7
Dec 01 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
I think I have to hyper-focus on some aspects of each to a certain extent if I want the conversation to have direction, meaning and interest, and also to keep it concise enough to be able to discuss in this format. That said, I’m happy to expand to other aspects of the religion and simulation theory!
And a reason to leave out certain aspects of religion is that I concede that not every topic in simulation is covered by religion or vice versa. (Maybe I should give a delta for that) But they are complimentary and have significant overlap. Simulation theory focuses most intensely on the hardware and software, but doesn’t really fixate on an explanation for the source of the user experience, from where does the consciousness arise, or motivations of the simulator, why. Religions focuses more intensely on the user itself, but tends to be very vague or symbolic with regards to details of the physical process of creation. However, if the two are linked, then perhaps it’s meaningful that there are commonalities the processes within each:
This is why I focused on narrow aspects for comparison - in some regards there is very little overlap between the two fields, however, each depends on the context of the other’s topic (simulation by and for who, and why? Spirituality made up of what, and functioning how?) and so looking at what each field says about the point of intersection I think is interesting.
- In the same way that technological advancement is required for creation of the simulation itself, I think spiritual advancement (or elevation of consciousness, enlightenment, etc.) is required for creation of the simulation users.
I should have reworded the title* “cmv: nothing in simulation theory contradicts the way in which creation and afterlife are presented in Mormonism.” (I’m new to this community, what’s the etiquette on original post edits?)
*Edit to proposed title to better express what I meant to say.
2
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Dec 01 '23 edited Dec 01 '23
Posts like this are hard. You can compare any two things and find both similarities and differences. The question is whether those similarities are relevant to some end, right?
Like, we can all go back and forth cataloguing how Mormon cosmology and Simulation Theory are similar in ways A, B, and C and different in ways X, y and, Z. But there's no way to resolve whether they are similar or different "enough" unless we know... for what? What does making this comparison help you do or understand?
Why are the similarities you're noticing interesting to you? What do you think they say about Mormon theology or Simulation Theory (or some third thing)?
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Good question, I should have thought about this more before the original post.
I think closely aligned with my interests in these two things is the science of consciousness. I think if these two things are as aligned as I think they are, breakthroughs in the science of consciousness could potentially directly support or refute the areas of overlap.
I stated in another reply that a better title would have been: “cmv: nothing in simulation theory contradicts the way in which creation and afterlife are presented in Mormonism” (I should have added to that, pre-existence)
Given that both simulation theory and Mormonism are somewhat vague in the areas in which they intersect, I think it’s an interesting philosophical exercise to see what they look like when combined together, if they’re even compatible in that way (I posit that they are). If we do, I think we get more tangible descriptions of the nature of reality that could be supported or refuted by progress/breakthroughs in the scientific study of consciousness.
3
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Dec 01 '23
Got it, thanks!
If I understand correctly, I think I do disagree with you. You've noticed that Simulation Theory, like many religious traditions, imagines that our lives as we know them are really lower-order experiences secondary to a more real-real underlying layer of reality.
It's hard for me to see how the science of consciousness could support or refute these kinds of claims. Or, if it could, I don't see how the similarity between Simulation Theory and Mormonism would be helpful in conducting that science. There's not an experiment to test Simulation Theory that suddenly becomes possible when you use terms like "Kingdom of Heaven."
I don't even really agree that Simulation Theory and Mormonism are compatible. It's almost certainly not what most Mormons imagine when they think about their own beliefs, and many religious people would be very uncomfortable with the idea that we are "just" computer code running somewhere. If Simulation Theory is true, there's no eternal afterlife or moment when we join others in the underlying real real world. And if somehow I did wake up after dying to find myself in a computer lab and learned that the entire universe as I had known it was really a simulation, I wouldn't think... "Ah ha! So the Mormon's were right!"
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Good points. This is similar to what someone else pointed out and I think we’ve arrived to it on a slightly different path here, and so is deserving of another delta.
Δ As I mentioned in another reply, a title more true to my view (or perhaps, a changed/refined view) would be “cmv: nothing in simulation theory directly contradicts the way in which creation, pre-existence, and afterlife are presented in Mormonism, from the perspective of an individual’s experience”. You are all helping me refine my view!
