Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[VVilliam]

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

There are those who appear to be arguing for the existence of nothing.

Here is one such excerpt from a post made on this board.

I argue for a 'totality' that is inclusive of absolutely ALL possibilities derived from absolute nothingness, arguments that I've raised on this site in a few places also that get overlooked. It is just logical to me THAT multiple worlds exist precisely because otherwise it would make us oddly too unique....something 'symmetrically' unbalanced that puts some 'god' in the picture to have devised us as such. How can we be so 'uniquely' privileged as a universe otherwise?

One can easily search the internet for more arguments that absolute nothingness exists.

Generally the idea of absolute nothingness existing (and from where absolutely everything emerges) appears to be spurred on by as a means to argue for the non-existence of an intelligent creator-being which itself wasn't created.

So indeed, there are many people arguing 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 prepared to accept that you are making yourself clear to yourself. It appears that you have introduced the word "recursion" as somehow relevant to something to do with Simulation Theory. Perhaps you are using the word in place of "simulated" - I don't know. It is unclear to me.

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.

"Nothing" is just a word - and is commonly used in daily language. When it is used in philosophical argument, such as what I quoted above, it becomes far more problematic.

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

No. What I wrote was this;

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".

I will attempt to clarify that for you.

The idea some people have [such as absolutely ALL possibilities derived from absolute nothingness] is borne from the experience each of us have, coming from apparently 'nothing' into something.
The idea of The Big Bang Theory is based upon the same type of reasoning. That is all I was trying to point out, in relation to where the idea of 'nothing' most likely originates...

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 am saying that I can accept either argument. I lean more toward the idea that we existed [not as humans] at a time prior to the creation of this simulated reality. I accept that it may be that the collective human consciousness which exists may have emerged from the programming itself. That is why I wrote "(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] )"
Either way is possible, as far as I can tell.

Just because consciousness is within the simulation does not mean that it has emerged because of the simulation. It is only 'part of it' while maintaining the experience of it. In the case of this reality simulation we are experiencing, we can experience it without even realizing that it is a simulation.

You: "I can't tell if "recursion" is a property of my mind; or the universe; or both. But I do know that recursion is computation."

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

You:

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

Is that why you brought the word "recursion" into the discussion/argument?

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.

I do not consciously understand exactly what the wiki-information re languages and the turning machine is saying, but the gist of it appears to be saying that some languages are recognized by said Turing machine.

I see such as more evidence we exist within a simulated reality.

I would add that it appears to be a misuse of language to say it is the machine which is doing the recognizing. The machine is pumping out data it arranged from data that was placed within it for that purpose. The data itself is not 'recognized' by the Turing Machine, but rather, is recognized by the sentient creatures who designed the machine and who use the machine for that purpose.

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

What do you mean by 'reality' in that sentence? Do you mean it as "That which is all that exists" or "That which is a simulation designed to be experienced as 'reality'?

Almost as if you unconsciously subscribe to Linguistic relativity.

Taking a cursory glance at the link re "Linguistic Relativity" I am unclear as to why you thought to bring it into the discussion.

In relation to language, I am more interested in it's connection with simple mathematics [numbers] and how a words value can be calculated and how these calculations can sort words/word-strings under numeric values.

Calculate a word's value

Language itself is based upon sound. The written word is simply a code used to describe the sounds of language. Mathematics is simply a code used to calculate the value of the code used to describe the sounds of language.

I see such, as more evidence we exist within a simulated reality.

[AlexW]

There are those who appear to be arguing for the existence of nothing.

When we speak of existence we always refer to the existence of an object, of a thing.
It follows:
If nothing is a thing then it can exist
If nothing is not a thing then stating that it exists as well that it does not exist are perfectly useless definitions.
Its like saying: Infinity exists (or: doesn't exist) - it makes no sense to award infinity any attributes (besides being infinite itself)

[VVilliam]

There are those who appear to be arguing for the existence of nothing.

