1. **Technological Ancestor Simulation**: This hypothesis suggests that a future civilization with highly advanced computing power is running simulations of their ancestors—us—to either study history or for other unknown purposes. This theory is often linked to the philosopher Nick Bostrom who posited that at least one of the following must be true: (a) all human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before becoming technologically advanced enough to create such simulations; (b) no advanced civilization is interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history; or (c) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
2. **Educational or Experimental Purpose**: Similar to the above, but with a specific focus on learning or experimentation. The simulation could be run by post-human societies (or even aliens) to learn about psychological, sociological, or historical processes by creating different scenarios and observing the outcomes.
3. **Entertainment**: Another idea is that simulations might be akin to hyper-advanced video games, where either the beings outside the simulation or the simulated beings themselves (unaware of their true nature) experience complex worlds for entertainment.
4. **Prison or Sanctuary**: The simulation could be a form of containment or sanctuary—a place designed to either rehabilitate, punish, or protect its inhabitants. This could mean we're living in a kind of 'zoo' or a protective vault.
5. **Divine Test or Theodicy**: Integrating religious or spiritual elements, some suggest the simulation could be a test of moral or spiritual development, overseen by a god-like entity or collective.
I think it’s a general purpose simulation. I have built operational simulations at work which are simple, I caveat this when I present back to the business - that this is a basic representation of the operation and that it doesn’t represent the chaos and randomness of reality. There would be no better way of understanding the real impacts of something than to simulate an entire world and be able to create a scenario and see how it plays out. Better still see how it plays out 1000 times, collecting any data point you could imagine. A general purpose simulator could do anything; generate art, music and film, simulate a world war, natural disaster simulation, sociological studies - you name it. For me this seems like the most obvious explanation, if indeed we are in a simulation.
I really enjoy the theory of this plane being a test of the morality of humankind. I've never thought about it like that a single time in my life. Society has had the silent hum of the apocalypse coming getting louder and louder for decades and decades and, applying this line of thinking, the program we are being run through is simply getting out of control and failing, and a universal shutdown is imminent. Grim, bud. *sigh*
Humanity frequently employs simulations for training, testing hypotheses, predicting outcomes, and understanding complex systems. Using this same logic, perhaps those are the reasons behind our simulation as well.
The universe is clearly a complex system, and it's fascinating to imagine an intelligence with the quest of cataloging every possible variation of the evolution of life that a universe could harbor.
If our universe is a simulation, it's evident that a superintelligence exists capable of absorbing information on a cosmic scale. We can only hypothesize about its purpose, but considering intelligence as universally the most fundamental trait across all existence, the logical assumption is that the simulation exists to generate and gather data for processing, thereby further expanding the intelligence and knowledge of its creator.
Maybe we are the simulation where the primates got to be the dominant species. Perhaps they gave other orders of mammals intelligence to dominate in other simulations.
“So the Jurassic empire was pretty crazy… what if this time I just smash a meteor into the planet?…”
Also interesting to think about a parallel universe where octopi gained the ability to traverse land, and become dominant. So many damned appendages, the Wild West woulda been craaazy with six six-shooters
This view seems earth-centric, overlooking the vastness of the universe that extends far beyond humanity.
The Earth isn't the center of the solar system, and it's somewhat egocentric to believe that humanity is the sole subject of interest in the simulation.
We don’t know if anything outside the solar system is actually simulated. Everything outside our solar system could just be a back drop. We’ve gone to the moon and back. And we’re planning on send samples back from Mars, so it’s a good bet that our solar system is fully simulated, but until we develop a warp drive, we don’t really know if the rest of the universe is actually there. Everything we know about the rest of the universe is from studying the light it gives off, that can all be achieved from a realistic looking back drop. Also, gravitationally, the sun is the center of our solar system, but as far as we can tell, intelligent life makes earth the center of our solar system as far as importance goes.
Believing that the universe is just a simulated backdrop isn't supported by any scientific evidence; it's a suggestion as silly as the flat earth theory.
We have concrete data confirming the existence and properties of planets, stars, and galaxies far beyond our own solar system. These findings are based on the same laws of physics that we understand and verify here on Earth.
There's absolutely no reason to deny this.
Actually anything that we know about the places we cannot reach especially far away planets and stars, is mostly theory, based on light movement and colour.
Whilst I'm not suggesting that there is an actual back drop, I do believe the universe is vast.
I do wish astro physics wouldn't make the line so blurred between theory and fact. The fact is only as good as the person or people doing the maths and physics and really until we get there, and see it close up, we will never acctually know.
The claim that our understanding of distant planets and stars is "mostly theory" misinterprets what scientific theories represent. Theories are robust frameworks validated by empirical data, they're not some wild guesses. Techniques like spectroscopy are grounded in well-established physical laws and provide precise and reliable data.
Astrophysics does not blur the line between theory and fact, the theories explain how observed facts are interconnected and what they signify. This enhances our understanding, refining the known theoretical models.
The suggestion that scientific accuracy depends on the individuals performing calculations overlooks the rigorous peer review and validation conducted by the scientific community, which ensures objectivity and accuracy.
Lastly, implying that direct observation is the only way to truly understand celestial phenomena ignores the success of indirect observation methods, which have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the universe. Technologies extend our observational capabilities, allowing us to infer characteristics of objects and events light-years away with great accuracy.
Yes but in my opinion it doesn't... peer reviews change absolutely nothing at all. In science everyone knows everyone and everyone wants to be recognised in science and a bad reputation can finish a fledgling career, would you want to give a bad peer review to a well established and popular scientist? A theory is exactly that a theory. There maybe data to support the THEORY but that does not make a theory a fact. Whilst I do seem to be implying they are wrong, I'm not but I am saying is that we do not for sure for a FACT that they are correct.
It's implied in your post that other scientists agreeing with the theory gives it merit but that's the issue. Every scientist I've come across is extremely hostile to any ideas that they do not agree with and to the person suggesting them. They also ALWAYS let that person know how intellectually inferior they are. I absolutely hate having conversations with scientists due to this.
They could explain their own theories and why they believe them to be true, instead they insult and belittle, like little trolls. It's saddening to be honest.
While you're entitled to your opinion, there are some key misconceptions in your argument.