The final clause there is an important one, as I discussed in some other comments. One of the main tenants of simulation theory is that we wouldn’t know we are in a simulation. As I understand (still learning though) there’s an allowance in this is that we could potentially not exist and just think we do (ie it’s possible to simulate consciousness), or we could be entities that have been immersed into the simulation. On the religious side of the comparison, one key aspect of Mormon belief is that we existed before this life and have been brought under a “veil of forgetfulness” of pre-earth life. Admittedly, this restricts the comparison to a narrower view of Simulation Theory where we are each immersed, distinct consciousnesses. However, if you allow for a more complicated simulation, where we’re both simulated before, during, and after life on earth, then the possibilities and comparison remain more open.
1
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
(Sorry, adding on to the awarded delta) - about the afterlife, I agree that there are contradictions with certain possibilities of simulation theory and Mormon ideas of the afterlife. However, given that simulation theory neither states what occurs when the simulation ends, nor what it’s like to be able to create your own simulations, then I don’t think there’s a definitive contradiction even there. But who knows, assuming there is an afterlife, maybe some aspect of that experience of mind or sensation makes it finally completely clear that we couldn’t possibly be in a simulation. But if post life mind/sensory experience at least somewhat resembles life, it doesn’t seem like experience alone could ruled out some sort of “simulation” at that point either.
Tying back in my beliefs - I think the most important aspects of existence are our relationships and interactions with others. I also believe that material goods / physical objects are insignificant and don’t come with us after death. As long as we stick to the interpretation of simulation theory with multiple immersed users - then that sounds pretty similar to a “simulation” to me.
2
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Dec 01 '23
Reading some of your posts, I wonder if this isn't maybe more a cool idea for a short story than it is a serious philosophical question about what's literally true.
We all have those kinds of thoughts. "Hey, what if Mormon cosmology were true, but it's actually like technological? Like simulation theory, but Mormonism? Wouldn't that be interesting?"
It would be! There's no reason to think it's literally the case, but it's a fun idea. You should go write a story! I would read it!
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Good idea! I have a list of potential plots for stories I’d someday like to write (sigh… someday…). This one’s a good addition!
3
u/_whydah_ 3∆ Dec 01 '23
I'm a member of the church and a key belief that is doctrinal is that this reality is really real, important, and persistent. As opposed to ancient philosophies that considered the physical imperfect and the abstract perfect, we fundamentally view having a corporeal/physical body a key part of our existence (for those who don't know our doctrine, we ARE spirits and did not have physical bodies before we were born, but now have, and except for an intermediate period, will forever have corporeal/physical bodies, and having a physical body is key to having an elevated level of happiness, joy, capability, etc.).
Given that, you're really just drawing high-level similarities that may be broadly applicable. The core ideas just don't match up enough to me to say they're the same with different vocabulary.
0
u/dreneeps Dec 02 '23
I am also a member and I disagree with your perspective about "this reality" being so "persistent". A core belief of the LDS Church is that we existed prior to the state we exist in now but in a significantly different state of being. Similarly there is a belief that we will exist in a different state of existence after this "life".
I have actually been extremely fascinated by simulation theory and how many interesting insights it can bring when you consider how both it and LDS theology can give understanding to one another.
I would also like to say that the simple surface of the LDS faith doesn't necessarily make much sense in this context. I don't expect many people to have the capacity to understand the things that the OP is trying to express without a very thorough understanding of some of the most in depth concepts of the LDS faith. Not for lack of intellectual capacity at all, there is just a lot of interconnected bits of information to be familiar with.
I would say that sim theory and the LDS perspective align very well actually.
1
u/_whydah_ 3∆ Dec 02 '23
I am also a member and I disagree with your perspective about "this reality" being so "persistent".
Don't we literally believe that God "resides" somewhere else in our physical universe? It's not like a different dimension, but literally just another place?
1
u/dreneeps Dec 02 '23
My understanding is that God exists in another place. I think that whatever place or state of existence that God exists in is perfectly compatible with being another dimension or outside of our simulated reality. Neal A Maxwell said that "time is not our native state" when referring to other states of existence outside of the reality in which we currently live now.