If nothing is a thing then it can exist

Some argue it is a thing and does exist.

[attofishpi]

There are those who appear to be arguing for the existence of nothing.

If nothing is a thing then it can exist

Some argue it is a thing and does exist.

Well they must be idiots. 'I think therefore I am' clearly refutes such an argument, at least to the person making the statement.

[Dontaskme]

There are those who appear to be arguing for the existence of nothing.

If nothing is a thing then it can exist

Some argue it is a thing and does exist.

It's not even an argument, it's blindingly self evident.

Nothing is a concept known. It's a WORD. The word can be interpreted as NO THING. However, there is no such thing as a NO THING.
So the concept Nothing has to exist, but only as a word. A word can never not exist once it is conceptually known.

For example: there cannot be a [non-existence] simply because the word [existence] is already known.
What is known can NEVER be unknown. Knower and Known are inseparably one. Reality is a verb.

The concept Nothing is known and so can NEVER Not Be Known simply because the concept ''thing'' is already known and that knowing cannot be turned into a NON existing thing.


Knower and Known are inseparably one. You are this one. The known creates the knower, and the knower creates the known. Both arise simultaneously together as one knowing in the exact same instantaneous moment ...there is NO division or separation there.




.

[VVilliam]

If nothing is a thing then it can exist

Some argue it is a thing and does exist.

It's not even an argument, it's blindingly self evident.

Nothing is a concept known. It's a WORD. The word can be interpreted as NO THING. However, there is no such thing as a NO THING.
So the concept Nothing has to exist, but only as a word. A word can never not exist once it is conceptually known.

For example: there cannot be a [non-existence] simply because the word [existence] is already known.
What is known can NEVER be unknown. Knower and Known are inseparably one. Reality is a verb.

The concept Nothing is known and so can NEVER Not Be Known simply because the concept ''thing'' is already known and that knowing cannot be turned into a NON existing thing.


Knower and Known are inseparably one. You are this one. The known creates the knower, and the knower creates the known. Both arise simultaneously together as one knowing in the exact same instantaneous moment ...there is NO division or separation there.

Yes. That is why I think the concept of nothing, [no thing] derives from the experience of emerging into this existence from a seeming 'nowhere'.
However, the thread subject is not asking if nothing exists as an idea/concept. Obviously it does. What the thread is examining is the claim that there is an actual nothing which actually exists.

AS well as this, the thread OP is asking whether there is any contradiction between the two theories. (Simulation Theory and Nothing Exists Theory)

I think there is not. I think the experience of no thing {other than self] can be simulated and experienced as real. But that there is no actual 'place' which can be shown to actually exist as nothing.

The presence of any sentient observer would immediate make such a place 'something'. In that, even conceptualizing 'nothing' is the observer rendering that nothing, something.

[Dontaskme]

I think the confusion lies with the Theory idea.

In reality. There is no theory about reality. Reality is not a theory. A theory is just an empty idea.

There is no observer. There is literally no one or thing looking out of those physical eyes.

There is no person aware it is aware. Just as characters in a nightly dream have no awareness of themselves or others.

Life is a dream dreamt by no one. It’s synonymous with a simulation for sure.

.

[Skepdick]

I am prepared to accept that you are making yourself clear to yourself. It appears that you have introduced the word "recursion" as somehow relevant to something to do with Simulation Theory. Perhaps you are using the word in place of "simulated" - I don't know. It is unclear to me.

I am using the word "recursion" as the pillar of computation. If you are talking about simulation theory, then you are necessarily talking about a reality within a reality. Ala virtual reality.

That's recursion. Type "recursion theory" into Google and see where it takes you.

"Nothing" is just a word - and is commonly used in daily language. When it is used in philosophical argument, such as what I quoted above, it becomes far more problematic.

Naturally. Philosophers invent problems where there are none. The Occam's razor answer here is that when people use the word "nothing" they have good reasons to do so. You are simply tripping up over the metaphysical dilemma: do holes exist?