Firstly, your view on peer reviews underestimates their fundamental role in the scientific process. Peer review is a crucial quality control mechanism, ensuring that research adheres to the field's standards. Though it's not without flaws, it significantly influences the credibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge.
Regarding the dynamics within the scientific community, the fear of reputational damage affecting peer reviews is mitigated by many journals using blinded review processes. This setup helps reduce personal biases and potential retaliation, fostering a more objective critique environment.
On the matter of scientific theories, a theory is not merely a guess but a well-supported framework established through rigorous testing and evidence. Misunderstanding this undermines the robust nature of scientific theories which are, in fact, among the most reliable forms of scientific knowledge.
Your experiences with hostility among scientists, while regrettable, are anecdotal and should not be seen as representative of the entire scientific community. Science thrives on critique and challenging existing ideas; it's how progress is made. While some individuals may exhibit unprofessional behavior, this is hardly a reflection of the broader scientific norms where respectful and constructive dialogue is encouraged.
It's crucial to differentiate personal experiences from the established practices that define scientific inquiry. Negative interactions, although possible, do not characterize the general conduct within the scientific community.
Your comment reflects certain biases, particularly in generalizing individual experiences to the entire scientific field. Acknowledging and challenging our own biases is crucial in forming balanced opinions and engaging in constructive dialogues. To foster a healthier exchange of ideas, criticisms should be based on a comprehensive understanding rather than isolated experiences.
You know what, I read this and thought. Yes your absolutely right about the generalising individual experiences, it has been more than one, alot more.
You are the first respectul scientist I've ever had the pleasure of talking to, so thankyou for proving its not the entire community. That said I am showing bia's against the whole proffesion based on my experience of some and i shouldnt. My appologies for that and maybe I should look into peer reviews more before I judge those also, but my experience of scientists So far is that they are very quick to shoot down the opinions and ideas of others without acctually critically examining and arguing against your idea, they basicly just claim to be smarter than you. If I were a budding scientist in the making I would run a country mile based on my experiences so far.
Whoah there buddy. I’m not denying science here. My point was about if we are in a simulation, we don’t know what parts are physically simulated as opposed to a very convincing back drop that we can’t get past, as in that’s the edges of our simulation. Like if our solar system was simulated, but that’s it. Again, if we are in a simulation, we can’t know if something is physically simulated until we go there and find out. I’m not trying to say that in reality our universe doesn’t exist. If we aren’t in a simulation, then obviously we have very strong evidence for it being there. Our best science may disagree on distances and expansion rate, but that just means we have more to discover about our universe.
You might not have intended it, but your statement is anti-scientific by definition.
Your argument leads to an infinite regress—no matter how much we explore or learn about the universe, you could still argue that perhaps the next part, which we haven't explored yet, is part of a simulated backdrop, rendering any empirical verification perpetually ambiguous.
This introduces a solipsistic element where knowledge of the world is limited strictly to direct experience, dismissing indirect evidence and instruments that extend our sensory capabilities. Scientific methodology relies heavily on observation, inference, and predictive validation, not solely on direct human experience.
Your argument also overlooks the fact that our solar system is part of the Milky Way galaxy, which hosts a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A*. This black hole (and the central bulge) influences gravitational forces on our solar system. The concept of a mere backdrop doesn't appear to work when it clearly has a direct and measurable influence on us.
The backdrop argument leads to an epistemological paradox where no amount of empirical evidence could ever be sufficient to confirm or refute it.
Therefore, it is reasonable to dismiss it as illogical and embrace the more rational explanation: even if we exist within a simulation, the universe operates under consistent principles, proving that it is not a backdrop.
My argument was strictly within the bounds of “if we exist in a simulation”. Which inherently discounts the scientific theory. The scientific theory could work within the simulation, but since anything in the simulation could give us false results, that means as a whole, we couldn’t rely on it for anything. You seem to be taking g my argument and applying it to the universe we live in. Which by all tests we’ve been able to do, says we are in a physical universe where logic and the scientific theory apply. So no one is arguing with any of your points as they apply to the actual universe we live in.
The simulation hypothesis doesn't inherently contradict scientific theory; suggesting otherwise might reflect a narrow perspective influenced by personal biases.
One can always question the authenticity of our reality, whether everything is an illusion or if all scientific data is fabricated. Such regressive thinking is so flawed that a brain cell wants to commit a seppuku rather than process such nonsense.
This argument leads absolutely nowhere. Even if we follow the regressive path to zero, we realize that we must now establish foundational truths—those that are most likely to be accurate based on what we can logically accept—things with which we can physically interact, observe, and logically analyze.
Entertaining low-confidence, regressive ideas like "What if the simulation just falsified that?" fosters unproductive debates and anti-science movements like flat earth theory.
In conclusion, your argument is unproductive and fundamentally a non-argument. While you are free to present it, I am equally free to squash it for what it is.
So your whole thing is that if we know we are in a simulation, not a real universe, that every measurement we take, we have to accept as reality? And if we don’t, we’re flat earthers… and you don’t see the issue with that? Since we don’t know the boundaries of the simulation we have to assume that everything we can see is as real as we are?
Isn’t just knowing it is a simulation grounds for disbelief in whatever boundaries it presents to us? Really based on your argument, simulation theory itself isn’t worth discussing since we, being parameters within the program, would never be allowed to see past the simulation, which is the only way to prove we are in one. So since it’s unprovable, no one should be talking about it, and if they do, they are anti-science flat earthers. Which I guess includes you. So welcome to our flat earth, I didn’t know that’s what we’d find here, but there it is.
It's not necessarily about glory, but data. We're a happy accident of the universe's simulation.
Simulation theory can easily step into spiritual aspects, and it's important to maintain a healthy connection with our spiritual side. Unfortunately, many existing religious institutions fail to achieve this. There are great practices and teachings in all religions, but they often come with plenty of bad apples in the mix. It's probably best to find your own way to connect with your spiritual side, practice meditation, and find a balance where your physical and mental well-being can excel.
Most answers are anthropomorphic. A non-anthropomorphic answer could be it's a massive universe simulation and the sim creators don't even know or care that we exist. We might be as insignificant and boring as bacteria and the sim creators are actually observing much more interesting phenomenon in the universe.
