Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[VVilliam]

The primary problem with that idea is the fact that there are beginnings and endings involved.

As I mentioned - that arises because your mind is only ever capable of causal reasoning.
You experience it because you experience time. It's embedded deep in our logic A -> B.

Well that is the generally accepted scientific interpretation. The Universe has a beginning.

Correct. And it's the generally accepted interpretation for a very good reason. The reason is that we don't have a way of knowing what happened "before" the Big Bang.

There is no more information upon which to base any speculation. It's a limit of epistemology. The "beginning" of our universe is the "beginning" of time.

You stated "So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation"

Do you want to discus that possibility or not?

You are welcome to discuss it - nothing scientific will come out of it.

Hence why science alone cannot provide answers for our existence within this universe and why arguing from scientific position against theistic and/or philosophical vantage is a solidly pointless undertaking.

Yeah but if arguing from a scientific view is pointless then arguing from a philosophical view is even worse.

You don't know and you can't know what happened before the beginning. That is why I keep calling it "limit to epistemology".

Now, in relation to the possibility that this universe has always and will always exist, I think that it should have already figured out how to make itself stable and meaningful in relation to the use of its own consciousness. After all, it has had forever already to do just that.

If the universe is eternal (e.g it has no beginning or end) - it has indeed figured out how to make itself stable.

It should have already put an end to the process of infinite regress through the process of infinite progress.

Do you not hear the oxymoron when using the words "end" and "infinite" in the same sentence?

Yet it moves as if it has somewhere in mind that it is going.

No. That's not the universe - that's your experience of the universe. It's Entropy

So why has it not already figured that out?

The universe has figured it out. Humans haven't.

Well it was your call that, rather than the universe being a simulation [creation] "So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation"

I am willing to discuss that question in more depth to see if we can find some logical answer.

Stating that "The universe has figured it out but humans haven't" isn't a sensible answer. For starters it treats humans as if they are not a natural part of the universe process [since the universe has worked it out but parts of the universe haven't] so if anything within the universe hasn't 'worked it out' then one cannot state [truthfully] that "The Universe has worked it out".

On top of that, you simply declaring that "The Universe has worked it out" without providing any correlating data which shows the reader that this is the actual case, is in no way an adequate answer to my straight forward observational question.

Would you like to try again or shall we agree that the Universe cannot be the Original Creator, and may indeed be a simulation/creation?

[Skepdick]

Stating that "The universe has figured it out but humans haven't" isn't a sensible answer.

Why not? The Universe is The Universe. It's not trying to "figure" anything out - humans are.

For starters it treats humans as if they are not a natural part of the universe process [since the universe has worked it out but parts of the universe haven't] so if anything within the universe hasn't 'worked it out' then one cannot state [truthfully] that "The Universe has worked it out".

I am saying nothing of this sort.

Humans are part of the universe. We haven't figured out how our universe works. The universe doesn't particularly care whether we figure it our or not.

On top of that, you simply declaring that "The Universe has worked it out" without providing any correlating data which shows the reader that this is the actual case, is in no way an adequate answer to my straight forward observational question.

Well, what would you like me to do? Ask it for you?

Perhaps you need to clarify what it means to "figure it out". How would you know that you have "figured out" the universe if you ever did?

Would you like to try again or shall we agree that the Universe cannot be the Original Creator, and may indeed be a simulation/creation?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

If you are going to insist on data then I will do the same. Show me data for demonstrating that the existence of a creator external to the universe is the actual case.

It's a pretty stupid game.

[VVilliam]

Stating that "The universe has figured it out but humans haven't" isn't a sensible answer.

Why not? The Universe is The Universe. It's not trying to "figure" anything out - humans are.

Well that [of course] makes your statement even less sensible. First you state "The universe has figured it out" then you state "it's not trying to "figure" anything out".

For starters it treats humans as if they are not a natural part of the universe process [since the universe has worked it out but parts of the universe haven't] so if anything within the universe hasn't 'worked it out' then one cannot state [truthfully] that "The Universe has worked it out".

I am saying nothing of this sort.

Humans are part of the universe. We haven't figured out how our universe works. The universe doesn't particularly care whether we figure it our or not.

On top of that, you simply declaring that "The Universe has worked it out" without providing any correlating data which shows the reader that this is the actual case, is in no way an adequate answer to my straight forward observational question.

Well, what would you like me to do? Ask it for you?

Perhaps you need to clarify what it means to "figure it out". How would you know that you have "figured out" the universe if you ever did?

Would you like to try again or shall we agree that the Universe cannot be the Original Creator, and may indeed be a simulation/creation?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

If you are going to insist on data then I will do the same. Show me data for demonstrating that the existence of a creator external to the universe is the actual case.

It's a pretty stupid game.

Retracing my argument against yours.

I explained why infinite regress in regard to a creator does not need to apply by stating that There would be an Original Creator who has always existed.

You complained that this was a standard 'gap-filler' that theists used.

I pointed out that regardless, it was a logical conclusion to draw which could fill that gap.