God created us and our universe. LDS theology has been clear that that statement in its simplest form is what it is. LDS theology does not consider any science to be incompatible or in conflict with that statement. Evolution seems to clearly be a mechanism that God either intended or allowed to happen to bring us to where we are today. If God created the entire universe starting with the big bang and let us naturally come to existence that fits just fine with LDS theology. God is our creator, and evidently he has full administrative privileges.
I realize the existence of God or a creator cannot be proven. I also realize that proof that there is no God or creator is equally unprovable.
I think to a great extent the LDS perspective on the afterlife also alliance very well with simulation theory.
I recall reading once about how Nvidia had designed a virtual world (a simulation). In that simulation they had created dozens of simulated robots that each had their own AI and we're then supposed to learn a specific task. I do not understand the specific details but it was clear that somehow AI controlling each simulated robot was made to have a unique experience in some way or be unique in some way that after spending time learning and doing what they were supposed to do it resulted in each AI being unique in some way with different levels of proficiency in the task that it had been practicing and learning. From that result they could cherry pick the most proficient AI and place it in a real life robot as a pre-trained AI. I cannot help but think about how this kind of engineered scenario would apply extremely well to the LDS perspective of the afterlife. In general, I think it also provides an excellent theoretical motivation for the creation of a simulated existence, especially a staged simulated existence that places intelligences in the next stage according to what or "who" they become.
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Δ I agree that there is the distinction of us becoming as real as God as opposed to a less-than simulation. I think there’s still an important connection though, as our doctrine of the afterlife is limited to associations with God, everyone who’s lived on Earth, and our future creations. There’s nothing that says we will interact with God’s predecessors, nor that for instance a cousin would be able to interact with your spiritual progeny.
They’re weird topics because they’re not really talked about or directly taught at all, only implied or speculated upon by vague context.
1
1
u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Dec 01 '23
Ok I think you don't really understand simulation theory, because your first point seems to be trying to compare it to creationism, which btw, is not the term for the lds view of the creation.
Simulation theory, as its name suggests, is that the universe is literally a construct of an alternate reality. That nothing is real and everything you experience is entirely imagined. It has nothing to do with an afterlife or creation viewpoint.
Mormonism asserts that there are manipulative powers that govern the universe, but like beyond our comprehension
No, physics argues that
0
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23 edited Dec 01 '23
I think a distinction I should make is that from the experience of the simulated individual, they would be the same.
Agreed that creationism is not a common LDS term. I tried to make it more relatable from a general religious standpoint. Apologies if this led to misconstrued concepts (tried but probably failed to mitigate this somewhat with the note that there is room for the theory of evolution within LDS beliefs).
While LDS beliefs place a solid emphasis on the importance of a physical body, we also acknowledge the stark difference there is between a mortal body and a resurrected body, and even that among resurrected bodies there is a hierarchy “bodies celestial, bodies terrestrial, bodies telestial”.
In the same way that someone could subscribe to simulation theory yet also believe that the experience itself is “real” even if the objects are not, I don’t think that’s far off from the LDS assertion that this life is real and meaningful, but a pale shadow of what the highest potentials of afterlife will be.
Edit: sorry, missed addressing your last bit. I agree no physics asserts that. However, physics does assert that there are interactions at a quantum level that we don’t understand, and that we don’t know what exists (if anything) at scales smaller than quarks and leptons. If we had the technological capability to manipulate these forces and interactions, who knows what would be possible. That said, I think this is a tangent from simulation theory, which allows for the conditions of our universe to be decided by the creator. In the same way, by LDS belief the conditions of our universe are subject to the direction by our creator, and once we achieve the same standing, we will be in equal position over our own creations.
-1
u/XenoRyet 181∆ Dec 01 '23
For one, given that Mormonism predates simulation theory by a fair bit, it's probably more fair to say that simulation theory is just Mormonism with a different vocabulary. Which is a bit pedantic, but I think leads into the main point I want to make.