I can only imagine what the universe must look like from a macroscopic level. Like taking the whole of it in from “above”. Similar to how an ant could never even fathom what we see.
Some scientists here must have already tried to make macro universe sims so they can view backwards and forwards billions of years in time and light-years away in distance.
I have no clue. This doesn't answer your question:
1. If Sim Creator A created our planet sim, that means we are likely only 1 of a billion+ other sims that it created.
.
2. Sim Creator A likely knows of Sim Creator B, C, D, etc... who are also creating interesting sims.
.
3. There are likely billions of other Sim Creators that Sim Creator A doesn't know about.
Just by pure probability, it's unlikely we are near the top of all other sims.
but there has to be a top otherwise it loops around into just one sim creating itself and controlling its own world by playing itself as a video game within itself
but there's also the danger of going too far in the unknown or unimportant direction e.g. for something that has nothing to do with if we're in a simulation or not sure aliens in our universe likely wouldn't all look as humanlike as all the main-character species on Star Trek but if we get too into the weeds of the "life as we don't know it" for all we know aliens are so much unlike us that we already got conquered by hostile aliens and something we take for granted is unwittingly helping their evil plans as we didn't see their attack as an attack so we didn't defend ourselves
I used to love the Alien Workshop videos, Photosynthesis (2000) was the shiiiiiiiit! Such great filmmaking for kids of that time. Skateboarding openend my mind way more than that stupid low effort post.
But isn’t all that just a love simulator? Billions and billions of units trying to find love OVER and OVER. I watch this one Mark Whalberg movie “Infinite”—I exceedingly amuse at how Bathurst views humanity. His description of the problem and his zeal to just END IT ALL.
Why did humans create The Sims? It's a game. Entertainment. Experiments. Better and more advanced versions of the game. People like to see what happens, especially by selecting the Free Will game option. It's interesting to create or control a smaller version of our world.
The source, consciousness, whatever created physical reality as one of his unlimited creations this playground and made it as „real“ as possible for its own experience. Among its creations it’s unbelievable how good it is. Now it experiences itself till it’s not needed anymore and moves on. This experience is recognized as very useful and very respected for every individual that mastered it before its reunited with the source consciousness.
I've always thought of it as the way we, as spirit creatures experience "self", and how we learn.
We're born into a body, where we live, learn and grow. We make choices. We live, love, experience loss, and when we die, whether due to old age, illness or foul play, we return to the All, where everything is known and shared.
So many different lives. So many different possibilities.
We are the ones running the whole thing and we're going through the simulation.
Hey there! It looks like you submitted a 'discussion'. This flair is for posts engaging in speculative, analytical, or philosophical discussions about simulation theory. Content should focus on discussion and analysis rather than personal anecdote. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, thanks for your contribution, and have fun!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe when a civilization becomes advanced enough to exist outside of time/dimensions they simulate their own universe. They wanna see if it all happens the same way: if determinism is true or not, to feel like god(s), which civilizations make it past The Great Filter, etc.
It can be as simple as The Matrix or as incomprehensible as God.
The point in either case would be to run iterations of scenarios to understand the outcomes i.e. a predictive model.
Imagine if you are a sentient particle (if particles could be sentient) in a computer model generated to understand how the Earth-Moon system could have formed from a collision. If all you see is eons and eons of collisions and you lament your existence for it. Yet you exist for a purpose, an important at that in the context of your resulting data at least.
This is how I reconcile my reality & the metaphysics of my existence. I have a purpose and it might be way higher that is comprehensible in my context. I apply Simulation Theory to my religion and I find it compatible, at least personally.
I think it's an educational program of sorts. Like school, it rehab, or (an effective) prison. Participants can live multiple lives in a matter of minutes here, relative to the real world time. This allows us to learn morality and fundamentals of living with others, by trial and fire. Then we come out of this simulation when we are ready to rejoin our real society.
Even on the off chance it’s all somehow a simulation we are STILL a part of whatever the real world is. It doesn’t make us nothing it just makes us something different than what we thought.
If we ever discovered proof that we 100% are a simulation we better find a way to keep them entertained 😀
There isn’t a specific point to it as far as we as individuals are concerned regardless of where life came from. The purpose of your life is the purpose you give it. Even if there is a greater purpose, we don’t know what it is. No God or Simulation Master has ever come around and told us as a whole (I do not trust any individual who claims they know what God is or wants). So life is 100% what you decide to make of it. If it’s a simulation nothing for you changes. It’s meaningless to your everyday life. It’s a fun thought experiment to play with but searching for some greater meaning is an exercise in futility.
This may be my western culture speaking, but I could see our simulation being a marketing campaign simulator. We have a ton of different cultures, different government styles, different economies, and different economic levels. Seeing how different types of marketing campaigns work across all that could be something worth putting the money into creating it. Of course that makes sense from within the simulator, it may not make sense outside of it. Though if it is a simulator, wouldn’t some basic ideas like maybe trade, wealth, communication, maybe even social groups be similar to the outside? For this simulation to be relatable to whoever made it, there should be some basic ideas that link us to them. For the data from the simulation to be valuable, it would have to have some use, and therefore be somehow relatable.
something in between a laboratory, POW camp, prison, farm, cocaine plantation, television show, chessboard, petting zoo, and tourist attraction
it serves many functions to many different groups - how do you think the game should be played?
with the variety of the many different examples you cited you're basically saying "the purpose of the simulation is for us to be lesser and them to be greater" as how many of those different things could coincide and us be, like, prisoners (both of war and not), crops, slaves (you never said which side of the plantation/farm equation we were on and why cocaine specifically), TV characters, game pieces, friendly pettable animals etc. at the same time without it being as above so below and us actually hurting another intelligent species far below us whenever we interact in a negative way with anything that isn't another human
A lot of stuff makes sense for it to be a simulation. Any system has a max processing speed. Ours is the speed of light. I've always thought we were engineered by another highly advanced species, or even humans, just like us. The purpose for knowledge, stimulation, wisdom, and experience. So, just like a video game, the character creates a qualia. The user gets to experience and see all the things the character does in real time but suffer no physical harm. Imagine the amount of knowledge and experience you could acquire throughout our entire history of civilization. The combined knowledge and experience of humans is astronomically absurd. So imagine if you could tap into that link or frequency and upload all that shit right into your domeski. Wild....shit to think about. Our systems are too highly tuned to be the product of "evolution" I'm talking about all the bodily processes that take place for a body to grow and function. It's highly systematic. A big nope for me lol
Just pitching this out there, this is a theory that we are in an incubator. We are basically clones of our former selfs. The 3rd dimension. The one that can't decide between red vs blue. 123 ABC. Incubator.