You replied [and I paraphrase] that we didn't need to take things that far as we had plenty enough to work with [scientifically] as it were without introducing notions of creators and creations.

I replied [also paraphrased] that if I wanted to discuss the merits of science, I would have joined a Scientific forum. Since I joined a Philosophical forum, I expect such notions as Simulation Theory to be handled philosophically.

We both agreed that Science wasn't a great device in which to discuss the Simulation Theory.

I wrote;

In relation to our own existence, it is not important exactly how many simulations occurred before our simulation was created. We only require three specific conditions. The Original Creator position [That which had no beginning/is not a simulation] and that which was created directly from that position and our own simulated reality.

To which you replied;

So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation.


I replied that I was fine in examining that idea.

You appear to be dancing around unable to commit to discussing this further, which is also fine by me. As such, what you have offered as argument so far has not changed my mind in the slightest. If anything, it has strengthened my understanding that the possibility we exist in a Simulation is quite likely correct.

Now, to clarify what I meant in relation to you wanting to know why the Universe cannot be the Original Creator, [because it is a work in progress rather than a finished complete thing in and of itself] I await for you to tell us why you think that this ought to be the case.

Meantime I will elaborate more on my own observations regarding this work in progress.

IF the universe has always existed, THEN it should not be able to be viewed as a work in progress - one in which I will add, is more near the beginning of its unfolding than the end. [And we along with it].

I think you complained that I was being oxymoron by bringing in the subject of beginning and end in relation to something which is infinite. However, it has not been established that the universe is in fact infinite and has always existed and always will exist. It was simply your question asking why we cannot think of the universe as always having existed, as your question was in opposition to the idea that the universe was a simulation and that The Original Creator needed to be part of the argument...because "Why can't the universe fill that role on its own?"

My argument is that the universe obviously cannot have that role, because it is still [most obviously] a work in progress.

Perhaps you might consider stopping the dancing and just focus on that observation. Tell us why you think the universe can be considered to have always existed, while also providing an explanation as to why it appears an infant in relation to what it is currently manifesting.

To clarify [even more], I think that if the universe has always existed, then by now, it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine. I think this, because most obviously, that is about all it can become...so why - if it has been around forever, is it not already that?

[AlexW]

You are drawing too strict a conceptual line between hardware and software. In practice - that line doesn't even exist.

Exactly right - I fully agree.
The line is only imaginary - it is "seen" only from within the program - it is an interpretation / result of some misguided process of conceptualisation, nothing more.

Look at your computer - show me where the line is. Show me where the software is.

You can't do it because the "software" exists as voltages in transistors.

Yep, agree.
And so do the "I", the "apple" and the "unicorn" - these objects only exist as diverse patterns of the same no-thing (in/as what I call: consciousness)
They are like voltages in transistors, they are simply patterns in a memory bank - but the memory bank itself - all these transistors - is not at all divided in itself. The borders between the apple-voltages (bits and bytes) and the unicorn-voltages are simply voltages forming patterns that are recognised and interpreted by programs - its as simple as that.

The system is holistic. Both hardware AND software are required for "computation".

Sure - but its a one way street - the hardware doesn't go anywhere when there is no program loaded and executing - the program on the other hand requires the hardware - no hardware no program.

I didn't ask you what SEES the words. I asked you what CAUSED the words.

You did. You typed them. It wasn't the hardware - hardware has no intent. It was the software.

But if you are willing to abdicate your agency on the matter - who am I to stop you?

Yes, hardware (consciousness) has no intent, only software has.
But: There is a difference between what/who typed the letters and what/who decided to do so.
Not sure if we should open this can of worms ... it's basically free will we would be discussing... as I see it: typing simply happens, thinking happens, decisions happen - but there is no separate decision maker... sure, you can state that thought/the program made a decision, but this is ultimately shortsighted - as you very well know, the process of decision making can be traced back ad infinitum. There is no single point of origin - the origin is infinite and as such not a thing/object at all.

I am not the one dualising them into "hardware" and "software".

I am separating them only for this discussion - I agreed with you in that there is no actual separation between them.
Still, what is important to understand is that all the separate objects that are recognised by programs are only "visible" to the program - only programs see borders and as such separate things - the hardware cannot.

In the paragraph above you insisted that the observer is not separate - they are not two. In this paragraph you are trying to separate them.

Again, the separation is only a conceptual interpretation - its not real.

[Skepdick]

Well that [of course] makes your statement even less sensible. First you state "The universe has figured it out" then you state "it's not trying to "figure" anything out".

It's perfectly sensible - it's a contradiction. It signals that we've reached the limits of language.

You can read it as "the universe isn't trying to figure itself out - either because it never attempted; OR because it already has".

Either way. Currently (at this current moment) the universe (broadly) is not doing this "figuring out" thing. Humans are doing it.

I explained why infinite regress in regard to a creator does not need to apply by stating that There would be an Original Creator who has always existed.

And I asked: Why can't we simply have a Universe that has always existed? Why do you need an uncreated-creator (God) + creation (Universe)?