The non-philosophical answer is: Who fucking cares? You know what I mean when I way "a hole exists".

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

No. What I wrote was this;

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".

I will attempt to clarify that for you.

The idea some people have [such as absolutely ALL possibilities derived from absolute nothingness] is borne from the experience each of us have, coming from apparently 'nothing' into something.
The idea of The Big Bang Theory is based upon the same type of reasoning. That is all I was trying to point out, in relation to where the idea of 'nothing' most likely originates...

I understood you perfectly fine - the problem is causal reasoning. Which is why I asked you a question that you can't answer: What caused the Big Bang?

Without causality this problem doesn't emerge.

I am saying that I can accept either argument. I lean more toward the idea that we existed [not as humans] at a time prior to the creation of this simulated reality. I accept that it may be that the collective human consciousness which exists may have emerged from the programming itself. That is why I wrote "(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] )"
Either way is possible, as far as I can tell.

Just because consciousness is within the simulation does not mean that it has emerged because of the simulation. It is only 'part of it' while maintaining the experience of it. In the case of this reality simulation we are experiencing, we can experience it without even realizing that it is a simulation.

Naturally.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? --Morpheus

Which is why I told you (right at the beginning) that you can't distinguish between simulation hypotheses and mind-projection fallacies.
This is where all the P-zombie/Chinese room non-arguments usually get raised.

There is one worse: you can't even determine if you are conscious. You could be an AI and not know it. You could be a p-zombie. How do you tell that you aren't one?

You can't tackle this issue without appealing to self-knowledge of your own identity.

You: "I can't tell if "recursion" is a property of my mind; or the universe; or both. But I do know that recursion is computation."

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

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

Obviously. That is how confirmation bias works.

You are (arbitrarily) choosing to interpret the evidence as confirming the simulation hypothesis
You are (arbitrarily) NOT choosing to interpret the evidence as confirming the mind-projection fallacy.

The fact is - you can't distinguish between the two cases!

Is that why you brought the word "recursion" into the discussion/argument?

I brought recursion into the discussion because you are talking about a computer simulation and I am a computer scientist.

I do not consciously understand exactly what the wiki-information re languages and the turning machine is saying, but the gist of it appears to be saying that some languages are recognized by said Turing machine.

The languages which a Turing machine can recognise are precisely languages of the recursive type.

This is the formal version of "it's turtles all the way down".

I would add that it appears to be a misuse of language to say it is the machine which is doing the recognizing.

I am saying that whatever is doing the recognizing is capable of recognition. Hence - it has cognitive abilities.

Turing machines are mechanical models of minds.

The machine is pumping out data it arranged from data that was placed within it for that purpose. The data itself is not 'recognized' by the Turing Machine, but rather, is recognized by the sentient creatures who designed the machine and who use the machine for that purpose.

Exactly! If you are an AI (e.g if you are a Turing machine) you were programmed that way.

What do you mean by 'reality' in that sentence? Do you mean it as "That which is all that exists" or "That which is a simulation designed to be experienced as 'reality'?

All that is empirically knowable.

Taking a cursory glance at the link re "Linguistic Relativity" I am unclear as to why you thought to bring it into the discussion.

Because your language (which is recursive) is affecting your perception of reality.

Language (which is recursive) is causing you to think we live in a simulation.

In relation to language, I am more interested in it's connection with simple mathematics [numbers] and how a words value can be calculated and how these calculations can sort words/word-strings under numeric values.

Exactly! Recursion theory is computer science!

A mathematical proof is EXACTLY the same thing as a computer program.

Language itself is based upon sound.

No. you are focusing on the form not function of language.

Deaf people speak languages that require no sounds.

The written word is simply a code used to describe the sounds of language. Mathematics is simply a code used to calculate the value of the code used to describe the sounds of language.

I see such, as more evidence we exist within a simulated reality.

