Why can't they both be true?

An infinite universe can't have a beginning

Nor can an infinite universe be simulated

So it's probably option number 3

JESUS CHRISTO!

Then using your logic an infinite universe cannot have time. Thus is the universe is truly infinite our universe is one of infinite possibilities where the concept of time exists.

Dude, you think we are in a computer simulation that could only begin with spontaneous cosmic combustion? I mean, seriously? Maybe the first iteration, sure...

I didn't say it could "only begin" that way but it's certainly a possibility.

Why can't they both be wrong?

None of that matters. Humanity will not understand the universe until we can understand ourselves. We should focus on solving our problems before we project into other worlds.

I agree but no one else gives a shit. Try telling your buddy from college that there is no self and he is a slave to this mind.

Big Bang theory is Jesuit rebranded creationism

The only psyop is morons being uncomfortable with other people believing other theories on creation.

Fucking Christians freaking out (like west boro)

Fucking Muslims freaking out (like jihadis)

Fucking Jews freaking out (like the goyim haters)

Fucking atheists freaking out (like the communists)

Fucking scientist freaking out (like the big bangers)

It's absurd. But specifically between the big bang and the simulation theories. Neither falsifiable Bor can they be proved. This stupid background radiation evidence is just people doing their best to make the data fit their preexisting theory. Simulation theory is the same, holographic theory is the same, string theory is the same.

You should check out the connected universe, nassim haramein.

An interesting theory, no better or worse than the others. Believe whatever makes you feel good about life. Enjoy the ride.

Both can't be true. You did not CMV

Simulation theory doesn’t make sense. Who’s simulating the simulators and why? Are they technically our god? If we are being simulated must we not be simulated based of some real universe, somewhere? What is that universe about and what explains that? What does an intimately large simulator for a universe run?

I think this is a case of being a hammer and seeing all problems as a nail. Today, tech and IT are trendy. Everything looks like a tech problem now.

There is an unsatisfying answer to your question: nobody has to be doing the simulating. The Universe could could be effectively a naturally occurring quantum computer, existing abstractly as a top level mathematical object.

Right! It would effectively be a simulator, not an actual simulator. That’s not a simulator in the sense that most envision. They are thinking the sims.

Not a physically constructed simulator, but the notion of "physical" only makes sense within the simulations. Abstractly, quantum computers exist because they encode quantum information related to analysis in manifolds. They are essentially primordial (in the sense of non-commutative geometry) with respect to intrinsic geometric data of manifolds.

Simulation theory doesn’t make sense. Who’s simulating the simulators and why?

not knowing the answers to those questions doesn't mean the concept of a simulated reality doesn't make sense.

Are they technically our god?

depends on how you interpret the definition of God and how the simulation works. For example, the people in the Matrix are living in simulation but the machines are not their gods.

If we are being simulated must we not be simulated based of some real universe, somewhere?

The simulation could be a natural simulation and not intelligently manufactured. Its easy to assume a simulated universe was built by a higher intelligence but its not necessary either.

Many believe that physical reality is a manifestation of the universe's collective consciousness - the universe experiencing itself.

What is that universe about and what explains that?

Unknown, but again not knowing doesn't mean the concept doesn't make sense.

What does an intimately large simulator for a universe run?

Depends on the type of simulation

I think this is a case of being a hammer and seeing all problems as a nail. Today, tech and IT are trendy. Everything looks like a tech problem now.

The simulation hypothesis can be naturally occurring as I mentioned earlier, but I do agree that the idea of it being built is trendy at the moment (and probably why its going main stream) but there is a lot of evidence that supports the concept. The plank length for one.

LARP?

People wondering about things and fielding ideas probably wouldn't be called a psyop if we understand psyop to mean a concerted effort by a group of people to lead some portion of the population to a preprogrammed position.

I'm okay with calling something a psyop if it generally seems to cause people to adopt a position of fear or arrogance.

In this instance I think people just like to get high and let their minds wander on different ideas.

Could be the reptilians though, sure.

Just because one of them is true doesn't make the other a fucking conspiracy. It just makes them wrong.

What about the third option that both are wrong?

Or both are right.

Op's title defines their incompatibility but i get your point. In a evolutionary simulation anything is possible and the 'moment of creation' is the only time actually unmodified by evolutionary forces.

OP s title only claims that they are incompatible but it doesn't explain why.

If the simulation hypothesis is true then the Big Bang is when the simulation starts or when they turn the computer / simulator or.

I don't see no reason why they are considered incompatible .

The big bang theory doesnt say what came before, nor does it rule out a multiverse.

Forget the name, There is a Philosophy that shows since you cant prove it wrong, it must be true. Best example,

According to the Chinese philosophical classic Zhuangzi, the great Daoist thinker of that name fell asleep one day and dreamed that he was a butterfly. When he woke up, he did not know whether he really was a man who had dreamed he was a butterfly or whether he was a butterfly now dreaming he was a man.

So change Butterfly To Computer and how do you know. Since you cant “know” it cant be denied.

There are lots of these interesting type thought puzzles, you should look into it, some of them will melt your brain.

I think you should explain why the Simulation and Big Bang theories are "incompatible".

You can certainly argue that the Big Bang is not necessary in a simulation theory, but that doesn't mean the two are incompatible.

If we are in a simulation, the creators are surely able to create and bake-in in a coherent backstory for the origins of our universe. Whether Big Bang theory fits that description, I'm not sure, but never mind.

Would a steady-state universe be more compatible with a simulated universe, do you think?

Here's an argument for why simulation theory is nonsense (and why event he people pushing it don't believe it) http://archive.is/Pb1Fw

If we are in a simulation then the Big Bang is where it all started , meaning that's when they turned the computer on (which is running the sim).

This is not only compatible with the big bang, for the first time , it even explains it in a logical manner.

Why do you think it is incompatible?

Or both are right.