As to the self-consistent philosophical stances to the Fine Tuning Problem, your #s 1 and 3 are identical. God and the Simulation Programmers are one and the same. Simulation "Theory" is simply a restatement of Augustine's (or al-Ghazali's) arguments for the existence of God, and Augustine did it better than the half-baked moderns. In my observations, Simulation "Theory" is a way for middle aged men still in love with the fashionable atheism of their adolescence to putatively hold onto that atheism while simultaneously and only semi-consciously admitting it has failed. Simulationism is also a leading indicator that the aggressive philosophical materialism of the Post-Enlightenment era is failing.
The turtles all the way down nature of Simulationism also refutes it. As you derive in great mathematical depth. A bit too much perhaps IMO, more on that in a bit. No matter what, Simulationism must eventually collapses back down to a core base reality of physical substrate. So why assume we are not that core base reality of substrate? The only advantage to assuming we are the Simulation is that it inflates our egos in ways Gnostic, "luminous beings are we" to quote Master Yoda, and Gnostic obsessions are a hallmark of this late and failing age of philosophical materialism. Also, there is no way to assume the clock ticks or cosmic rays you use as metrics of measurement in our reality ARE accurate if our simulation is a Simulation in the style of al-Ghazali, where all is shaped based on the arbitrary and capricious albeit loving will of God aka Programmer aka God. To simply assume measurements are reliable is to credit the perspectives of Augustine a priori. IOW if we live in al-Ghazali's reality, your entire mathematical digression fails, while the more basic critiques hold up.
And again, Augustine and Aquinas did the whole "creation is an ACTUAL product of God aka Programmer aka God" set of reasoning and logic better than the Modern Nerds a millennium and more ago, while Simulationism is an indulgence of Gnosticism, which is anti-life for additional reasons all their own.
I do like the way you formulated your fundamental assertion of Simulation = Substrate. A useful restatement of or corollary to the Incompleteness Theorem, and a fast way to refute those middle aged Militant New Atheists stuck in the reverie of their adolescence. Kudos, and my thanks.
I have created my own (quite negative) definition of modern Gnosticism, basically a metaphor of 1st/2nd century Gnosticism. Maybe eventually I will write about it.
But what is your definition, and what would be some concrete modern examples of it?
Very thoughtful comment. Your endictment of middle aged men holding on to vestigial failed atheism is hilarious.
Let me in this comment address your assertion that Theism and Simulation Theory are basically the same.
The Venn diagrams of theism and simulation theory do have a lot of overlap, but there are some huge differences.
Ironically, Simulation theory holds onto a wierd form of Materialism, denying any spiritual component to the world. The computation has to happen on some physical layer with some sort of physics rules constraining it.
Also, the God Hypothesis (in most incarnations) maintains that the Universe is fully real. I like to say that an understanding of Christian origins theory is that the Universe is not a Simulation, but it is a Contrivance.
Another difference is that in Simulation Theory the world has a physical set of nested origins.
In Christianity, the Universe doesn't have that, but there is a philosophical stack backwards, as there is no telling of the origin of God because He is eternal, requiring no origin. But OTOH, if something exists, many would say etwrnality doesn't preclude the need for explanation of existence. I think I need to think about that more.
As to the self-consistent philosophical stances to the Fine Tuning Problem, your #s 1 and 3 are identical. God and the Simulation Programmers are one and the same. Simulation "Theory" is simply a restatement of Augustine's (or al-Ghazali's) arguments for the existence of God, and Augustine did it better than the half-baked moderns. In my observations, Simulation "Theory" is a way for middle aged men still in love with the fashionable atheism of their adolescence to putatively hold onto that atheism while simultaneously and only semi-consciously admitting it has failed. Simulationism is also a leading indicator that the aggressive philosophical materialism of the Post-Enlightenment era is failing.
The turtles all the way down nature of Simulationism also refutes it. As you derive in great mathematical depth. A bit too much perhaps IMO, more on that in a bit. No matter what, Simulationism must eventually collapses back down to a core base reality of physical substrate. So why assume we are not that core base reality of substrate? The only advantage to assuming we are the Simulation is that it inflates our egos in ways Gnostic, "luminous beings are we" to quote Master Yoda, and Gnostic obsessions are a hallmark of this late and failing age of philosophical materialism. Also, there is no way to assume the clock ticks or cosmic rays you use as metrics of measurement in our reality ARE accurate if our simulation is a Simulation in the style of al-Ghazali, where all is shaped based on the arbitrary and capricious albeit loving will of God aka Programmer aka God. To simply assume measurements are reliable is to credit the perspectives of Augustine a priori. IOW if we live in al-Ghazali's reality, your entire mathematical digression fails, while the more basic critiques hold up.
And again, Augustine and Aquinas did the whole "creation is an ACTUAL product of God aka Programmer aka God" set of reasoning and logic better than the Modern Nerds a millennium and more ago, while Simulationism is an indulgence of Gnosticism, which is anti-life for additional reasons all their own.
I do like the way you formulated your fundamental assertion of Simulation = Substrate. A useful restatement of or corollary to the Incompleteness Theorem, and a fast way to refute those middle aged Militant New Atheists stuck in the reverie of their adolescence. Kudos, and my thanks.
I have created my own (quite negative) definition of modern Gnosticism, basically a metaphor of 1st/2nd century Gnosticism. Maybe eventually I will write about it.
But what is your definition, and what would be some concrete modern examples of it?
Very thoughtful comment. Your endictment of middle aged men holding on to vestigial failed atheism is hilarious.
Let me in this comment address your assertion that Theism and Simulation Theory are basically the same.
The Venn diagrams of theism and simulation theory do have a lot of overlap, but there are some huge differences.
Ironically, Simulation theory holds onto a wierd form of Materialism, denying any spiritual component to the world. The computation has to happen on some physical layer with some sort of physics rules constraining it.
Also, the God Hypothesis (in most incarnations) maintains that the Universe is fully real. I like to say that an understanding of Christian origins theory is that the Universe is not a Simulation, but it is a Contrivance.
Another difference is that in Simulation Theory the world has a physical set of nested origins.
In Christianity, the Universe doesn't have that, but there is a philosophical stack backwards, as there is no telling of the origin of God because He is eternal, requiring no origin. But OTOH, if something exists, many would say etwrnality doesn't preclude the need for explanation of existence. I think I need to think about that more.