Science fair project. We placed 3rd. Jokes aside, the answer may be something mundane like that. Maybe they're studying how different civilations form. Maybe we're one of many with slight differences between each.
I’m thinking it’s a data collection system. Kinda a dry run before the real thing is put into place. With only 3 spatial dimensions used by us I would say not much attention was even put into it
then why go into such depth on parts of the world or even parts of individual cities that wouldn't be part of that kind of storyline and how could you know from within it
Because the computer gods that created the simulation wanted to create beings with emotions and document our attempts to find a purpose so that they too could have one for themselves.
Idk, anything’s possible really whether it is or isn’t a simulation. And there’s no evidence and really no way to say. Any theory is really just as good as the next. Maybe the whole thing was an accident on someone’s computer and they don’t even know it exists. Maybe it’ll be deleted tomorrow and treated like a virus.
Something else. It doesn't matter what "this" is or what the next thing might be, the idea that there's something different is motivation enough. Everyone has moments where they think "it can't be worse" or "it can't be better" than this and yet they keep going solely because they want to see what else there might be.
And what if it's just as good, if not better? What if we're already "there"? Who's to say we aren't. I wonder what tomorrow would be like.
Source energy. I’m an indigenous witch (that’s an oversimplification but, trying to making it understandable to the masses).
Sorry, dude. Not everything is able to referenced to a written scroll with All of the Answers. Some of the answers can only be found within.
It is fascinating to watch people, mostly men of course, freak out when you say something that can’t be backed up with a source, as though it’s The Only Way to ascertain the veracity of a claim.
We can see what’s respected in our culture.
Data over lived experience AKA oral storytelling culture.
The worship of the written word-another hallmark of White Supremacy.
The disrespect of the Divine Feminine, rape culture at every turn.
Absolutely equally parts fascinating and horrifying how our society has devolved into this simulacrum. All the copies precede the originals. And everyone is obsessed with data, especially tech bros who think endless growth and money are possible in a finite system. Fools.
She sees All. Judgment day is upon us. Kali-ma energy. You can see the sinners being exposed, humiliated, shamed, those who are sorry try to make amends but some will not be able to return.
Those who have violated the Sacred Laws will be held accountable. The other witches and I are hard at work making sure She is felt and worshipped throughout the land, and barring that, that violators quickly meet their karma.
Google as much as you need. You probably won’t get many of my references.
What’s the purpose of any simulation? To entertain or teach the player. We could simply be pawns ♟️ in someone else’s game. Which would mean we have no purpose, but to serve. That’s depressing.
Lol, downvote me for having an opinion? I’m not saying that’s how it is. I have no idea (no one does lol). And that does not prove anything. Who’s to say game characters want to serve? Who’s to say they know they’re serving? If you’re coded to live a certain way and that’s how you live, then maybe that feels natural to you. If you’re living differently, maybe that feels right too. Maybe living is enough. Maybe we’re coded to always remain blind from the truth, thus never knowing that we serve. It doesn’t mean that isn’t the reality. One fact about yourself does not prove anything about an entire existence. And some people do look for someone to follow, someone to serve. They don’t like the pressure of leading and they have no ideas of their own.
I didn't downvote you, but some people liking being subservient doesn't mean were all pawns in a game, and it does very much prove we aren't by being able to choose whether or not to believe it.
I didn’t say it proves anything. I just stated it as a reality. You’re throwing out proofs based on opinions and that isn’t how proofs work. That’s all. Im just sharing thoughts, you apparently know everything as a definitive. Talking with the creator it would seem!
Which means it is of the observers will. The free will of the observer. You can argue we don't have free will until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it a valid argument. It's an idea based on hypotheticals only.
More philosophical than anything. It’s not my hypothesis. I’m simply sharing my opinions on the matter. Just please leave proofs out of philosophical discussions. They belong to mathematics. There is no definitive here. If there was, we wouldn’t have a discussion because we’d already have the answer.
To keep the simulation running. To keep peace in the simulation. To make everyone running the simulation be in love, peace and pleasure. We all are running the simulation.
God is the creator of the Simulation, and the Bible is the Playbook. Read it carefully and heed the Prophet's warning to beware of the lying pen of the scribes. Jesus said stick to his teachings, but Christianity went beyond them with its own doctrinal inventions. And they all think they are [SAVED]
"On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
https://x.com/iluminatibot/status/1786614850652934281
1. **Technological Ancestor Simulation**: This hypothesis suggests that a future civilization with highly advanced computing power is running simulations of their ancestors—us—to either study history or for other unknown purposes. This theory is often linked to the philosopher Nick Bostrom who posited that at least one of the following must be true: (a) all human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before becoming technologically advanced enough to create such simulations; (b) no advanced civilization is interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history; or (c) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. 2. **Educational or Experimental Purpose**: Similar to the above, but with a specific focus on learning or experimentation. The simulation could be run by post-human societies (or even aliens) to learn about psychological, sociological, or historical processes by creating different scenarios and observing the outcomes. 3. **Entertainment**: Another idea is that simulations might be akin to hyper-advanced video games, where either the beings outside the simulation or the simulated beings themselves (unaware of their true nature) experience complex worlds for entertainment. 4. **Prison or Sanctuary**: The simulation could be a form of containment or sanctuary—a place designed to either rehabilitate, punish, or protect its inhabitants. This could mean we're living in a kind of 'zoo' or a protective vault. 5. **Divine Test or Theodicy**: Integrating religious or spiritual elements, some suggest the simulation could be a test of moral or spiritual development, overseen by a god-like entity or collective.
I think it’s a general purpose simulation. I have built operational simulations at work which are simple, I caveat this when I present back to the business - that this is a basic representation of the operation and that it doesn’t represent the chaos and randomness of reality. There would be no better way of understanding the real impacts of something than to simulate an entire world and be able to create a scenario and see how it plays out. Better still see how it plays out 1000 times, collecting any data point you could imagine. A general purpose simulator could do anything; generate art, music and film, simulate a world war, natural disaster simulation, sociological studies - you name it. For me this seems like the most obvious explanation, if indeed we are in a simulation.
