alien running its simulation of our universe is indistinguishable from traditional terrestrial ideas of God: an all-powerful being who designed everything we see. But is this god the god of deism (who sets up the laws of nature but then absents himself while creation runs its course), or a more interventionist figure? If the latter, it might make sense to court their favour.
The big idea: are we living in a simulation? | Philosophy books | The Guardian
Really?
quote:
The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs.[1][2] There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.
The simulation hypothesis, as formulated by Nick Bostrom,[3] is part of a long tradition of skeptical scenarios. It was presented by Bostrom as not merely a philosophical speculation, but an empirical claim with quantifiable probabilities. The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder who has called it pseudoscience and religion,[4] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[5][6] Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot device in many stories and films, such as The Matrix.[7]
....
Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "... we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that humans are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument as to which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."
As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."[11][14][15][16]
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia.
I always answered questions about evidence for God, by saying:
We have absolutely zero evidence, for God - none.
But we also have no evidence against.
It is totally 50-50.
I feel like I am being vindicated, when I see the most relevant scientific theory for our universe get squared into a 50-50 analysis.
I always said we did not know.
I knew I was right, all along.
(I should have known)
(I knew I did not know)
(I knew we did not know)
(I knew you did not know)
Now, stop telling me you know.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
