Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Simulation Assertion is a religion designed to accommodate our understanding of nature. Therefore, there are no issues with creationism or metaphysics to make a case against any of the events or places depicted like there are with all other religions, so it doesn't necessarily require unsupported evidence or faith. It is designed specifically so that it can either be validated or falsified by the scientific method. In other words, a faith in facts that can potentially be proved, that is a goal of every other religion, to have content that cannot be refuted anymore than can any other scientific discovery. But nothing in science is irrefutable so we have to be careful, the scientific method is a tool to understand nature as it is, without credulity or bias.


The Simulation Assertion acknowledges the simulation argument, and introspectively calls into question the motives of the simulators. One of is that the universe that we experience as self-aware intellects is a simulation of a universe with the same fundamental physics and that it was designed to test human nature.

Anthropocentric beings, that is either a group of human or cybernetic post-human programmers, or a singular artificial sentient programmer, manipulate this reality to the extent of empowering a human individual with the means to let his or herself be used to help humanity at large once that individual becomes aware of a divine influence. Conversely, the simulation's operator or operators manipulate this reality to the extent of empowering a human individual with the means to use others around himself or herself to the extent of using others to help himself or herself achieve self-centered wishes once that individual becomes aware of a divine influence.

Do you have a Cliff Notes of tl;dr version?

The Simulation Assertion is a religion designed to accommodate our understanding of nature. Therefore, there are no issues with creationism or metaphysics to make a case against any of the events or places depicted like there are with all other religions, so it doesn't necessarily require unsupported evidence or faith. It is designed specifically so that it can either be validated or falsified by the scientific method. In other words, a faith in facts that can potentially be proved, that is a goal of every other religion, to have content that cannot be refuted anymore than can any other scientific discovery. But nothing in science is irrefutable so we have to be careful, the scientific method is a tool to understand nature as it is, without credulity or bias.

The Simulation Assertion acknowledges the simulation argument, and introspectively calls into question the motives of the simulators. As humans, we always want to know more things, and where we come from, what's in our nature. Such an experiment is the most viable explanation for why a post-modern civilization would create a simulated reality. So the main conclusion is that the universe that we experience is a simulation of a universe with the same fundamental physics and that it was designed to test human nature.

To do so, these the simulators (most likely be either a group of ancestral humans or a post-modern artificial intelligence) manipulate this reality to the extent of empowering a human individual with the means to let his or herself be used to help humanity at large once that individual becomes aware of their. Conversely, the simulators manipulate this reality to the extent of empowering a human individual with the means to the extent of helping himself or herself achieve self-centered wishes once that individual becomes aware of their presence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you have a Cliff Notes of tl;dr version? Its a theory based on the simulation arguement.

According to The Simulation Assertion, our behavior is always being scrutinized by the simulators as we make decisions that are influenced by controlled life-events that to us would seem like fate.

I.E., I think it's my destiny to feel rejection, according to the Simulation Assertion, that's probably because of a pattern that's emerged because of these controls, a pattern designed to test the effects of rejection on personality and moral judgement, on a very specific and individualized scale.

On a global scale, very conclusive evidence be extrapolated from this kind of experiment and applied to a model for human behavior. The implications this model would impact whatever post-postmodern societal systems are in place, in order to minimize anything that might encourage or discourage certain behaviors in their society.

For me, controlled life events like obesity have made me ripped. But rejection by others in general has cause me to become more of an isolationist. You know, these controls always result in either constructive or destructive traits.

A thing to remember is that faith in religion is based on a bunch scientific theories. One can draw many conclusions from a single theory, and all of these are no different from scientific theories themselves.

Theories should be treated be treated as others treat the theories produced by their religions, but on the agnostic level, in concordance with the scientific method. It isn't until theory is validated that it can be treated like a theism, but without being pseudoscientific making an irrefutable statement to boot. Objective theistic fact is imperative as a new wave a reason. Religion at its core is a moral doctrine, scientific discoveries can have moral implications on an individualistic level.

J1cNaFG1VII

Why should I read any of this?

Originally posted by Oneness
For me, controlled life events like obesity have made me ripped. But rejection by others in general has caused me to become more of an isolationist. Things simply happen to you, and you just react, like a leaf buffeted by the winds of your life?