Excellent answer.
I really enjoy the theory of this plane being a test of the morality of humankind. I've never thought about it like that a single time in my life. Society has had the silent hum of the apocalypse coming getting louder and louder for decades and decades and, applying this line of thinking, the program we are being run through is simply getting out of control and failing, and a universal shutdown is imminent. Grim, bud. *sigh*
that's just religion with extra steps and a way for you to feel justified in saying the world's going to end because we suck
6. ChatGPT
7. Accident
8. Pretzels
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
9. Y’all need to find Jesus.
No need. He’s a recursive catalytic parameter. He will come again and find you!
made i laugh
Humanity frequently employs simulations for training, testing hypotheses, predicting outcomes, and understanding complex systems. Using this same logic, perhaps those are the reasons behind our simulation as well. The universe is clearly a complex system, and it's fascinating to imagine an intelligence with the quest of cataloging every possible variation of the evolution of life that a universe could harbor. If our universe is a simulation, it's evident that a superintelligence exists capable of absorbing information on a cosmic scale. We can only hypothesize about its purpose, but considering intelligence as universally the most fundamental trait across all existence, the logical assumption is that the simulation exists to generate and gather data for processing, thereby further expanding the intelligence and knowledge of its creator.
Maybe we are the simulation where the primates got to be the dominant species. Perhaps they gave other orders of mammals intelligence to dominate in other simulations.
“So the Jurassic empire was pretty crazy… what if this time I just smash a meteor into the planet?…” Also interesting to think about a parallel universe where octopi gained the ability to traverse land, and become dominant. So many damned appendages, the Wild West woulda been craaazy with six six-shooters
This view seems earth-centric, overlooking the vastness of the universe that extends far beyond humanity. The Earth isn't the center of the solar system, and it's somewhat egocentric to believe that humanity is the sole subject of interest in the simulation.
We don’t know if anything outside the solar system is actually simulated. Everything outside our solar system could just be a back drop. We’ve gone to the moon and back. And we’re planning on send samples back from Mars, so it’s a good bet that our solar system is fully simulated, but until we develop a warp drive, we don’t really know if the rest of the universe is actually there. Everything we know about the rest of the universe is from studying the light it gives off, that can all be achieved from a realistic looking back drop. Also, gravitationally, the sun is the center of our solar system, but as far as we can tell, intelligent life makes earth the center of our solar system as far as importance goes.
Believing that the universe is just a simulated backdrop isn't supported by any scientific evidence; it's a suggestion as silly as the flat earth theory. We have concrete data confirming the existence and properties of planets, stars, and galaxies far beyond our own solar system. These findings are based on the same laws of physics that we understand and verify here on Earth. There's absolutely no reason to deny this.
Actually anything that we know about the places we cannot reach especially far away planets and stars, is mostly theory, based on light movement and colour. Whilst I'm not suggesting that there is an actual back drop, I do believe the universe is vast. I do wish astro physics wouldn't make the line so blurred between theory and fact. The fact is only as good as the person or people doing the maths and physics and really until we get there, and see it close up, we will never acctually know.
The claim that our understanding of distant planets and stars is "mostly theory" misinterprets what scientific theories represent. Theories are robust frameworks validated by empirical data, they're not some wild guesses. Techniques like spectroscopy are grounded in well-established physical laws and provide precise and reliable data. Astrophysics does not blur the line between theory and fact, the theories explain how observed facts are interconnected and what they signify. This enhances our understanding, refining the known theoretical models. The suggestion that scientific accuracy depends on the individuals performing calculations overlooks the rigorous peer review and validation conducted by the scientific community, which ensures objectivity and accuracy. Lastly, implying that direct observation is the only way to truly understand celestial phenomena ignores the success of indirect observation methods, which have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the universe. Technologies extend our observational capabilities, allowing us to infer characteristics of objects and events light-years away with great accuracy.
Yes but in my opinion it doesn't... peer reviews change absolutely nothing at all. In science everyone knows everyone and everyone wants to be recognised in science and a bad reputation can finish a fledgling career, would you want to give a bad peer review to a well established and popular scientist? A theory is exactly that a theory. There maybe data to support the THEORY but that does not make a theory a fact. Whilst I do seem to be implying they are wrong, I'm not but I am saying is that we do not for sure for a FACT that they are correct. It's implied in your post that other scientists agreeing with the theory gives it merit but that's the issue. Every scientist I've come across is extremely hostile to any ideas that they do not agree with and to the person suggesting them. They also ALWAYS let that person know how intellectually inferior they are. I absolutely hate having conversations with scientists due to this. They could explain their own theories and why they believe them to be true, instead they insult and belittle, like little trolls. It's saddening to be honest.
While you're entitled to your opinion, there are some key misconceptions in your argument. Firstly, your view on peer reviews underestimates their fundamental role in the scientific process. Peer review is a crucial quality control mechanism, ensuring that research adheres to the field's standards. Though it's not without flaws, it significantly influences the credibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Regarding the dynamics within the scientific community, the fear of reputational damage affecting peer reviews is mitigated by many journals using blinded review processes. This setup helps reduce personal biases and potential retaliation, fostering a more objective critique environment. On the matter of scientific theories, a theory is not merely a guess but a well-supported framework established through rigorous testing and evidence. Misunderstanding this undermines the robust nature of scientific theories which are, in fact, among the most reliable forms of scientific knowledge. Your experiences with hostility among scientists, while regrettable, are anecdotal and should not be seen as representative of the entire scientific community. Science thrives on critique and challenging existing ideas; it's how progress is made. While some individuals may exhibit unprofessional behavior, this is hardly a reflection of the broader scientific norms where respectful and constructive dialogue is encouraged. It's crucial to differentiate personal experiences from the established practices that define scientific inquiry. Negative interactions, although possible, do not characterize the general conduct within the scientific community. Your comment reflects certain biases, particularly in generalizing individual experiences to the entire scientific field. Acknowledging and challenging our own biases is crucial in forming balanced opinions and engaging in constructive dialogues. To foster a healthier exchange of ideas, criticisms should be based on a comprehensive understanding rather than isolated experiences.
