If the simulation hypothesis is true, then creationists are correct by default!!!! - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





If the simulation hypothesis is true, then creationists are correct by default!!!!

Debate Information

The simulation hypothesis proposes that so long as humans can conceive of a civilization that can create a simulated reality so accurate it cannot be distinguished from actual reality, then we are likely already in a simulation. So long as the simulation hypothesis cannot be proven false, then creationists cannot be called incorrect about the fact that the universe was created by a person. And if the simulation hypothesis is proven to be correct, then creationists can only be considered to be the ones who were factual on whether our universe was created by a person or not!!!! 

Prove these statements to be false.     



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • piloteerpiloteer 1484 Pts   -  
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -   edited January 13
    @piloteer
    Prove these statements to be false.     

    No, because, how can something that hasn't been proven correct in the first place be proven false.

    The first word of the title says it all......"If".

    If the simulation hypothesis is true, then creationists are correct by default!!!!

    If the God hypothesis is true, then creationists are correct by default!!!!

    If the seven day creation hypothesis is true, then creationists are correct by default!!!!

    If the Nit-wit hypothesis is not true, then creationists are correct by default!!!!

    However none of those "ifs" is so and creationists are not correct and have not an ounce of credibility.

    In any case, the conference that you got that enlightening revelation from was in 2016. That is a long time in science and things have moved forward by a long shot since then...although Neil deGrasse Tyson, the convenor did not move on contrary to many hypotheses. When he does exit life as we know it and IF there is such a hypothesis that incarnation is true then I'm sure he will come back with a better name.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    The statistical argument (popularized by Elon Musk) people often make in support of the simulation hypothesis is erroneous: it assumes that the probability of a simulation created within an already simulated world is constant, while in reality, even with the most generous assumptions, it should drop with the level of the simulation as a power law - perhaps, drop so fast that even the first level of the simulation is already highly unlikely to ever occur.

    Now, if it does turn out that this world is simulated, then things will get pretty interesting. But it will not make the "creationists" right in any meaningful sense. "Creationists" make their claims with zero evidence to back them up; if such evidence is ever found, it will not make their arguments backward-logical. One can make a random guess and turn out to be right; does not make their random guess in the first place any more logical.

    To me, the most interesting consequence of the simulation hypothesis being right would be the fact that the simulation can be "hacked". What I mean by that is this: if this is a simulation, then it has a source code, and that source code can be eventually found out through experimentation. And if it is eventually found out, then so will the bugs and glitches in it - and those are present in any code, let alone a code complex enough to produce a simulation of this kind. Now, imagine reverse-engineering these bugs and glitches and using them in your favor... That is something that would go far beyond the domain of modern sciences.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1484 Pts   -   edited January 13
    @MayCaesar

    You bring up a valid point. I cannot contest that it greatly diminishes the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis being true, and I also cannot contest that we as a civilization do not currently have the ability to create a simulation that accurate yet (but quickly getting closer to that) which does greatly diminish the likelihood of us being in a simulation. But I can contest just how drastically it diminishes the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis being true in that "first level" in which you speak of. Exactly how drastically can the likelihood be diminished in this key "first level" if we do not currently have the technological ability to run a simulation that accurate?

    We must both accept that most of this is hypothetical and we have no concrete objective way in which to measure any of the parameters of the likelihood of the simulation being true or not in this "first level". But we still both must accept that the sheer conceivable possibility of this being true still merits consideration. But it can only really be a hypothetical number of likelihood at this level, and some put that number at 50%. In other words, it's a fifty percent chance we are not in a simulation right now because we do not currently have the technological ability to make a simulation accurate enough to be indistinguishable from actual reality. 

    The wording of the hypothesis doesn't say that we must ourselves as a civilization have the ability to create a highly accurate simulation. It says that we only need to be able to conceive of one, or in other words, we only need to be able to imagine a civilization that can do that. We can, and are currently imagining a civilization that can do that. So that really only puts those chances of not being in a simulation at 50/50. Neil Degrasse Tyson has put the odds at that number just like many others do. 

    As far as "hacking the simulation" goes, that would be interesting to see what would happen. But it could also be insanely crippling for the mentality of our civilization knowing we are only characters in a computer game that could have been created for nothing more than the entertainment of a child in a "organic" universe. And then of course the possibility that that "organic universe" and the infinite trillions of others are not actually organic. Oh, and there's absolutely no way we could ever somehow bookmark the actual organic universe where these simulations originated from because any method we could ever use to bookmark the actual organic universe could also be simulated. So the simulation becomes omnipresent even in the organic universe because even civilization in the organic universe wouldn't be able to know they are actually in the real universe.   

    I do not assert that any creationists, or any religious beliefs, or any specific religion is automatically correct about any and everything they preach. I'm only saying that any religious belief that our universe was created by a person (whether a simulated person, or a person from the "organic universe"), that becomes a truth if we are in a simulation.        