Yes. It's called the Kolmogorov complexity.

It's all grounded in information theory/computer science.

[bahman]

Explanation works because the reality has an explanation.

I didn't ask a "why?" question.
I asked a "how?" question.

The mind has the ability to process the information. Information is the formation of matter, all things that have been experienced. The process is like solving a puzzle. There are inputs, pieces of the puzzle, which can lead to an output, the completed puzzle, provided the inputs are sufficient.

[bahman]

One may as well state "It was magic!"

Because, that is what "Something out of nothing" implies.

Besides, one has identified 'nothing is unstable' which means it is 'something' which is 'unstable'.

It is far more logical to understand that an intelligent eternal consciousness is the source of everything.

Well, if something is possible as well as nothing then the process of nothing to something is possible. If something is impossible then magic also cannot help you considering the definition of impossible. The reality is that there is an explanation for everything.

As the OP premise has it;

"This premise;

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

In that premise, both Theories are compatible with one another."

Well, if something is possible as well as nothing then the process of nothing to something is possible.

Only within simulations.

The Original Creator did not come from 'nothing' into 'something', but has always existed.

The process of nothing to something is either possible or impossible. It can happen on its own in the first case so there is no need for God in this case. The concept of God cannot resolve the issue if it is impossible. Moreover, I have an argument which states that the act of creation is impossible since it leads to a regress. You can find my argument in here.

[VVilliam]

I think the confusion lies with the Theory idea.

In reality. There is no theory about reality. Reality is not a theory. A theory is just an empty idea.

There is no observer. There is literally no one or thing looking out of those physical eyes.

There is no person aware it is aware. Just as characters in a nightly dream have no awareness of themselves or others.

Life is a dream dreamt by no one. It’s synonymous with a simulation for sure.

.

That reminds me of this;


"The only thing that you observe as real is what is before you to observe.
But even that is not real. Also, even the observer is not real."

[VVilliam]

There is one worse: you can't even determine if you are conscious. You could be an AI and not know it. You could be a p-zombie. How do you tell that you aren't one?

You can't tackle this issue without appealing to self-knowledge of your own identity.

That is not important as I am not approaching Simulation Theory as a 'problem'. The best I can do is accept that I am consciousness, whether artificial or not, is not an issue.

That is how confirmation bias works.

You are (arbitrarily) choosing to interpret the evidence as confirming the simulation hypothesis
You are (arbitrarily) NOT choosing to interpret the evidence as confirming the mind-projection fallacy.

The fact is - you can't distinguish between the two cases!

Of course, this equally applies to your own interpretations of the evidence. In that, your interpretation doesn't allow for you to seriously contemplate the idea that Simulation Theory may be correct.

I brought recursion into the discussion because you are talking about a computer simulation and I am a computer scientist.

Obviously if this reality is a computer simulation, then we are talking about a computer which is beyond our ability to understand the nature of its mechanics. Therefore it would be unwise to assume that your knowledge of computers is sufficient in allowing you to draw the conclusions you apparent think are the correct ones.

The languages which a Turing machine can recognise are precisely languages of the recursive type.

This is the formal version of "it's turtles all the way down".

You will have to expand on this statement in order for it to make any sense.

I am saying that whatever is doing the recognizing is capable of recognition. Hence - it has cognitive abilities.

Turing machines are mechanical models of minds.

Basic minds perhaps. Obviously if we exist within a Reality Simulation, the minds that created the machinery must be more advanced than we, with minds within it, can possibly accurately understand.
The machine is pumping out data it arranged from data that was placed within it for that purpose. The data itself is not 'recognized' by the Turing Machine, but rather, is recognized by the sentient creatures who designed the machine and who use the machine for that purpose.

Exactly! If you are an AI (e.g if you are a Turing machine) you were programmed that way.

You are assuming that the programmers created the machinery also created the simulation to run that way.

All that is empirically knowable.

You might agree that all that is empirically known, is a tiny fraction of all that is empirically knowable.