Why can't you conceptualise it as Uncreated-creator(Universe) + creation (Humans). W

I pointed out that regardless, it was a logical conclusion to draw which could fill that gap.

I also pointed out that Logic is just a language invented by humans (who are trying to understand the universe).

But read further on... logic and computer science. They are really the same thing. So when you are trying to USE logic to understand the universe, what you are really doing is you are trying to understand the universe using the computer in your skull.

Aaaand you remember that mind-projection fallacy I told you about?

(Lots of stuff that I won't address because it moves us further from the point)

Let me make it really REALLY simple for you.

Either we live in a simulation of we don't. That's a yes/no question. In computer science that is called a decision problem.

To answer the question you need a decider. You need an algorithm. A computer. Do you see the problem?

To determine whether you live in a computer.... you need a computer. Say hello to infinite regress.

IF the universe has always existed, THEN it should not be able to be viewed as a work in progress.

Then don't view it like that. It's just a choice.

- one in which I will add, is more near the beginning of its unfolding than the end. [And we along with it].

IF the universe is eternal. "Beginning" and "end" are only relative to your perception of it.

I think you complained that I was being oxymoron by bringing in the subject of beginning and end in relation to something which is infinite.

Either it's infinite or it isn't.

You need a computer to decide that.

My argument is that the universe obviously cannot have that role, because it is still [most obviously] a work in progress.

Indeed. it appears that way because of the arrow of time.

Perhaps you might consider stopping the dancing and just focus on that observation. Tell us why you think the universe can be considered to have always existed, while also providing an explanation as to why it appears an infant in relation to what it is currently manifesting.

Because your perception interprets it that way.

To clarify [even more], I think that if the universe has always existed, then by now, it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine.

The universe is self-aware. You are aware of the universe and you are part of it.

I think this, because most obviously, that is about all it can become...so why - if it has been around forever, is it not already that?

It is. Perhaps a more peculiar question should be "Why is the universe trying to understand itself?"

Oh no wait. The universe isn't doing that. VVilliam is projecting. VVilliam is trying to understand itself

[Skepdick]

Exactly right - I fully agree.
The line is only imaginary - it is "seen" only from within the program - it is an interpretation / result of some misguided process of conceptualisation, nothing more.

Well, OK... but you aren't doing a great job of looking at it holistically when you insist that X happens ONLY in hardware.

If the distinction is conceptual, but the system is holistic then consciousness happens in the system (as a whole). It's an emergent property.

Sure - but its a one way street - the hardware doesn't go anywhere when there is no program loaded and executing - the program on the other hand requires the hardware - no hardware no program.

Well you are still drawing the boxes you insisted you aren't drawing.

The hardware is just matter configured in a particular way. The particular way in which the matter is configured does nothing.
The software reconfigures the matter. The new particular way in which the matter is configured does something.

The software merely causes a deterministic reconfiguration of matter. The matter (as reconfigured) is now "self-aware". In as much as it's capable of introspection.

Yes, hardware (consciousness) has no intent, only software has.
But: There is a difference between what/who typed the letters and what/who decided to do so.

None whatsoever in computer science.

The thing that does the decisions - algorithms.
The thing that does the "typing" - algorithms.
The thing that does the "self-awreness" - algorithms.

What you are forgetting is that computers (as a whole) are conceptual - first and foremost. Turing machines.
The physical thing you are using is a manifestation of the concept.

If you really want to look at it in a different light. Consider that the "hardware" is matter engineered to behave deterministically (predictably).
A lot of material science happens behind the scenes to maintain that illusion.

Not sure if we should open this can of worms ... it's basically free will we would be discussing...

Yes. The thing that makes decisions.

as you very well know, the process of decision making can be traced back ad infinitum.

Well, no - it can't. The concept of a "decider" is the foundation of computer science/logic. It's axiomatic.

Whichever lens you look at it. You need to decide whether X is True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0. Blue or Green.

We either live in a simulation or we don't. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

[VVilliam]

Let me make it really REALLY simple for you.

Either we live in a simulation of we don't. That's a yes/no question. In computer science that is called a decision problem.

To answer the question you need a decider. You need an algorithm. A computer. Do you see the problem?

To determine whether you live in a computer.... you need a computer. Say hello to infinite regress.

What problem? What you have simplified above shows that we likely do exist within a simulated reality. I don't find the idea problematic at all. Perhaps you are projecting. Do you find the idea problematic? If so, then why?

IF the universe has always existed, THEN it should not be able to be viewed as a work in progress.

Then don't view it like that. It's just a choice.

Sure, one could choose not to see it as it is. I suppose if it helps one to argue the universe has always existed, one might have to ignore that the universe is currently a work in progress. It doesn't help your argument whatsoever, to counsel the one you are trying to convince, to apply the use of willful ignorance.

- one in which I will add, is more near the beginning of its unfolding than the end. [And we along with it].

IF the universe is eternal. "Beginning" and "end" are only relative to your perception of it.

Beginning and end are relative to actuality. My perception is only relative whilst I acknowledge the actuality. The actuality is, there are undeniable beginnings and endings happening within the universe. IF the universe is not a simulation, and IF the universe has always existed, THEN beginnings and endings should not be happening.