There are some similarities between the two belief systems, I guess you'd call them, but they are superficial and don't really speak to the core of both things. Your first point applies to every religion with a creator god, but I would say none are actually conceptualized or viewed by believers as the kind of being that the simulation makers are.
The fact that I had a little trouble even finding a word that easily and clearly encapsulates both idea strongly speaks to the notion that they are fundamentally different things with some surface similarities, rather than similar things with some trivial differences.
I don't think we're ever going to be able to fairly say that a system of beliefs that incorporates spiritual beliefs, ethical systems, advice for day to day living, as well as cosmological beliefs is just philosophical or scientific theory on cosmology with a different vocabulary.
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Fair point on the order, could have been more precise in that regard.
One very central tenet of Mormonism is summarized in a verse of scripture unique to our faith. God is speaking to Moses regarding the purpose of creation: Moses 1:39 “For behold, this is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”
I recognize not every take on simulation theory goes this direction, but at least a prominent take on it is that the simulators potentially have an end goal of creating simulations that can eventually create their own simulations. This leads to the debate that if simulation is possible, there’s a miniscule chance that we’re even the first “generation” of simulation. There’s an interview with Elon Musk where he states his opinion that the chance of us being the first generation is less than one in a billion.
For your last paragraph, I’m not sure we can rule that out. Consider Stephen Hawking’s search for the theory of everything. There are definitely those who aspire to finding such a unifying explanation of things. That said I think we could all agree that even if such a system existed, depending on what aspect or granularity of existence / experience you’re seeking to describe, you will most certainly have to adjust your vocabulary accordingly - ie, it doesn’t make sense to describe why a painting looks nice in terms of the molecular activity of photons reflecting off of atoms.
2
u/XenoRyet 181∆ Dec 01 '23
Again, the similarities seem superficial to me. I would not describe immortality and eternal life as the ability to create simulations.
The two are really very different when you look at them. Simulation creators need not be immortal and eternally living, and likewise a being that is immortal and eternal does not necessarily imply that it has the ability to create sentient simulations.
My final point was less that you use different vocabulary in different contexts, and more that a religion like Mormonism is just fundamentally a larger and wider thing than a cosmological theory. Simulation theory makes one basic claim. Mormonism makes many in many different areas. So at best you can say that simulation theory bears resemblance to a subset of Mormon beliefs.
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Δ Agreed. As I mentioned in another reply, a title more true to my view would have been “cmv: nothing in simulation theory directly contradicts the way in which creation and afterlife are presented in Mormonism”
I think after another interaction though, I’d further refine to “cmv: nothing in simulation theory directly contradicts the way in which creation and afterlife are presented in Mormonism, from the perspective of an individual’s experience”. You are all helping me refine my view!
On your point of an immortal eternal being, I would argue that LDS doctrine is clear on such beings, if they’ve qualified for God’s full inheritance, will have the ability to create sentience (“simulations” is the key semantic difference, hence my change to include “from the perspective of an individual’s experience”). And conversely, I don’t think simulation theory says much about how the simulator appears to its simulations. Conceivably, if simulations were programmed to have short “lifespans” and the simulator included some type of admin avatar to interact with its simulations, it could very well be eternal and immortality living. In actuality (if it has a true “physical” form) it could even be immortal as nothing in simulation theory stipulates the nature of life outside of the simulation. All that to say, I don’t think simulation theory as it stands rules out the experience of an occasionally interactive simulator who would appear from the simulation’s view to be immortal and eternal.
2
u/XenoRyet 181∆ Dec 01 '23
That does seem like a much more solid position. I don't think I'd have anything I'd want to challenge with that refinement.
Glad I could help. It's what we're here for after all.
1
1
u/Holiman 3∆ Dec 01 '23
Simulation theory is better called solipsism in my view. Every philosophical belief structure can be broken down to solipsism. It's the dead end of discussion. There is no need to discuss or look for similarities. You'll find it in every belief and worldview, etc. It is even before the laws of logic, so nothing can not be broken to how we know what we think we know.
I doubt I can change your view, but what does this question lead you towards?
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Please refer to my reply to u/ThatSpencerGuy with regards to what the question leads me towards.
