Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[brewer]

You need to come back in. It appears that the implant setting has malfunctioned.

I am still aware enough to consider it's all in the head. But I won't close my mind to other possibilities. Because who the hell knows what's going on? Definitely not you.

Don't take jokes personally. It will shorten your life span. 

BTW, we do have an opening in Westworld.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The simulation theory would explain how we live in a reality where Trump is the US president. I often feel like we are in a TV series which envisages an alternative history with viewers thinking, yeah it could have turned out that way but it really wasn't likely to.

[Whateverist]

If only we could end the simulation and wake up out of a world in which an impulsive whack job like Trump was the decider ..

But as an explanation of anything the theory sucks, simply kicking the can not just down the road put entirely off the table where we can't get at it. Leave it to the movies where with the right soundtrack it can be really entertaining. Then when you get curious about how things really are, try imagining that they are how they must be to make sense of all the data we have access to. Fine to give up because the problem is hard, but lets not give up just because the alternative is more entertaining.

[Little lunch]

The problem with this theory, for me, is that if our present thoughts create the past in this simulation, then we may have only just been switched on, as a program.
Not only is life a lie but perhaps everything we think we've ever experienced never actually happened.
And if we were only just activated very recently, with these thoughts of ourselves possibly being in a simulation, then perhaps we were created to help solve the problem for the people who made the simulation, who are worried that they might be in a simulation themselves.

[Whateverist]

The problem with this theory, for me, is that if our present thoughts create the past in this simulation, then we may have only just been switched on, as a program.
Not only is life a lie but perhaps everything we think we've ever experienced never actually happened.
And if we were only just activated very recently, with these thoughts of ourselves possibly being in a simulation, then perhaps we were created to help solve the problem for the people who made the simulation, who are worried that they might be in a simulation themselves.

May as well wait until we contract alzheimers when every moment will feel like we were just switched on.

[GrandizerII]

Just in case anyone is interested, here's a good video discussion to watch related to this "theory". I plan to watch this later tonight. Should be interesting.

Well, just finished watching the panel discussion. Nothing conclusive really from what I understood (too much of what they said went over my head).

---

The simulation theory would explain how we live in a reality where Trump is the US president. I often feel like we are in a TV series which envisages an alternative history with viewers thinking, yeah it could have turned out that way but it really wasn't likely to.

We could easily be in a Black Mirror episode.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What I tend to wonder about is if the simulation would necessarily be less complex than the higher reality? It seems intuitive but I cannot think of a good reason why it must be so.

[Little lunch]

Good point. We could be living a better existence than the simulation makers.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm definitely a presentist.

The past existed when it was present but no longer does. The future will exist when it is present but it isn't yet. The present is all that exists at any point in time.

What's the opposite of present? Absent. Absent from here but present in another location? Then it's not completely absent and it's present there. Present in another point in time? Only when that time was the present.

The past and future can't exist without being the present and therefore not the past or future. Completely present=completely existent. Completely absent=completely nonexistent.

When we talk about the past and future we are actually talking about a time that used to be present but no longer is or a time that we expect or predict to be present but isn't yet. There's no contradiction in being able to talk about timelines that no longer exist or don't exist yet. Eternalism sees a contradiction that isn't there.

[GrandizerII]

I'm definitely a presentist.

The past existed when it was present but no longer does. The future will exist when it is present but it isn't yet. The present is all that exists at any point in time.

What's the opposite of present? Absent. Absent from here but present in another location? Then it's not completely absent and it's present there. Present in another point in time? Only when that time was the present.

The past and future can't exist without being the present and therefore not the past or future. Completely present=completely existent. Completely absent=completely nonexistent.

When we talk about the past and future we are actually talking about a time that used to be present but no longer is or a time that we expect or predict to be present but isn't yet. There's no contradiction in being able to talk about timelines that no longer exist or don't exist yet. Eternalism sees a contradiction that isn't there.

Just to be clear (I'm a little confused by the third and fourth paragraphs in your post), are you saying that the only point in time that exists is the one you presently observe? If so, then you are indeed a presentist. But eternalism (as opposed to presentism) is often argued to be in agreement with the implications of Einstein's special theory of relativity.