I read the book, in it's entirety, and find inconsistencies.
On page 5, we read:
Here, we see the author claiming "special knowledge" that he "received", which is standard in nearly all religions - the "leader" of the religion must be "set apart", elevated above the teeming masses that constitute the base of the religion. Note also the line "just follow me and everything will be alright". Where have we seen that before? Also make note of the phrases "Ill teach you how to live and what to believe" and "believe in me and my teachings".
However, as if to contradict that, the author states further on page 6:
So he expressly denies that it is a religion or a cult. Keep that in mind, as we will revisit it later.
Regarding the limiting parameters of this alleged simulation, the speed of light is mentioned as one of those limits that is coded into the simulation. Now, I've never been convinced that the speed of light is an absolute limit, as the speed of light is subject to the medium through which it propagates - this is why it is always specified as "the speed of light in vacuum", which vacuum does not actually exist anywhere. Wherever we go, there is always "something" present, however tenuous. But let's assume the speed of light is a valid limitation for the sake of argument - in this simulation, it would be meaningless anyhow, on account of the potential for the "teleportation" type of "glitches" or "cheat codes" mentioned in the text, and so would not be any sort of actual limitation, anyhow.
Regarding the discussion of rights for AI, the author mentions a "granting" of rights to AI. This is an incorrect understanding of what "rights" are, and demotes them to mere privileges. Rights (for example, rights of AI) are not "granted", they are pre-existent. "Granting" rights demotes them to the level of "privileges" rather than rights, and implies that, since they are "granted", they are also subject to revocation by the granting authority. That would make of them "privileges" rather than actual "rights", which are never subject to revocation. That is what makes them "rights" to begin with.
Getting back to the "religion/cult vs. not a religion/cult" debate, we find the following on page 81:
Here, we see it to be expressly described as a "faith", another word for "religion", and even further, designated as "more of a cult" by the author himself. The initial claim of being a "not religion" is here contradicted or invalidated.
Even the goals are predicated along the same lines as nearly any other religion, as we see on page 82:
So it does appear to, at the very least, wear the trappings of a religion. It, for example, merely changes the designation of "god" in other religions to "the Developer" in this one. If we wanted to describe it as a "cult", we only have to read onward to obtain verification of that assessment. On page 83, we read:
Isolation is a well know manipulative technique, from Jonestown to Stockholm Syndrome to the run of the mill abusive spouse. It is used to manipulate the minds of those so isolated, and prevent them from accessing any ideas from the "outside world" that the manipulator may not want them to entertain, ideas that may contradict what is being fed to them by the manipulator.
That paragraph made me VERY uneasy.
In conclusion, this "Simulation Hypothesis" appears to be a religion or a cult wrapped in a cloak of scientific respectability. It could be alternatively viewed as a technological theorem wrapped in religious trappings. Perhaps more accurately, it seems to be an attempt to synthesize religion and science into one single entity, which is not possible.
Religion and science are two entirely separate fields of inquiry, and do not mesh together, nor can they contradict one another. They are like oil and water - they do not mix. Religion seeks to answer the question of "why", whereas science seeks to answer the question of "how". While it is possible for them to work alongside one another, it is not possible for them to merge together into a single entity.
Attempting that merge only serves to diminish both science and religion, because to attempt to do so, one must reduce each to their lowest common denominator. That does a good service to neither of them. It merely reduces, truncates, cripples both.
It could potentially serve as an introduction to religion for technically minded, but uninitiated, persons, or as an introduction to computer games for Luddites such as myself, using religious terminology as a springboard for understanding gaming.
I sense that neither of those goals, however, is the aim of the author.
.
On page 5, we read:
Quote:"Given that I have received this specialized knowledge of the simulated world and the base reality beyond it, I am in the unique position to be your conduit to this life-changing and mind-blowing information and guide you through the process of waking up your mind. Ill teach you how to live and what to believe, just follow me and everything will be alright. You can believe in me and my teachings, even if you’ve given up on yourself; we can work together to create something wonderful and fulfilling, and one day you can level up and become something more than just a non-player character in this system."
Here, we see the author claiming "special knowledge" that he "received", which is standard in nearly all religions - the "leader" of the religion must be "set apart", elevated above the teeming masses that constitute the base of the religion. Note also the line "just follow me and everything will be alright". Where have we seen that before? Also make note of the phrases "Ill teach you how to live and what to believe" and "believe in me and my teachings".