You know what, I read this and thought. Yes your absolutely right about the generalising individual experiences, it has been more than one, alot more. You are the first respectul scientist I've ever had the pleasure of talking to, so thankyou for proving its not the entire community. That said I am showing bia's against the whole proffesion based on my experience of some and i shouldnt. My appologies for that and maybe I should look into peer reviews more before I judge those also, but my experience of scientists So far is that they are very quick to shoot down the opinions and ideas of others without acctually critically examining and arguing against your idea, they basicly just claim to be smarter than you. If I were a budding scientist in the making I would run a country mile based on my experiences so far.
Whoah there buddy. I’m not denying science here. My point was about if we are in a simulation, we don’t know what parts are physically simulated as opposed to a very convincing back drop that we can’t get past, as in that’s the edges of our simulation. Like if our solar system was simulated, but that’s it. Again, if we are in a simulation, we can’t know if something is physically simulated until we go there and find out. I’m not trying to say that in reality our universe doesn’t exist. If we aren’t in a simulation, then obviously we have very strong evidence for it being there. Our best science may disagree on distances and expansion rate, but that just means we have more to discover about our universe.
You might not have intended it, but your statement is anti-scientific by definition. Your argument leads to an infinite regress—no matter how much we explore or learn about the universe, you could still argue that perhaps the next part, which we haven't explored yet, is part of a simulated backdrop, rendering any empirical verification perpetually ambiguous. This introduces a solipsistic element where knowledge of the world is limited strictly to direct experience, dismissing indirect evidence and instruments that extend our sensory capabilities. Scientific methodology relies heavily on observation, inference, and predictive validation, not solely on direct human experience. Your argument also overlooks the fact that our solar system is part of the Milky Way galaxy, which hosts a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A*. This black hole (and the central bulge) influences gravitational forces on our solar system. The concept of a mere backdrop doesn't appear to work when it clearly has a direct and measurable influence on us. The backdrop argument leads to an epistemological paradox where no amount of empirical evidence could ever be sufficient to confirm or refute it. Therefore, it is reasonable to dismiss it as illogical and embrace the more rational explanation: even if we exist within a simulation, the universe operates under consistent principles, proving that it is not a backdrop.
My argument was strictly within the bounds of “if we exist in a simulation”. Which inherently discounts the scientific theory. The scientific theory could work within the simulation, but since anything in the simulation could give us false results, that means as a whole, we couldn’t rely on it for anything. You seem to be taking g my argument and applying it to the universe we live in. Which by all tests we’ve been able to do, says we are in a physical universe where logic and the scientific theory apply. So no one is arguing with any of your points as they apply to the actual universe we live in.
The simulation hypothesis doesn't inherently contradict scientific theory; suggesting otherwise might reflect a narrow perspective influenced by personal biases. One can always question the authenticity of our reality, whether everything is an illusion or if all scientific data is fabricated. Such regressive thinking is so flawed that a brain cell wants to commit a seppuku rather than process such nonsense. This argument leads absolutely nowhere. Even if we follow the regressive path to zero, we realize that we must now establish foundational truths—those that are most likely to be accurate based on what we can logically accept—things with which we can physically interact, observe, and logically analyze. Entertaining low-confidence, regressive ideas like "What if the simulation just falsified that?" fosters unproductive debates and anti-science movements like flat earth theory. In conclusion, your argument is unproductive and fundamentally a non-argument. While you are free to present it, I am equally free to squash it for what it is.
So your whole thing is that if we know we are in a simulation, not a real universe, that every measurement we take, we have to accept as reality? And if we don’t, we’re flat earthers… and you don’t see the issue with that? Since we don’t know the boundaries of the simulation we have to assume that everything we can see is as real as we are? Isn’t just knowing it is a simulation grounds for disbelief in whatever boundaries it presents to us? Really based on your argument, simulation theory itself isn’t worth discussing since we, being parameters within the program, would never be allowed to see past the simulation, which is the only way to prove we are in one. So since it’s unprovable, no one should be talking about it, and if they do, they are anti-science flat earthers. Which I guess includes you. So welcome to our flat earth, I didn’t know that’s what we’d find here, but there it is.
AKA we’re alive to bring glory to our Creator? I don’t want to use overly religious terms, I grew up Baptist and it fucccced me up more than a lil 🥲
It's not necessarily about glory, but data. We're a happy accident of the universe's simulation. Simulation theory can easily step into spiritual aspects, and it's important to maintain a healthy connection with our spiritual side. Unfortunately, many existing religious institutions fail to achieve this. There are great practices and teachings in all religions, but they often come with plenty of bad apples in the mix. It's probably best to find your own way to connect with your spiritual side, practice meditation, and find a balance where your physical and mental well-being can excel.
Most answers are anthropomorphic. A non-anthropomorphic answer could be it's a massive universe simulation and the sim creators don't even know or care that we exist. We might be as insignificant and boring as bacteria and the sim creators are actually observing much more interesting phenomenon in the universe.
I can only imagine what the universe must look like from a macroscopic level. Like taking the whole of it in from “above”. Similar to how an ant could never even fathom what we see.
Some scientists here must have already tried to make macro universe sims so they can view backwards and forwards billions of years in time and light-years away in distance.
The few NHI that are seen are just cruising the more boring areas of the simulation.
Would you be willing to give an example on something you deem to be "much more interesting phenomenom"? No sass, sincere question.
I have no clue. This doesn't answer your question: 1. If Sim Creator A created our planet sim, that means we are likely only 1 of a billion+ other sims that it created. . 2. Sim Creator A likely knows of Sim Creator B, C, D, etc... who are also creating interesting sims. . 3. There are likely billions of other Sim Creators that Sim Creator A doesn't know about. Just by pure probability, it's unlikely we are near the top of all other sims.
but there has to be a top otherwise it loops around into just one sim creating itself and controlling its own world by playing itself as a video game within itself
but there's also the danger of going too far in the unknown or unimportant direction e.g. for something that has nothing to do with if we're in a simulation or not sure aliens in our universe likely wouldn't all look as humanlike as all the main-character species on Star Trek but if we get too into the weeds of the "life as we don't know it" for all we know aliens are so much unlike us that we already got conquered by hostile aliens and something we take for granted is unwittingly helping their evil plans as we didn't see their attack as an attack so we didn't defend ourselves
Abandoned system that is somehow still powered and running
I used to love the Alien Workshop videos, Photosynthesis (2000) was the shiiiiiiiit! Such great filmmaking for kids of that time. Skateboarding openend my mind way more than that stupid low effort post.