I think you complained that I was being oxymoron by bringing in the subject of beginning and end in relation to something which is infinite.

Either it's infinite or it isn't.

It obviously isn't.

You need a computer to decide that.

In which case, it is obviously more likely the universe is a simulation. A computer itself.

My argument is that the universe obviously cannot have that role, because it is still [most obviously] a work in progress.

Indeed. it appears that way because of the arrow of time.

The existence of time is another factor against the idea that the universe has always existed.

Time Does Not Exist Within an Eternal Reality

On the other hand, in a simulated reality, one would expect time to exist. Time itself deals with beginnings and endings. That you have identified "The Arrow of Time" contradicts the argument that the universe has always existed.

Perhaps you might consider stopping the dancing and just focus on that observation. Tell us why you think the universe can be considered to have always existed, while also providing an explanation as to why it appears an infant in relation to what it is currently manifesting.

Because your perception interprets it that way.

Now explain to us why my perception is incorrect. That would go a long way in helping you build your argument.

To clarify [even more], I think that if the universe has always existed, then by now, it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine.

The universe is self-aware. You are aware of the universe and you are part of it.

As are you. Yet we have different perceptions of the universe. I don't see it as being something which has always existed, and you brought in the idea that it could have always existed.

Given that we are each aware of the universe and we are part of it, but have yet to agree together on what the universe is, your statement that "The Universe is self aware" [because we are part of it] is obviously false. The best we could do in relation to your statement is to say that "The universe is attempting to become self aware [through us], which is not addressing my argument that "IF the universe has always existed, THEN - by now - it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine. "

I think you can do better. Would you like to try again?

I think this, because most obviously, that is about all it can become...so why - if it has been around forever, is it not already that?

It is.

"It is" - needs to be followed with "Because [_____________]"
Are you able to explain to us why you think that it is?

Perhaps a more peculiar question should be "Why is the universe trying to understand itself?"

If the universe has always existed, then - because we know that consciousness is part of it - that consciousness would already know, and would always have known.

Why the question is peculiar is because if the universe had always existed, the question would not need to be asked. So it is only peculiar in relation to the idea that the universe has always existed.
Since the question can indeed be asked, it is evidence that the universe has not always existed.

Oh no wait. The universe isn't doing that. VVilliam is projecting. VVilliam is trying to understand itself

Winking about it isn't going to help your argument. If the universe has always existed, I would not be trying to understand my place within it.
Since I am trying to understand my place within it, "The Universe is a Simulated Reality" gives me much better scope in which to do so, whereas "The Universe has always existed" is simply hand-waving away the ability to be insightful, as if it were something to avoid.

That is not how "VVIlliam" operates. VVilliam is not designed to operate at half-arsedness.

[AlexW]

Well you are still drawing the boxes you insisted you aren't drawing.

Well... you can only bend an analogy so far until it breaks...
Its like describing consciousness as the ocean and conceptual thought as the waves - you can gain some understanding from it, but once you over-analyse the ocean, water, salt content, wind forming waves, gravitation of the moon etc etc... you will have moved so far away from the original meaning that the analogy has outlived its purpose...

Well, OK... but you aren't doing a great job of looking at it holistically when you insist that X happens ONLY in hardware.

If the distinction is conceptual, but the system is holistic then consciousness happens in the system (as a whole). It's an emergent property.

No... consciousness is the system - no matter if its moving/computing or standing still.
You could say that conceptual thought is an emergent property, but not consciousness itself.

The hardware is just matter configured in a particular way. The particular way in which the matter is configured does nothing.
The software reconfigures the matter. The new particular way in which the matter is configured does something.

So what is "software"? Is it the "doer", the "reconfigurer of matter"?
If so, then in which way is it separate from the matter it configures?
You said previously:
You are drawing too strict a conceptual line between hardware and software. In practice - that line doesn't even exist.
Show me where the software is.
You can't do it because the "software" exists as voltages in transistors.

Software is and also reconfigures matter, the "voltage in transistors"... can the doer and the done, the reconfigurer and the reconfigured, be one and the same?
Sure they can - they are simply consciousness.

The software merely causes a deterministic reconfiguration of matter. The matter (as reconfigured) is now "self-aware".

But there is no separation between the software and the hardware (as you said before)...
Self-aware "matter" - or voltages in transistors - or software - are all the same - there is only the conceptual idea of a separate self that could be aware - but: there is no such thing to be found in reality - there is only the system/consciousness

The thing that does the decisions - algorithms.
The thing that does the "typing" - algorithms.
The thing that does the "self-awreness" - algorithms.

Yes, but what are these algorithms?
The algorithms/software/thought is simply a specific configuration of voltage in transistors (of matter) but the "output" of this software, the interpretation the algorithm provides is purely conceptual - algorithms see borders (between sets of data etc etc) where none are actually there. They label one set of data as the "doer", another as a "decision", but at the end these "things" are all just "voltage in transistors".

What you are forgetting is that computers (as a whole) are conceptual - first and foremost.

