>>13028628Pointless unfalsifiable speculation though it may be, people who talk about it don't have an agenda or motivations similar to creatonists at all. They're not trying to advance an actual religion with it, i.e. one that tries to tell us how we should live our lives. Or build a religious-like tribal identity around simulation theory.
Another common claim is that it's just the old solipsism argument. But it's not like the argument is just "dude you couldn't know FOR SURE whether you're in simulation or not", it's about the fact that given certain assumptions a lot of people wouldn't find crazy the probability is surprisingly high.
I'm not a fan of the simulation hypothesis at all, I don't believe we live in a simulation but even if we did it doesn't seem very useful to speculate it until there's a form of the simulation hypothesis that makes an empirical difference. But I'm still annoyed by these poor analogies people make and criticisms that completely miss the point and that are probably made by people who haven't even read Bostrom's arguments.
