[somenameforme]

Regardless of the definition, you do exist. Which naturally leads to the question of why you exist. If you write a program to add a couple of numbers, it seems absurd to imagine some entity magically poofs into existence, imagines itself carrying out such, and then poofs back out of existence. I find it no less absurd to imagine the same even if it happens to be 10^100 instructions.

So why do you perceive yourself, and if you aren't you, then who are you? These sort of thoughts eliminated any notion of nihilism from me and gradually pushed me towards a simulation hypothesis. Of course that's just religion for an agnostic, because it doesn't even answer anything - if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.

The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that. For instance what if you think the matter for a big bang was quantum mechanically poofed into existence then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics, the void of which emerged, or so on endlessly. You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.

[vidarh]

> If you write a program to add a couple of numbers, it seems absurd to imagine some entity magically poofs into existence, imagines itself carrying out such, and then poofs back out of existence.

It may be absurd, but we nevertheless can not rule it out, and so it means that our ability to know anything about existence for certain is limited to almost nothing.

Note that I'm not saying I believe this to be the case. What I'm saying is that I see looking for "universal truths" to be entirely futile, because we can't possibly know much of substance with certainty.

Instead we have to accept that unless someone "pierces a veil" and shows us that there's a reality past the one we observe, we are limited to talking about what is observable and measurable within our observable reality, knowing that we are dealing with assumptions and probabilities, not universal truths.

> I find it no less absurd to imagine the same even if it happens to be 10^100 instructions.

This seems fundamentally at odds with saying you were gradually pushed towards a simulation hypothesis...

> if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.

A simulation hypothesis does not need to imply that there's anything to wake up from for anyone. Indeed, even if you were to wake up, by confirming that simulation is possible, this would seem to strongly suggest that you should consider the probability that the world you wake up in is simulated to be extremely high.

> The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that.

It may feel unsatisfactory to you. It doesn't to me. I accept that whenever we push the horizon of knowledge, we're likely to discover more things that we don't know, and for the set of things we know we can't know to expand as well.

> You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.

You don't have to do anything. You can accept that we don't know.

[somenameforme]

I am implying that consciousness, so far as we can prove, does not exist. The only reason I know it exists is because I am conscious. And I take an extremely pragmatic view of the simulation hypothesis. If such were possible, it would be an absolutely perfect tool for everything from education to entertainment to punitive reform. This subsequently encourages me to behave in a pseudo-religious fashion with regards to morals and ethics, in that this life could very well simply be a test, a game, or even a program of reform.

As for natural explanations - what I am saying is that the natural explanations for 'why' seem, currently, to be far weaker than other explanations. And in fact the natural explanations rely on various ad-hoc constructions (like inflation theory) that are completely unnatural. A simulation hypothesis is, to me, the only hypothesis that doesn't seem to have glaring holes in it and/or rely on defacto magic.

And obviously I understand that magic of one millennia is the mundane tech of another. But we do not live in that other era, and there's no guarantee that such an understanding will ever come to pass. Assuming otherwise requires having faith that such discoveries will come to pass in the future, and essentially assuming your own conclusion, instead of looking at the evidence as available. And that's why I referred to natural explanations as religion for an atheist.

[vidarh]

A natural explanation would be an answer to "why", but to "how" to start with.

They are not trying to explain "why", but to iterate toward an approximation of "how" that explains more and more, knowing it will always be incomplete. If someone looks to natural explanations as an answer to "why", then, sure, that is religion.

But to me, simulation or not is orthogonal to the "how". The "how", if we are within a simulation would still be down to identifying which "how" fits the available in-simulation information.

It's irrelevant that this wouldn't be "real" because within our reality, absent someone "piercing the veil" we can only relate to that reality, be it real or simulated.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Which naturally leads to the question of why you exist.

Why as in "what set of circumstances led to your existence" or why as in "what purpose did a creator have to want to create you"? Two different people can hear why, and there are two different (though possibly overlapping) questions. Even if there were a creator, only the first question is interesting.

You're all overthinking it though. If you want more people like you to exist in the future, if the thought of our extinction disturbs you, then there are some basic rules to live by or you risk that ending. Some of these rules are as much about attitude as they are about behavior, and nihilism is extraordinarily maladaptive.

>then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics,

Even if we substitute in non-biased language (perhaps "manifestation" instead of "creation"), this question assumes very much.