Thread

1. shelled · 1790442555 · focus · HN ↗

   Imagine we figure out that we are part of a simulation and that that simulation is nobody's, it just happened and keeps on happening, like the universe just happened and keeps on happening if we keep going back (or is it forth?) in time, and that we can't do anything to change that simulation. Would we lose all the purpose and meaning of life? Or will evolution, now simulated evolution, still manage to collectively pivot us into accepting that as the creation and move on? If we become capable of altering minds enough, this can be a very interesting and cruel experiment on human beings - a meeting of Westworld and MKUltra.

   1. lijok · 1790443446 · focus · HN ↗

      What does the word “simulation” mean in this context?
   2. gyomu · 1790444050 · focus · HN ↗

      You can prove to me we’re just a video game running on the underpowered Game Boy of an interdimensional teenager, as long as I can make things with my hands, go out in nature, experience beautiful art, and have tasty food with people I care about, there’s no way I would “lose all the purpose and meaning of life”.

      1. tclancy · 1790449782 · focus · HN ↗

         Same but we should both admit we would probably change what we made.
   3. user36 · 1790444553 · focus · HN ↗

      If you believe that every effect has a cause, then you might question the notion of “free will” that most people believe in. This means that regardless if it’s “simulation” or not, we can’t “change” anything.

      1. mnicky · 1790450771 · focus · HN ↗

         Hmm, but isn't a statement that _every_ effect has a cause self-refuting?

         1. user36 · 1790453549 · focus · HN ↗

            I’m not that well versed in philosophy to dive deeply into theory, but I don’t see a self-refutation. There is obviously a problem of first cause, but I don’t think it refutes my argument about free will. Also, I think Universal Causation is mostly non-controversial and most people agree on it and operate accordingly.

            1. mnicky · 1790454902 · focus · HN ↗

               Sorry, this wasn't a reply to the free will part.

               And yes, I meant the problem of the first cause, but it probably isn't a strict refutation...

               And also, when it's stated as "every effect has a cause" (not "everything," as I first understood it), then it's probably even a tautology :)

               To the free will part itself - I can say that I decided to do B because of a reason A (so the effect B was caused directly by my decision and indirectly by A) and I still have a free will?

               1. user36 · 1790534488 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is also a deep philosophical debate. I just meant that your decisions are based on internal and external circumstances, that are based on the physical world. Your decision is an effect of multiple causes (e.g. your mood, your beliefs, state of chemicals in your brain, weather, news that you’ve seen in tv, your genes, your childhood memories, etc). The “free will” as commonly understood would be then an independent act, a miracle that defies the constraints of physical world.
   4. financetechbro · 1790446130 · focus · HN ↗

      Purpose is found individually through daily lived experiences and not because we are or aren’t in a simulation

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.