    Oh, and one last thing, if and when we do become a civilization technologically advanced enough to create a simulation that cannot be distinguished from actual reality, our chances of already being in a simulation increases to virtually 99.99999999999999999.....................% true. In other, it is virtually 100% true that we are in a simulation.      


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    First of all, note that any simulation comparable to our world would have to be done in a very different space, by creatures on a very different level of existence. I do not just mean their intelligence; I mean that the space in which they exist, the laws of physics in their world and so on could be so alien to use that comprehending it would be absolutely impossible to us. If, hypothetically, one of us was to be taken away from this simulation and our mind was put into the body of one of the simulators, our mind would likely be instantly destroyed - it would not be able to function at all in that space.
    So any such comparisons between different civilizations in different worlds and the simulations they build seem futile to me. Humans, as well as, likely, all sentient beings, have this tendency of thinking that, on some level, everything everywhere must be similar to their own living conditions. Yet the conditions, in principle, can be so different that our minds might not be able to make any sense of them.

    Furthermore, even if such abstract worlds exist and their inhabitants routinely build simulated worlds, I see no reason to assume that our world must be one of them. There may be a gazillion of simulated worlds and only a few of "true", non-simulated ones - yet, given that we do not know anything about either group, there is no argument to be made in favor of our world being simulated or non-simulated. The simple probabilistic argument that if there are, say, 10 real worlds and 1,000,000 virtual worlds, then we are statistically very likely to live in a virtual world, fails, because we do not know anything about either group and their relative probabilities.
    As an analogy, imagine that you have never encountered a concept of sentience. Someone tells you that there are millions different species on Earth, but only one of them is sentient, and asks you whether you are that species. You might say, "No, as the odds of me being that particular species out of millions are extremely low" - and you would be wrong, because your analysis was based on the false assumption that all species are equally likely to have sentience, while, given the observations, this is clearly not the case.

    You know, I would actually love it if it turned out that we were all computer game NPCs. This would be fun: now that we know our true origin, we would be able to explore its consequences and implications. If we are all ultimately digits in some abstract computational machine, then can we make use of this fact somehow? There certainly could be some things we could do in that case that we could not in case this is the original, "true" world.
    Whether the world in which this simulation was written itself is a simulation or not, perhaps, would not be as important in practical terms, although certainly curious to know as well.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1484 Pts   -   edited January 13
    @Swolliw

    The God hypothesis in this scenario does not need to be a self contained truth for it to be true if we are in a simulation. It is automatically true that our universe was created by a person if we are in a simulation. Right now, the theoretical physics of us being at a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation is compelling enough to make many of the top physicists on earth, including Neil Degrasse Tyson and Dr. Sylvester James Gates Jr believe there is compelling enough conceivable possibility that we may already be in a simulation. If you're trying to label this hypothesis as conspiracy theory fringe quackery, then you'd be trying to label many of the top global physicists as quacks. The very same people someone like you may often want to cite to prove the big bang is a scientific truth and evolution as well as the theory of relativity and the functionality of gravity.

     So right now, all you're really saying is you just do not want to try and discredit the simulation hypothesis because you just don't feel like doing it. If that's the case, your position has been dually noted. But I urge you to watch the full video I have posted if you have not already.        

    The "Copenhagen interpretation" (or the classical interpretation) of physics has not ever been "proven" to be true, and yet, it is currently being discredited and on its way to being proven to be untrue as we speak. So yes, things can be proven to be false before they're ever proven to be true. Whether you think it's worth it is an entirely different matter, but in the case of the simulation hypothesis, there's much vested interest in the possibility of it being a truth.      
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5325 Pts   -  
    @piloteer ;

    Just one problem: presumably, the creators of the simulation in which we reside are themselves subject to specific physical restrictions, therefore creationism while it might be "true" in a sense for us, would not be an ultimate truth.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -   edited January 14
    @piloteer
    compelling enough conceivable possibility that we may already be in a simulation.
    there's much vested interest in the possibility of it being a truth.   
    the theoretical physics of us being at a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation is compelling enough
    there is compelling enough conceivable possibility 
    there's much vested interest in the possibility of it being a truth.  

    Let me just translate those profoundly meaningful phrases (not) into plain English....in effect, the first one means "nothing" and the second means "nothing". The third means "nothing", the fourth means "nothing" and the fifth means "nothing".


    Now, Let's have a look at the meaningless, crudely speculative and inaccurate inferences.

    The very same people someone like you may often want to cite.....
    you're really saying is you just do not want to try and discredit the simulation hypothesis 
    you just don't feel like doing it. 

    Which all translated mean, wait for it....."Nothing".

    Moving on, how many times do we see the word "If" reappear? Four times.

    So, what does your post actually say? Nothing.

    What does the video say (apart from asking questions and making non-committal rhetoric)? Nothing.

    The God hypothesis and the simulation hypothesis both fit into the same category; a load of ill-conceived, completely 100% hypothetical, 100% unproven, poorly speculative crap.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch