Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[Skepdick]

Your comment appears to be a distraction from the OP subject and premise. Do you have anything to say about that? It is unclear by your post as to where you stand in relation to the ideas we exist within a simulated reality and that nothing exists.

I have made it clear where I stand.

It's not possible to discern whether the universe we live in is recursive; or whether the instrument we use to understand the universe with (our minds and our structural formalisms) is recursive.

That does not diminish the utility of computation/recursion in any sense.

I am not arguing for the existence of nothing. I am arguing that nothing does not exist. Those who think nothing does exist, can provide their interpretation as to what 'nothing' is, related to their argument that this 'nothing' exists.

Observe that you are the one who argue against "nothing". There isn't anybody arguing for "nothing".

It's just a word. Much like Wittgenstein said "whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent."
Similarly, Quine argues that by using a word in (what you assume to be a coherent argument) you are ontologically committed to it.

To argue against X is to insist X be removed from an ontology. The way you do that is you stop talking about it.

In relation to that and the idea that "nothing" represents a blank-state such as what we experienced emerging out of and into this experience of being human [on a planet, in a Galaxy, in a universe] the 'null pointer' is represented as the beginning point [entry] - sometimes referred to as the "Big Bang".

So the Big Bang came out of nothing? Even though nothing does not exist, it has causal properties?

My understanding of it is that everything within the simulation except for consciousness, is part of the structure of the simulation.
(I am okay considering that it is possible that [our] consciousness is created through the overall workings of the simulation if the algorithm involved in the process was designed to become self aware [be conscious] )

So are you; or are you not saying that consciousness is within the simulation? If it's within the simulation - it's part of it.

I would see such as more evidence the we exist within a simulation.

I see it as evidence that it's just a language game.

The most commonly accepted model for computation is the Turing machine. From the lens of formal language theory Turing machines are also seen as language recognisers. The languages a Turing machine can recognise are classified in the Chomsky hierarchy.

Type 0 grammars are the most powerful grammars (read: languages) we have to describe reality with. Note that Type 0 languages are EXACTLY the languages which can be recognised by a Turing machine. Type 0 languages are recursively enumerable.

It seems like you are tripping over the mind-projection fallacy - you may be projecting that property of language (recursion/self-reference) onto reality.

Almost as if you unconsciously subscribe to Linguistic relativity.

[AlexW]

It's not possible to discern whether the universe we live in is recursive; or whether the instrument we use to understand the universe with (our minds and our structural formalisms) is recursive.

It is actually possible to discern.
The universe we live in is fundamentally observed via the senses - there is nothing recursive in this perception.
The only recursion happens once perception is split into dualistic objectivity (once you make the first cut you can keep on cutting until eternity)

[Skepdick]

It is actually possible to discern.
The universe we live in is fundamentally observed via the senses - there is nothing recursive in this perception.
The only recursion happens once perception is split into dualistic objectivity (once you make the first cut you can keep on cutting until eternity)

ALL observations require an observer.

Q.E.D self-reference.

[AlexW]

ALL observations require an observer.

No, the Idea of an observer is itself part/origin of the recursion.

[Skepdick]

No, the Idea of an observer is itself part/origin of the recursion.

Naturally.

The observer is observing the universe (separation).
The observer is part of the universe (unification).
The universe is observing itself (recursion)

[AlexW]

The observer is observing the universe. The observer is part of the universe. The universe is observing itself.

I said: the idea of an observer, not: an observer
An idea cannot observe anything.

[Skepdick]

I said: the idea of an observer, not: an observer
An idea cannot observe anything.

Where do you think ideas come from if not from "the observers" ?

[AlexW]

Where do you think ideas come from if not "observers" ?

Why do you think they have to come from „somewhere“?
Have you actually observed ideas departing from an observer and arriving... where exactly?

[Skepdick]

Why do you think they have to come from „somewhere“?
Have you actually observed ideas departing from an observer and arriving... where exactly?

I create my ideas. Including the idea of "I".

Yes, indeed - I observe them departing <---- these words departed me. I am sure you observed them arriving too. You are reading them...

[AlexW]

I create my ideas. Including the idea of "I".

So... you are saying that you, the observer is also the creator...
You create and then you observe your own thoughts/ideas... don’t you see that the distance between observer, creator and creation/idea is zero?

[Skepdick]

So... you are saying that you, the observer is also the creator...
You create and then you observe your own thoughts/ideas... don’t you see that the distance between observer, creator and creation/idea is zero?

Of course it's zero. But that's not the point.

I could choose not to create any ideas and just observe. I could choose not to use the word "I".

But through communication ideas are necessarily represented (created) in language. There is obviously a distance between me and the words I have uttered.

[AlexW]

Of course it's zero. But that's not the point.

Maybe it is but you don’t like it.

I could choose not to use the word "I".

What difference does a word make?

But through communication ideas are necessarily represented (created) in language

Yes, there is no problem with that.

[Skepdick]

What difference does a word make?

If words don't make a difference why are you using them?

The word "I" signifies self-awareness/self-reference.

Yes, there is no problem with that.

I am not saying it's a problem. I am stating it as a fact.

Recursion is inescapable. Who/what is speaking and why? I am speaking. For whatever reason I choose to speak.

Who is having ideas? I am having ideas. For whatever reason I choose to have ideas for.

[AlexW]

If words don't make a difference why are you using them?

I don’t know... why are you using knife and fork (or maybe chopsticks) to eat your dinner?

I am speaking. For whatever reason I choose to speak.

I hear you
Have to go.
Talk again soon.

[Dontaskme]

Who is having ideas? I am having ideas. For whatever reason I choose to have ideas for.

I is an idea no I is having.

The chooser is also an idea.

What is an idea? where is the actual source or location of an idea?