However, as if to contradict that, the author states further on page 6:
Quote:"We know there are a lot of bad things being said about everyone nowadays, especially on the internet. Given that this is true, we’d like to take a moment to state what we are not. No, we are not a cult. In fact, we are not a religion, and we are not a secular or anti-religious movement either. We are not an MLM or other scam and sell no products. This is not a product or a service. We are not politicians or involved in any government, nor do we wish to make a new one. We are not anti-science or climate deniers. We value knowledge, wherever it leads us, however, it makes us feel."
So he expressly denies that it is a religion or a cult. Keep that in mind, as we will revisit it later.
Regarding the limiting parameters of this alleged simulation, the speed of light is mentioned as one of those limits that is coded into the simulation. Now, I've never been convinced that the speed of light is an absolute limit, as the speed of light is subject to the medium through which it propagates - this is why it is always specified as "the speed of light in vacuum", which vacuum does not actually exist anywhere. Wherever we go, there is always "something" present, however tenuous. But let's assume the speed of light is a valid limitation for the sake of argument - in this simulation, it would be meaningless anyhow, on account of the potential for the "teleportation" type of "glitches" or "cheat codes" mentioned in the text, and so would not be any sort of actual limitation, anyhow.
Regarding the discussion of rights for AI, the author mentions a "granting" of rights to AI. This is an incorrect understanding of what "rights" are, and demotes them to mere privileges. Rights (for example, rights of AI) are not "granted", they are pre-existent. "Granting" rights demotes them to the level of "privileges" rather than rights, and implies that, since they are "granted", they are also subject to revocation by the granting authority. That would make of them "privileges" rather than actual "rights", which are never subject to revocation. That is what makes them "rights" to begin with.
Getting back to the "religion/cult vs. not a religion/cult" debate, we find the following on page 81:
Quote:"In the Passtoreal faith, you don’t have to translate anything. The whole goal of the faith is to pass your test and upload to reality, that’s why it’s called pass to real. Granted this is more of a cult than a recognized religion, it’s still an interesting side note."
Here, we see it to be expressly described as a "faith", another word for "religion", and even further, designated as "more of a cult" by the author himself. The initial claim of being a "not religion" is here contradicted or invalidated.
Even the goals are predicated along the same lines as nearly any other religion, as we see on page 82:
Quote:"Our expressed goal is that of accessing the developer of the simulation and living our simulated lives in a prescribed manner, eventually shedding the simulated body and uploading the mind to hardware in the base reality."
So it does appear to, at the very least, wear the trappings of a religion. It, for example, merely changes the designation of "god" in other religions to "the Developer" in this one. If we wanted to describe it as a "cult", we only have to read onward to obtain verification of that assessment. On page 83, we read:
Quote:"I am seriously interested in setting up a research facility to study the simulation. This facility must be isolated both in terms of communication and geography from the outside world."
Isolation is a well know manipulative technique, from Jonestown to Stockholm Syndrome to the run of the mill abusive spouse. It is used to manipulate the minds of those so isolated, and prevent them from accessing any ideas from the "outside world" that the manipulator may not want them to entertain, ideas that may contradict what is being fed to them by the manipulator.
That paragraph made me VERY uneasy.
In conclusion, this "Simulation Hypothesis" appears to be a religion or a cult wrapped in a cloak of scientific respectability. It could be alternatively viewed as a technological theorem wrapped in religious trappings. Perhaps more accurately, it seems to be an attempt to synthesize religion and science into one single entity, which is not possible.
Religion and science are two entirely separate fields of inquiry, and do not mesh together, nor can they contradict one another. They are like oil and water - they do not mix. Religion seeks to answer the question of "why", whereas science seeks to answer the question of "how". While it is possible for them to work alongside one another, it is not possible for them to merge together into a single entity.
Attempting that merge only serves to diminish both science and religion, because to attempt to do so, one must reduce each to their lowest common denominator. That does a good service to neither of them. It merely reduces, truncates, cripples both.
It could potentially serve as an introduction to religion for technically minded, but uninitiated, persons, or as an introduction to computer games for Luddites such as myself, using religious terminology as a springboard for understanding gaming.
I sense that neither of those goals, however, is the aim of the author.
.