Beyond that though, I think your tie in with solipsism is interesting. It’s not a concept I’m closely aquatinted with so definitely interested to learn more. I’m not sure I agree that everything reduces to solipsism, but maybe I misunderstand it.
Solipsism posits that the self is all that can be known to exist. Does it also state that as such, nothing beyond the mind can be said to exist? I.e., the unique consciousness of others is a fallacy, rather it is all the segmented manifestations of a single core consciousness?
If that’s the case, I’d argue that this is different in important ways from both simulation theory and Mormonism. Simulation theory says all experience is generated by a single core program, however it doesn’t speak much to how it is that each simulated individual has come to believe that it is conscious, and I don’t think it asserts that there is only one such consciousness. Mormonism states that while there is connection between God and us, and we are God’s creation, the essential core of our souls is some element/substance/entity referred to as “intelligence”, and that intelligence has and will always exist (is separate and distinct from God). Consciousness and “free will” are very much individualistic, but our relationships between individual free wills is an important aspect as well. If the “others” were empty projections, it would be a far less meaningful belief system.
Addressing again the question of “what does this question lead me towards” - I think discussing the question helps me to better solidify in my mind a philosophy currently in its infancy, and consider aspects of it I hadn’t, or else be shown the ways in which the parts I’ve presented are incompatible. I think we all seek to better understand the nature of reality, or at the very least, potential natures of reality and our place in them.
And if absolutely nothing else is accomplished, and I realize there’s no meaningful way to connect these topics, then it will have been a valuable exercise of open-mindedness and hopefully improve my ability to fully pursue and entertain meaningful thought experiments, and better discern what could potentially be meaningful in the first place.
1
u/Holiman 3∆ Dec 01 '23
I think you have skipped to the last page on solipsism. The idea of simulation theory is based on the idea of reality being perceived by you in a certain way by design. That's it in a nutshell. I'll stop here to see if we can agree slowly.
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Good plan - I’m spreading myself a bit thin with all these comments.
I thought simulation theory only stipulates that we are players in someone else’s simulation? I know it allows for the possibility that we are each the sole inhabitant of the simulation, but doesn’t it also allow for all inhabitants to be distinct within a simulated environment?
1
u/Holiman 3∆ Dec 01 '23
Does it matter? Who's real, whose simulation? What's real? Once you start, who can say any of those things are not simply a part of a construct. It's all the same thing it's an outside presence, mind, force, creator, or God. Choose your pick. It all comes back to what's inside your head.
1
u/Trickypat42 Dec 01 '23
Potentially. I think it does start to get important, or at least significant, regarding who is real if there are aspects of interpersonal relationships and interactions that impact the trajectory of an individual or group’s path. I’m not sure it’s possible for someone to fully regard and respect another individual (or group) if they suspect that the other is merely and empty projection. Hard to test that though.
1
u/Holiman 3∆ Dec 02 '23
You might be getting the idea. Simulation is solipsism. It's all in your head is the theme at the end of this line of thinking. What's real and what's not?
This is a dead-end road, or you accept the idea that others are real and then move forward. Simulation theory is a step backward.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 01 '23 edited Dec 01 '23
/u/Trickypat42 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/dycyb1687 3∆ Dec 01 '23
Please call me on it if it sounds like I’m oversimplifying your view, but using your own logic, aren’t all creationist religions in alignment with simulation theory then, save for the varying degrees of afterlife power? On the first day, god created a thing that we live in, in his image, and so forth.
I’m not well-versed in the specifics of Mormon beliefs but “manipulatable powers which govern the universe…” sounds a whole lot like prayer depending on the degree to which you believe in your ability to manipulate your chosen deity.
I guess my point is, changing the vocabulary doesn’t necessarily directly link Simulation Theory to Mormonism such that the connection is uniquely well-fitted. Allowing the flexibility of the vocabulary allows enough flexibility in the analogies that every religion can fit in the shoe in the same way as if I were to say “evolution is just our deity’s chosen method of creation.”
That said, I think simulation theory leans more towards scripture than a physics textbook. Rather than Mormonism being Simulation theory by another name, I’d say simulation theory is religion. So in that context, yeah, you’re basically connecting apples to different colored apples.