Because your language (which is recursive) is affecting your perception of reality.

Language (which is recursive) is causing you to think we live in a simulation.

It is not my language. It was around long before I was born. The language itself can be sorted mathematically. That was the point I was making, and why I wrote that it was another piece of evidence (empirical) which points to the possibility. The existence of mathematics itself is also evidence that we exist within a Simulated Reality.

Language itself is based upon sound.

No. you are focusing on the form not function of language.

Deaf people speak languages that require no sounds.

Semantics. When it comes to deaf people communicating with non-deaf people, they are using signs which derive from languages which are based upon sounds.
Rather than take a small percentage of the population to try and insist your point, why not focus on the broader ramifications of what I am pointing out?

A New Reason for Why the Deaf May Have Trouble Reading

Basically if they have not heard the sounds of the letters which form the words, they learn the written word by associating the sign for that word, to said word.

• "They see the word and there's some kind of an orthographic representation. And some of the research in our center has shown that when deaf readers read an English word, it activates their sign representations of those words.”

The written word is simply a code used to describe the sounds of language. Mathematics is simply a code used to calculate the value of the code used to describe the sounds of language.

I see such, as more evidence we exist within a simulated reality.

Yes. It's called the Kolmogorov complexity.

It's all grounded in information theory/computer science.

As one would expect it to, if we do indeed exist within a Simulated Reality.

I understood you perfectly fine - the problem is causal reasoning. Which is why I asked you a question that you can't answer: What caused the Big Bang?

Something. With Simulation Theory we can deduce that whatever created the machinery is, at least, indirectly the cause of that event.

The event itself might be the result of placing a Conscious Entity within the mechanism which allowed for the Simulation to unfold as the Consciousness interacted with it, causing the creation of the things we see and experience, to unfold as they have done, are doing, and will continue to do.

[VVilliam]

Well, if something is possible as well as nothing then the process of nothing to something is possible. If something is impossible then magic also cannot help you considering the definition of impossible. The reality is that there is an explanation for everything.

As the OP premise has it;

"This premise;

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

In that premise, both Theories are compatible with one another."

Well, if something is possible as well as nothing then the process of nothing to something is possible.

Only within simulations.

The Original Creator did not come from 'nothing' into 'something', but has always existed.

The process of nothing to something is either possible or impossible. It can happen on its own in the first case so there is no need for God in this case. The concept of God cannot resolve the issue if it is impossible. Moreover, I have an argument which states that the act of creation is impossible since it leads to a regress. You can find my argument in here.

I will look into your argument in more detail, but wonder why you believe that "it can happen on its own in the first case"?

I have seen no evidence of anything coming from nothing, of its own accord. Indeed, I have seen no evidence of 'nothing' even existing. If you can show us any evidence, that would go a long way in convincing me to change my mind.

If you cannot, then I would encourage you to seriously contemplate the idea that we exist within a Simulated Reality.

[VVilliam]

Double Post

[bahman]

As the OP premise has it;

"This premise;

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

In that premise, both Theories are compatible with one another."



Only within simulations.

The Original Creator did not come from 'nothing' into 'something', but has always existed.

The process of nothing to something is either possible or impossible. It can happen on its own in the first case so there is no need for God in this case. The concept of God cannot resolve the issue if it is impossible. Moreover, I have an argument which states that the act of creation is impossible since it leads to a regress. You can find my argument in here.

I will look into your argument in more detail, but wonder why you believe that "it can happen on its own in the first case"?

I mean, if the process of notion to something is possible then it can happen because it is possible to happen.

I have seen no evidence of anything coming from nothing, of its own accord. If you can show us any evidence, that would go a long way in convincing me to change my mind.

If you cannot, then I would encourage you to seriously contemplate the idea that we exist within a Simulated Reality.

Electron and positron are created and destroyed all the time. The point is that charge and energy are conserved in this creation and destruction.