The hypothesis of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The theory of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.

I think you mean "it may value nothing inside the simulation." Because what you wrote doesn't make any sense as it's written. In either case, my "thesis" is not a thesis. It's an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe's existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it "created." I think the only thing lacking here is your reading comprehension skills, as you're clearly adding unfounded assumptions onto my observation independent of what was actually stated. Also, I posted that like a fucking month ago. Either you're necroing dead threads looking to pick a fight or whatever instance you're posting to fucked up its syncing with its federation.

[–] myxi@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe's existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it "created."

The universe just getting created by an external force, and your phrasing that it is "intelligently designed" has no similarity. You are just escaping from what you had stated. You yourself assumed that the core similarity is intelligent design. There is nothing to observe here. The only one lacking in reading comprehension is you, or you are probably trying to find the little ounces of loopholes you think you can find because you're just so disappointed by your thirty-day-old opinion but you also just can't admit to it, or whatever else the situation may be.

Simulation theory does not share any core similarity with creationism. Just simulating a universe does not mean it is intelligently designed.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. "Intelligent design" as an ideology and describing something as "intelligently designed" are not the same thing. The core similarity is what I've already described. You want me to mean something beyond what I've stated because you're incapable of accepting what you read at face value. I have no interest in speaking further with someone without the intelligence to do something basic as understand the words they read.

[–] myxi@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You're getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. "Intelligent design" as an ideology and describing something as "intelligently designed" are not the same thing.

They are different things, and I am not taking the phrasing in an ideological context. Something being intelligently designed and just being designed, are not the same thing either. Your previous reply elaborates the phrasing of yours that I quoted in a broader way that only you can come up with, because the phrasing simply had an entirely different meaning. I am also uninterested in having any discussion with somebody who throws up words on the internet, expects to be taken seriously, but is bereft of the mental competence to even phrase their words correctly.