[vidarh]

For a definition of creationism no creationist would be pleased with. E.g. there's nothing incompatible between a simulation and the big bang occurring. The universe would be created, but we'd be unable to know how big or small (in both time and space) portion of it was "designed" versus left to evolve by itself.

Another key difference is that most people who find the idea of the simulation argument interesting seems to approach it as either a philosophical curiosity that gives us avenues to explore or as something that needs some massive further steps to get to something testable, not as dogma. I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. But there is also the possibility of all kinds of implementation artefacts. To me at least a whole lot of the appeal of the simulation hypothesis (unlike the nonsense linked to here) is that there's a whole lot of room for actual testable hypotheses here. I have no interest in taking anything on faith.

Also it's fun to speculate about. But I don't need to believe something to speculate about it.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits.

Ultimately though there'd be no way to tell bugs apart from legitimate physics because we lack a basis for comparison. If we discover that we can, with enough trickery, generate infinite free energy or something, that's not evidence of anything other than our model of the universe being incomplete.

[vidarh]

You're thinking too small. Think privilege escalation and escapes.