When I refer to the hardware - within this discussion - I use it as an analogy for consciousness.
Thus the computer hardware is not conceptual - only the output of the software is.

Well, no - it can't. The concept of a "decider" is the foundation of computer science/logic. It's axiomatic.

No, the concept of decision-making is, not that there has to be a separate "decider".

Whichever lens you look at it. You need to decide whether X is True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0. Blue or Green.

We either live in a simulation or we don't. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Only as long as you are looking at this through the lens of the program/dualistic thought - when looking "at" it through the non-dual lens then the lens vanishes and only the whole remains - there is no room for true or false if both options are ultimately the same... you can only have opposites if you subscribe to the world being made up of separate things, once all things vanish (or rather: are seen to be only conceptual) then there is no more question if and how decisions are made... its obvious that a decision is only important for the program that processes and interprets data, for the apparently limited, individual entity - the hardware itself couldn't care less what part of a branch an algorithm will take.

[Skepdick]

What problem? What you have simplified above shows that we likely do exist within a simulated reality. I don't find the idea problematic at all. Perhaps you are projecting. Do you find the idea problematic? If so, then why?

Well, it's called a problem because we can't make mechanical computers make the determination you have made.

But you know what? That's really good news! It sounds like there is an algorithm in your brain which can answer the question "Do we live in a simulation?" And it answered "Yes".

So, exactly like I said: You need a computer to determine whether we live in a computer.

Sure, one could choose not to see it as it is.

Nobody sees the universe "as it is". That's an idea that has outlived its usefulness in Philosophy.

Either the universe is a simulation (the outside view), or your mind is a computer (the inside view). The universe "as it is" is stuck between two perspectives.

I suppose if it helps one to argue the universe has always existed, one might have to ignore that the universe is currently a work in progress.
It doesn't help your argument whatsoever, to counsel the one you are trying to convince, to apply the use of willful ignorance.

It helps your argument no less trying to strawman me.

The universe is working towards its own heat death. Everything that has a beginning has an end.
But then again, we could be projecting human properties (birth, death) onto the universe.

Weird huh?

Beginning and end are relative to actuality.

Well, you can't decide whether that's the case. Nobody knows what "time" is or whether it exists.

In so far as we, humans, can tell it's just an emergent phenomenon resulting from entropy.

My perception is only relative whilst I acknowledge the actuality.

You don't have access to "actuality" except through your perception!

You are no closer to "truth" than anybody else that has ever walked the Earth.

The actuality is, there are undeniable beginnings and endings happening within the universe.

Or so you perceive it.

IF the universe is not a simulation, and IF the universe has always existed, THEN beginnings and endings should not be happening.

EXACTLY! The universe is eternal. Beginnings and endings are not happening.

Beginnings and Endings are just what humans experience.

It obviously isn't.

It obviously is!

I am still trying to decide if it's finite. I haven't halted yet.

In which case, it is obviously more likely the universe is a simulation. A computer itself.

It obviously isn't obvious.

The computer in my had hasn't yet halted.

I can't determine if the universe is a computer.

The existence of time is another factor against the idea that the universe has always existed.

Time Does Not Exist Within an Eternal Reality

You don't even know if it exists within the internal reality or if it's just a fundamental property of human experience.

On the other hand, in a simulated reality, one would expect time to exist. Time itself deals with beginnings and endings.

Exactly! Human minds love beginnings and endings - that's why we are projecting it to the universe.

That you have identified "The Arrow of Time" contradicts the argument that the universe has always existed.

Yeah? So? Computationally, true contradictions exist.

Now explain to us why my perception is incorrect. That would go a long way in helping you build your argument.

Nobody is saying that your perception is "correct" or "incorrect". I am simply saying that it's ONLY your perception.

That was my point right from the beginning: Either the universe is computational, or the instrument we use to understand the universe with (our minds) is computational. I can't tell which.

As are you. Yet we have different perceptions of the universe. I don't see it as being something which has always existed, and you brought in the idea that it could have always existed.

Are you sure you are talking about the universe now? It looks to me as if you are talking about your perception of the universe.

That sure has a beginning. And it will have an end.

Given that we are each aware of the universe and we are part of it, but have yet to agree together on what the universe is, your statement that "The Universe is self aware" [because we are part of it] is obviously false. The best we could do in relation to your statement is to say that "The universe is attempting to become self aware [through us]

It's the same thing! The universe has succeeded in becoming self-aware. Through us.

You haven't succeeded in becoming fully aware of the universe.

which is not addressing my argument that "IF the universe has always existed, THEN - by now - it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine. "

There exists such a machine! I am it. You are trying to become it.

I think you can do better. Would you like to try again?

Not really. I've done the best that I am capable of. Show me better if you know how.

I think this, because most obviously, that is about all it can become...so why - if it has been around forever, is it not already that?

It is already that which you expect it to be. Or do you expect it to be more than it is?

"It is" - needs to be followed with "Because [_____________]"

No it doesn't. The universe is what the universe is. Irrespective of what anybody says or expects from it.

Are you able to explain to us why you think that it is?