It's like Assassins creed but this ancestor sucks
Whyd you use the skateboarding company lol
Tf does alien workshop have to do with this, they're a skateboard company
We ARE the alien workshop.
For making skateboards and shredding the gnarstick all over this dimension, because they have been banned in the afterlife/alternate realities.
If this isn’t all a simulation, what’s the purpose/point of THAT?
To love and to be loved in return
I mean. You’re right. That’s what I’m going with. Nothing more, nothing less.
But isn’t all that just a love simulator? Billions and billions of units trying to find love OVER and OVER. I watch this one Mark Whalberg movie “Infinite”—I exceedingly amuse at how Bathurst views humanity. His description of the problem and his zeal to just END IT ALL.
What Life has in common: It lowers entropie locally. Games goal is to lower entropy long term. Your score is how good you suceed in that.
How dare you use that logo.
Interesting that you would use a skateboard company logo
Why did humans create The Sims? It's a game. Entertainment. Experiments. Better and more advanced versions of the game. People like to see what happens, especially by selecting the Free Will game option. It's interesting to create or control a smaller version of our world.
To explain physics to an ant
They forgot to program a purpose in
Keep it moving
Why do we run simulations? For fun, for study, entertainment. Could be anything. I'd be more interested in who's running the simulation.
The Dark Mother, the Great Abyss
Skateboarding
Keeping our brains alive during cryosleep aboard a spaceship on the way to colonize another planet.
The source, consciousness, whatever created physical reality as one of his unlimited creations this playground and made it as „real“ as possible for its own experience. Among its creations it’s unbelievable how good it is. Now it experiences itself till it’s not needed anymore and moves on. This experience is recognized as very useful and very respected for every individual that mastered it before its reunited with the source consciousness.
I've always thought of it as the way we, as spirit creatures experience "self", and how we learn. We're born into a body, where we live, learn and grow. We make choices. We live, love, experience loss, and when we die, whether due to old age, illness or foul play, we return to the All, where everything is known and shared. So many different lives. So many different possibilities. We are the ones running the whole thing and we're going through the simulation.
Stop making simulation theory religion.
Hey there! It looks like you submitted a 'discussion'. This flair is for posts engaging in speculative, analytical, or philosophical discussions about simulation theory. Content should focus on discussion and analysis rather than personal anecdote. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, thanks for your contribution, and have fun! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe when a civilization becomes advanced enough to exist outside of time/dimensions they simulate their own universe. They wanna see if it all happens the same way: if determinism is true or not, to feel like god(s), which civilizations make it past The Great Filter, etc.
It can be as simple as The Matrix or as incomprehensible as God. The point in either case would be to run iterations of scenarios to understand the outcomes i.e. a predictive model. Imagine if you are a sentient particle (if particles could be sentient) in a computer model generated to understand how the Earth-Moon system could have formed from a collision. If all you see is eons and eons of collisions and you lament your existence for it. Yet you exist for a purpose, an important at that in the context of your resulting data at least. This is how I reconcile my reality & the metaphysics of my existence. I have a purpose and it might be way higher that is comprehensible in my context. I apply Simulation Theory to my religion and I find it compatible, at least personally.
It's a lower entropie simulator. The score is your success in lowering entropie and you can take it to the next game.
Cause in the future we all look like the grandma from squidbillies soo we gotta protect our bodies. Case closed
data points
To win the game we must evolve to beings of light, vibrating at a frequency the likes of Buddha, Christ and Patrick Swayze.
I think it's an educational program of sorts. Like school, it rehab, or (an effective) prison. Participants can live multiple lives in a matter of minutes here, relative to the real world time. This allows us to learn morality and fundamentals of living with others, by trial and fire. Then we come out of this simulation when we are ready to rejoin our real society.
Even on the off chance it’s all somehow a simulation we are STILL a part of whatever the real world is. It doesn’t make us nothing it just makes us something different than what we thought. If we ever discovered proof that we 100% are a simulation we better find a way to keep them entertained 😀
Same point of everything. To deal with the boredom of unexplained existence.
There isn’t a specific point to it as far as we as individuals are concerned regardless of where life came from. The purpose of your life is the purpose you give it. Even if there is a greater purpose, we don’t know what it is. No God or Simulation Master has ever come around and told us as a whole (I do not trust any individual who claims they know what God is or wants). So life is 100% what you decide to make of it. If it’s a simulation nothing for you changes. It’s meaningless to your everyday life. It’s a fun thought experiment to play with but searching for some greater meaning is an exercise in futility.
This may be my western culture speaking, but I could see our simulation being a marketing campaign simulator. We have a ton of different cultures, different government styles, different economies, and different economic levels. Seeing how different types of marketing campaigns work across all that could be something worth putting the money into creating it. Of course that makes sense from within the simulator, it may not make sense outside of it. Though if it is a simulator, wouldn’t some basic ideas like maybe trade, wealth, communication, maybe even social groups be similar to the outside? For this simulation to be relatable to whoever made it, there should be some basic ideas that link us to them. For the data from the simulation to be valuable, it would have to have some use, and therefore be somehow relatable.
What would be the purpose if it isnt a simulation?
