>>12021977>Now that's the religion!I aim to become Creator incarnate.
>I just argue against your "everything is a religion" viewpoint. Although you almost converted me into breadism.My point is you can make a religion of anything, especially when you're dealing with concepts of creation and power. Which is why I argue that the creator of our simulation is a Creator in the sense of divinity.
>Because creator can be very limited. But Capital Letter Creator is supposed to be unlimited. You can argue about first while not believing in the last.I don't necessarily believe in creator, Creator, simulation or Simulation. As I've said, my whole aim is to show to you that there is reason within simulation hypothesis to speculate about the creator of the simulation, and whether they can be regarded as Creator. Clearly, there are arguments for an against, but in my mind, if you ascribe the attributes to the concept, it becomes clear that the creator is Creator, if true.
>That's how every theory works.Not really, since you base arguments around definitions, maxims and axioms, they aren't often up for debate and if they are, it can debase your argument. Otherwise you can doubt everything, and argue nothing.
>Just like in science. Science is a religion now, Q.E.D. But it's a heretical religion, bread relgion is a true faith.You can argue it is.
>Did you? I did.
>*hugs**hugs*
How about this, if you are so against a monotheistic interpretation of simulation hypothesis, why don't we argue for a polytheistic interpretation?
Assume the administrator of the simulation does not have perfect knowledge of the knowledge that went into the creation of the simulation.
Assume that the creation was created by means of deep learning from datasets provided by multiple parties with varying specializations and their cumulative expertise are what was fed into the AI that built our universe.
1/?