Are you able to explain what explanation might appease you?

If the universe has always existed, then - because we know that consciousness is part of it - that consciousness would already know, and would always have known.

You are consciousness. You don't know. Guess you gotta learn, no?

Why the question is peculiar is because if the universe had always existed, the question would not need to be asked.

Precisely Then why do you still NEED to ask it?

So it is only peculiar in relation to the idea that the universe has always existed.
Since the question can indeed be asked, it is evidence that the universe has not always existed.

You are asking it. Not me. The question doesn't interest me.

Winking about it isn't going to help your argument.

So what? I am not arguing.

If the universe has always existed, I would not be trying to understand my place within it.

What does the one have to do with the other? The universe has always existed - you haven't always existed.

The universe has and will outlive you.

Since I am trying to understand my place within it, "The Universe is a Simulated Reality" gives me much better scope in which to do so.

That is perfect! Understanding the universe through the lens of computation is something I highly, highly encourage. Which means that you have to understand the lens first.

Which is why I am referring you to the relevant topics in computer science. You are trying to eat the elephant in one go - start with bite-sized chunks.

, whereas "The Universe has always existed" is simply hand-waving away the ability to be insightful, as if it were something to avoid.

The only thing to avoid is the mind projection fallacy. First you have to learn where your mind stops and where the universe begins. It doesn't sound like you've figured out the line yet.

That is not how "VVIlliam" operates. VVilliam is not designed to operate at half-arsedness.

Then why does VVilliam keep tripping over the mind projection fallacy like a half-arse?

[Skepdick]

Its like describing consciousness as the ocean and conceptual thought as the waves

It's recursively amusing to me that consciousness is trying to describe itself.

What's truly curious to me is why? Wonder if consciousness would ever be happy with "I am what I am".

you can gain some understanding from it, but once you over-analyse the ocean, water, salt content, wind forming waves, gravitation of the moon etc etc... you will have moved so far away from the original meaning that the analogy has outlived its purpose...

Which is why I am using a model that's much closer to consciousness.

Computers are recursive. Oceans aren't.

No... consciousness is the system - no matter if its moving/computing or standing still.

Pretty sure consciousness is not in my skin, eyeballs, voicebox or ears. Those are just Input/output.

You could say that conceptual thought is an emergent property, but not consciousness itself.

I could say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

Some computers languages are capable of introspection - others aren't. The ones which are capable of introspection are "self aware".

So what is "software"? Is it the "doer", the "reconfigurer of matter"?

You understand it conceptually. What's the purpose of an ontological question? That's how you get yourself into rabbit holes.

If so, then in which way is it separate from the matter it configures?

It's not separate. It only appears separate because language is dualistic.

is and also reconfigures matter, the "voltage in transistors"... can the doer and the done, the reconfigurer and the reconfigured, be one and the same?
Sure they can - they are simply consciousness.

OK, but what is consciousness?

But there is no separation between the software and the hardware (as you said before)...
Self-aware "matter" - or voltages in transistors - or software - are all the same - there is only the conceptual idea of a separate self that could be aware - but: there is no such thing to be found in reality - there is only the system/consciousness

I can't tell whether you understand that this is just a quirk of language. And I can't tell whether you know what language is.

Without using language to describe it.

Yes, but what are these algorithms?
The algorithms/software/thought is simply a specific configuration of voltage in transistors (of matter) but the "output" of this software, the interpretation the algorithm provides is purely conceptual

The output of a decision is not always an interpretation. It could be a choice - What am I drinking? Water or wine? Wine!

- algorithms see borders (between sets of data etc etc) where none are actually there.

You mean like VVilliam sees "beginnings" and "ends" in time?

They label one set of data as the "doer", another as a "decision", but at the end these "things" are all just "voltage in transistors".

Sure. But hardware without software makes no decisions and does nothing.

When I refer to the hardware - within this discussion - I use it as an analogy for consciousness.

I know that. I am pointing out your analogy is incomplete.

Thus the computer hardware is not conceptual - only the output of the software is.

Yes. Action. Causality.

No, the concept of decision-making is, not that there has to be a separate "decider".

I am not sure how you get decision-making without decisions.

Only as long as you are looking at this through the lens of the program/dualistic thought - when looking "at" it through the non-dual lens then the lens vanishes and only the whole remains.

What? You don't make choices in life? That's ill-advised as per Buridan's ass.

- there is no room for true or false if both options are ultimately the same... you can only have opposites if you subscribe to the world being made up of separate things

Then don't get trapped in the language of separation. What you do have is finite resources. And so you can't choose everything, so you have to choose something.

, once all things vanish (or rather: are seen to be only conceptual) then there is no more question if and how decisions are made... its obvious that a decision is only important for the program that processes and interprets data, for the apparently limited, individual entity - the hardware itself couldn't care less what part of a branch an algorithm will take.

Naturally. The software cares about the hardware, the hardware doesn't care about the software.

Is why we have doctors to repair the hardware.

