Can you debunk the living in a simulation theory right now for anyone that believes it?

Question asked by Joey M. Debunk the living in a simulation theory

This is a theory supported by Elon Musk and one reason why it is popular.

living in simulation | 700x96comp image
Courtesy Wikipedia

A big question…

Let me say at the outset here that what a person believes about life (and death) indicates where they are at in themselves. They, or we, have a choice in the matter. We can explore other beliefs if not acceptable.

So I’m not going to debunk this theory for that reason – but also for a bigger reason, as you’ll find out if you read on.

New Q & A iconIt ain’t necessarily so

It is not difficult to see that ever since the development of our modern science/s – pushing, as it did, against the rigid orthodoxy and beliefs of the Church, in its development – it has primarily taken a materialistic, mechanistic and reductionist direction to explaining life on earth and elsewhere. Reducing everything down to what can be seen and measured objectively.

This has meant (for some scientists at least) throwing the “spiritual” baby out with the bathwater.

And with it went “meaning.” With it went the notion of “soul” (or spirit) and, of course, with it went any notion of an afterlife. Debunk the living in a simulation theory

With this brave new world when you are dead, you are dead, finito.

I might add it has also done a job on holistic practices/beliefs (such as astrology) that have as a result been pushed out to the fringes – as pseudosciences, superstitions and the like. Not because there is no evidence that they work but because they don’t fit into the worldview of science – and the unsuspecting public buys into it as gospel.

We forget that science is run by people with their own beliefs, idiosyncrasies and prejudices. Science does not necessarily represent the “truth” in all that it pursues or does. Rather it represents a version of it – like all religions. Debunk the living in a simulation theory

Life on the Earth is understood to be a random-chance development, having no purpose than to procreate and advance the particular species it belongs to – as informed by evolution.

It’s brain-centric

Consciousness is seen to stem from the brain, not a mind that can operate outside the brain. And, in context, intellect (and technology) has become the measure of what is really valuable.

With regards to the development of our world this materialistic and technological approach to life has served us well. We all (or a proportion of the world’s population) live better and longer lives for it.

It has also been a destructive force as we know. For example encouraging our separation from each other – the haves and have nots – and technically advanced wars and espionage. There is arguably less trust around due to it.

What’s love got to do with it?

It has become easier for a lot of us to buy into a world that is materialistic in essence, that provides us with all our material needs. If that means forgoing love, our emotional and spiritual needs, so be it – it was always objectively in doubt anyhow.

With the advance of computer sciences, robots and artificial intelligence, it is of little surprise to me that we have begun to project our knowledge into forming a picture of a world that is run by computers – where we are essentially projections, holograms, simulations, whatever one wants to call it. Our lives being reduced to apparitions of a different nature.

Same old, same old

For me it is the same old, same old non-spiritual worldview, life being pointless, rehashed, but with a major difference this time. Now, instead of denying fringe stuff like ghosts and the paranormal, we can surmise that such can exist. Yes as glitches in the simulation – not enough RAM perhaps.

The latter gives me hope that by this exploration, those of us offering “living in a simulation” explanation are also inadvertently beginning to accept things they/we couldn’t otherwise accept without this model to guide us.

I suspect we’ll find we are organic afterall – in body at least

So I don’t want to debunk it. In any case I can’t debunk it for reasons I’ve just mentioned. For every criticism I put forward against it, this belief will probably be able to accommodate it.

It’s a sign of our progress and our immaturity

We don’t have to look far to know that life is nothing like what we would meet inside a computer. Real life is messy, a balancing act. We live, we die, we may arrive diseased or disabled, we get ill, we sweat, we defecate. We may eat nice food but we also produce waste that the body cannot use.

Deal with a dying person, change a baby’s nappy or visit a sewage farm if you want more contrast.
_______________

Get a different view of the world – read my book, Life and Death: Making Sense of It. It goes far beyond the limits of computers.

Associated links:

Love’s Story of Why We Are Here
Changing perspectives on who we are – 2 questions
How do existentialists find meaning in life?
Is there any hard evidence for the afterlife?


Categories: God & religion, Life, Miscellaneous, Scepticism
Tags: a sign of our progress and our immaturity, brain-centric, Debunk the living in a simulation theory, Elon Musk, holistic practices/beliefs, It ain’t necessarily so, What’s love got to do with it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top