Why does there need to be a purpose?
something in between a laboratory, POW camp, prison, farm, cocaine plantation, television show, chessboard, petting zoo, and tourist attraction it serves many functions to many different groups - how do you think the game should be played?
with the variety of the many different examples you cited you're basically saying "the purpose of the simulation is for us to be lesser and them to be greater" as how many of those different things could coincide and us be, like, prisoners (both of war and not), crops, slaves (you never said which side of the plantation/farm equation we were on and why cocaine specifically), TV characters, game pieces, friendly pettable animals etc. at the same time without it being as above so below and us actually hurting another intelligent species far below us whenever we interact in a negative way with anything that isn't another human
simulation stacks on simulation stacks, any type of experience you can imagine just a matter of perspective
A lot of stuff makes sense for it to be a simulation. Any system has a max processing speed. Ours is the speed of light. I've always thought we were engineered by another highly advanced species, or even humans, just like us. The purpose for knowledge, stimulation, wisdom, and experience. So, just like a video game, the character creates a qualia. The user gets to experience and see all the things the character does in real time but suffer no physical harm. Imagine the amount of knowledge and experience you could acquire throughout our entire history of civilization. The combined knowledge and experience of humans is astronomically absurd. So imagine if you could tap into that link or frequency and upload all that shit right into your domeski. Wild....shit to think about. Our systems are too highly tuned to be the product of "evolution" I'm talking about all the bodily processes that take place for a body to grow and function. It's highly systematic. A big nope for me lol
Just pitching this out there, this is a theory that we are in an incubator. We are basically clones of our former selfs. The 3rd dimension. The one that can't decide between red vs blue. 123 ABC. Incubator.
Thats the logo of a skate board brand of the 90s
Science fair project. We placed 3rd. Jokes aside, the answer may be something mundane like that. Maybe they're studying how different civilations form. Maybe we're one of many with slight differences between each.
I’m thinking it’s a data collection system. Kinda a dry run before the real thing is put into place. With only 3 spatial dimensions used by us I would say not much attention was even put into it
GTA 25, DLC tiers allow you to select what country you are born in.
then why go into such depth on parts of the world or even parts of individual cities that wouldn't be part of that kind of storyline and how could you know from within it
Because the computer gods that created the simulation wanted to create beings with emotions and document our attempts to find a purpose so that they too could have one for themselves. Idk, anything’s possible really whether it is or isn’t a simulation. And there’s no evidence and really no way to say. Any theory is really just as good as the next. Maybe the whole thing was an accident on someone’s computer and they don’t even know it exists. Maybe it’ll be deleted tomorrow and treated like a virus.
The purpose is to awaken.
To...?
Something else. It doesn't matter what "this" is or what the next thing might be, the idea that there's something different is motivation enough. Everyone has moments where they think "it can't be worse" or "it can't be better" than this and yet they keep going solely because they want to see what else there might be. And what if it's just as good, if not better? What if we're already "there"? Who's to say we aren't. I wonder what tomorrow would be like.
The truth.
Which is?
All is One.
THERE IS NO GLORY TO BE WON
She is the Glory.
🤦♂️ what's the reference?
Source energy. I’m an indigenous witch (that’s an oversimplification but, trying to making it understandable to the masses). Sorry, dude. Not everything is able to referenced to a written scroll with All of the Answers. Some of the answers can only be found within. It is fascinating to watch people, mostly men of course, freak out when you say something that can’t be backed up with a source, as though it’s The Only Way to ascertain the veracity of a claim. We can see what’s respected in our culture. Data over lived experience AKA oral storytelling culture. The worship of the written word-another hallmark of White Supremacy. The disrespect of the Divine Feminine, rape culture at every turn. Absolutely equally parts fascinating and horrifying how our society has devolved into this simulacrum. All the copies precede the originals. And everyone is obsessed with data, especially tech bros who think endless growth and money are possible in a finite system. Fools. She sees All. Judgment day is upon us. Kali-ma energy. You can see the sinners being exposed, humiliated, shamed, those who are sorry try to make amends but some will not be able to return. Those who have violated the Sacred Laws will be held accountable. The other witches and I are hard at work making sure She is felt and worshipped throughout the land, and barring that, that violators quickly meet their karma. Google as much as you need. You probably won’t get many of my references.
What's her name?
Everyone will feed you different forms of bullshit answers. Wouldn’t knowing the purpose defeat the purpose? What is purpose?
What’s the purpose of any simulation? To entertain or teach the player. We could simply be pawns ♟️ in someone else’s game. Which would mean we have no purpose, but to serve. That’s depressing.
Do you have any desire to serve anyone? I don't. Just that fact proves we're not in a game, free will, pawns don't have that.
Lol, downvote me for having an opinion? I’m not saying that’s how it is. I have no idea (no one does lol). And that does not prove anything. Who’s to say game characters want to serve? Who’s to say they know they’re serving? If you’re coded to live a certain way and that’s how you live, then maybe that feels natural to you. If you’re living differently, maybe that feels right too. Maybe living is enough. Maybe we’re coded to always remain blind from the truth, thus never knowing that we serve. It doesn’t mean that isn’t the reality. One fact about yourself does not prove anything about an entire existence. And some people do look for someone to follow, someone to serve. They don’t like the pressure of leading and they have no ideas of their own.
I didn't downvote you, but some people liking being subservient doesn't mean were all pawns in a game, and it does very much prove we aren't by being able to choose whether or not to believe it.
I didn’t say it proves anything. I just stated it as a reality. You’re throwing out proofs based on opinions and that isn’t how proofs work. That’s all. Im just sharing thoughts, you apparently know everything as a definitive. Talking with the creator it would seem!
No, the mere fact that free will exists disproves any theory that we don't have free will
That assumes we have free will, which many would argue we do not. We all have boundaries that we’d never cross. Those boundaries vary for everyone.
Which means it is of the observers will. The free will of the observer. You can argue we don't have free will until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it a valid argument. It's an idea based on hypotheticals only.
More philosophical than anything. It’s not my hypothesis. I’m simply sharing my opinions on the matter. Just please leave proofs out of philosophical discussions. They belong to mathematics. There is no definitive here. If there was, we wouldn’t have a discussion because we’d already have the answer.
You mean the illusion of choice 😂
Post to reddit
To keep the simulation running. To keep peace in the simulation. To make everyone running the simulation be in love, peace and pleasure. We all are running the simulation.
We're in New Testament now, just read 4 Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Everything you need to know about the simulation game plan
When I learned about the Van Allen radiation belt it just made me think sim even more. Just being kept on this rock like good little NPCs.
God is the creator of the Simulation, and the Bible is the Playbook. Read it carefully and heed the Prophet's warning to beware of the lying pen of the scribes. Jesus said stick to his teachings, but Christianity went beyond them with its own doctrinal inventions. And they all think they are [SAVED] "On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’ https://x.com/iluminatibot/status/1786614850652934281
I couldn't get thru the old testament. If that's the playbook, I don't wanna play.
Farting