Which is why consciousness is software, not hardware

[VVilliam]

What problem? What you have simplified above shows that we likely do exist within a simulated reality. I don't find the idea problematic at all. Perhaps you are projecting. Do you find the idea problematic? If so, then why?

Well, it's called a problem because we can't make mechanical computers make the determination you have made.

But you know what? That's really good news! It sounds like there is an algorithm in your brain which can answer the question "Do we live in a simulation?" And it answered "Yes".

I lean toward it being the case. The evidence so far can be interpreted that way.

So, exactly like I said: You need a computer to determine whether we live in a computer.

And as I replied, this is also evidence that we exist within a simulated reality.

The "problem" I was referring to, is "why should the notion we exist within a simulated reality, BE a problem?"

Sure, one could choose not to see it as it is.

Nobody sees the universe "as it is". That's an idea that has outlived its usefulness in Philosophy.

I wasn't being philosophical. Are you saying that scientists using science are not seeing the universe as it is? Or perhaps you are being somewhat pedantic and playing with language?

Perhaps if I changed the sentence to "Sure, one could choose not to see it as it presents itself" - which of course is plainly where I went with my argument.

Either the universe is a simulation (the outside view), or your mind is a computer (the inside view). The universe "as it is" is stuck between two perspectives.

You will have to expand your argument [preferably in layman's terminology] otherwise the above sentence remains nonsensical. Why either/or?

I suppose if it helps one to argue the universe has always existed, one might have to ignore that the universe is currently a work in progress.
It doesn't help your argument whatsoever, to counsel the one you are trying to convince, to apply the use of willful ignorance.

It helps your argument no less trying to strawman me.

I can only take what you offer and reflect it back. If you feel you are being strawmaned, then I suggest your use of one-liners may be the cause.

The universe is working towards its own heat death. Everything that has a beginning has an end.
But then again, we could be projecting human properties (birth, death) onto the universe.

So this is what many scientists theorize is happening. Does your claim "Nobody sees the universe "as it is"." apply to this 'heat death' theory?

While you contemplate that, I am happy to engage with the idea, but it does not bode well with the idea that the universe has existed forever as that which has an end must therefore have a beginning.

It is not something that we project human properties upon. We understand that even stars have a use-by date. We understand that there has been no thing identified in the universe which doesn't have a use-by date, and this can lead us to conclude, that the answer to your question "Why can't the universe have always existed?" is "Because the universe itself shows us that it is not eternal."

Beginning and end are relative to actuality.

Well, you can't decide whether that's the case. Nobody knows what "time" is or whether it exists.

In so far as we, humans, can tell it's just an emergent phenomenon resulting from entropy.

Time is measured by the movement involved with entropy [in the case of the universal properties observed] and that which observing the movement. Like mathematics and language, time is a device invented to help us decode the universe.

My perception is only relative whilst I acknowledge the actuality.

You don't have access to "actuality" except through your perception!

This is true, even of alternate experiences.

You are no closer to "truth" than anybody else that has ever walked the Earth.

Let us not get ahead of ourselves with defensive expressions! We are specifically investigating the idea that the universe is eternal and the idea that the universe is a simulated reality. So far simulated reality universe is ticking the boxes whilst eternal universe is not.

The actuality is, there are undeniable beginnings and endings happening within the universe.

Or so you perceive it.

Or so I perceive it. You have yet to make an effort to tell us of your perceptions regarding the universe being eternal.

IF the universe is not a simulation, and IF the universe has always existed, THEN beginnings and endings should not be happening.

EXACTLY! The universe is eternal. Beginnings and endings are not happening.

Beginnings and Endings are just what humans experience.

In order for you to use such comparison, you have to separate humans/the human experience FROM the universe. IF the universe is eternal, THEN everything that is the universe [including humans/the human form] should likewise be eternal.
Since the human form [like Stars] are not eternal, and since we cannot identify anything which is eternal, it is safe to say that the universe is not eternal.

It obviously isn't.

It obviously is!

It obviously is, because [________]? [please show us the obvious.]

In which case, it is obviously more likely the universe is a simulation. A computer itself.

It obviously isn't obvious.

The computer in my had hasn't yet halted.

I can't determine if the universe is a computer.

It is not necessary to determine before one can suspect. The clues are there.
For example, IF the computer in your [head] that you had, ceases to function [halts] and you continue to exist in an alternate experience THEN you can determine that the universe you had experienced, was indeed a simulation.

As well as that, you can also determine that you are not and never were 'the computer'.

The existence of time is another factor against the idea that the universe has always existed.

Time Does Not Exist Within an Eternal Reality

You don't even know if it exists within the internal reality or if it's just a fundamental property of human experience.

I do not even know if an Eternal Reality exists, but I do know that I can grasp the idea and play with it. That alone is curious.
The idea that "Time Does Not Exist Within an Eternal Reality" is easy enough to get the gist of.

On the other hand, in a simulated reality, one would expect time to exist. Time itself deals with beginnings and endings.

Exactly! Human minds love beginnings and endings - that's why we are projecting it to the universe.

Why do you think human minds love the idea? What do you think human minds are? Something which is shaped and influenced by human experience.

