Now see. I think simulation theory is one of the possible explanations for our existence. But, I would disagree that it gives any credence to a purpose to our existence.

It also doesn't really answer the core question of how things began, it just defers them upwards to another civilisation. Unless you want to say it's simulations all the way down, there needs to be be a root real existence somewhere and there the origins pose the same questions.

I've not yet heard any explanation as to how our universe came to be that I truly believe. All explanations are problematic. But even if simulation theory were true, I'd still be bugged by the fact that we still don't get any closer to the answer of how it all began. It just explains how the universe as we know it exists.

[–] conneru64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago

It does bring up the interesting conundrum: is there one "base" universe? Then how did that start? Makes no sense. Is it turtles all the way down? That also doesn't make any sense. And yet those are the only 2 possibilities (assuming a few intuitive things about logic and reality, which is a whole 'nother thing...).

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

It doesn’t need to answer the question of how things began any more than our own understanding of our world answers that. The “Big Bang” is just the start of the simulation.

And I think you’re wrong to disagree about the purpose of our existence because the entire point of a simulation is to get information and data about the “real” world by running the options in a simulation. If we are indeed in a simulation, then the purpose is to give the creators of the simulation more information about their own world.

Ironically enough, it would also infer that these beings created us in their own image. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really be useful to them.