IF the universe is a simulated reality, THEN what is to stop us from thinking therefore, that before we were 'humans' we designed the simulation in order to experience it as humans?

IF that were the case THEN it is not 'the human mind' that we are. Mind, yes. Human, not so much - not then anyway.
But that would not mean that we [as non-human mind] do not love a good story. A great story would be that which involves many stories within the main story. All stories have beginnings and endings all made 'real' within the main story which had no beginning and will have no end.

That you have identified "The Arrow of Time" contradicts the argument that the universe has always existed.

Yeah? So? Computationally, true contradictions exist.

And what of false contradictions. Do these also exist?

You appear to have the habit of making little one-line statements without backing these up with you own examples of evidence. This does not help your case.

Are you able to explain the contradiction in simple terms as to why you think the arrow of time should exist within an eternal universe?

Now explain to us why my perception is incorrect. That would go a long way in helping you build your argument.

Nobody is saying that your perception is "correct" or "incorrect". I am simply saying that it's ONLY your perception.

That was my point right from the beginning: Either the universe is computational, or the instrument we use to understand the universe with (our minds) is computational. I can't tell which.

Why separate the two? Why not understand them as both computational? As BOTH being the instrument we use to help us understand our self?

As are you. Yet we have different perceptions of the universe. I don't see it as being something which has always existed, and you brought in the idea that it could have always existed.

Are you sure you are talking about the universe now?

I have not changed the subject. I am examining your question "Why can't the universe be eternal?" I am offering answers which point to that not being the case.

It looks to me as if you are talking about your perception of the universe.

The question "Why can't the universe be eternal?" derives from the fact of perceptions. It is a perception which can be examined.

That sure has a beginning. And it will have an end.

Perceptions are like that. They can change. Even so, we cannot say for sure that they are not eternal. But the question is not "Why can't my perceptions be eternal?" The question is "Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Given that we are each aware of the universe and we are part of it, but have yet to agree together on what the universe is, your statement that "The Universe is self aware" [because we are part of it] is obviously false. The best we could do in relation to your statement is to say that "The universe is attempting to become self aware [through us]

It's the same thing! The universe has succeeded in becoming self-aware. Through us.

Bacteria is self aware too. Yet it is likely not aware of the universe in the same way that we are. Indeed, the universe is not fully self aware through us.

You haven't succeeded in becoming fully aware of the universe.

Nether have you. But if the universe IS a simulated reality, and is not eternal, then my awareness of it will more likely work out more successful [for me] than if I believed it were eternal.

Not to forget, my argument against the universe being eternal is that IF it were, THEN it should be fully self aware. And if we [our human awareness] are the gauge by which that is measured, we too should be eternal AND fully self aware.

That we are not, is significant evidence that the universe is not eternal. That is my argument.

which is not addressing my argument that "IF the universe has always existed, THEN - by now - it should be a vast intricate self aware conscious machine. "

There exists such a machine! I am it. You are trying to become it.

Now who is strawmanning?

IF the universe is a simulation, THEN [speaking for myself ] I am not the machine. I am the one experiencing the machine.

I think you can do better. Would you like to try again?

Not really. I've done the best that I am capable of. Show me better if you know how.

I think I have been plain enough. I have given many reasons why it is very unlikely that the universe is eternal. I have shown "Why the universe cannot be eternal." I have asked you to show why it can be. You have made noise in answer, but there is no thing [so far] substantial revealed in that noise which we can deduce as evidence to support the idea that the universe is eternal.

I think this, because most obviously, that is about all it can become...so why - if it has been around forever, is it not already that?

It is already that which you expect it to be. Or do you expect it to be more than it is?

Obviously I expect it to be more than it currently is. I expect that it will eventually be made into a vast machine, provided consciousness continues to be part of its composition.
I expect that, because what else can consciousness DO with the universe, except to shape it into a useful machine?

And since that is a work in progress, we can ascertain that the universe is not eternal.

"It is" - needs to be followed with "Because [_____________]"

No it doesn't. The universe is what the universe is. Irrespective of what anybody says or expects from it.

And what is 'The Universe"? And what of your question - "Why can't the universe have always existed?" Is that not an expectation which can be examined for an answer?

Are you able to explain to us why you think that it is?

Are you able to explain what explanation might appease you?

Yes. I have [and will] continue to do so.

If the universe has always existed, then - because we know that consciousness is part of it - that consciousness would already know, and would always have known.

You are consciousness. You don't know. Guess you gotta learn, no?

Correct. This is also why it bodes well to understand that I am currently experiencing a simulated reality which we are referring to as "The Universe".

I can even think of the universe as already being the machine it was created from within to be and in that,it is indeed
[possibly] now eternal.

Perhaps a more peculiar question should be "Why is the universe trying to understand itself?"

If the universe has always existed, then - because we know that consciousness is part of it - that consciousness would already know, and would always have known.

Why the question is peculiar is because if the universe had always existed, the question would not need to be asked. So it is only peculiar in relation to the idea that the universe has always existed.
Since the question can indeed be asked, it is evidence that the universe has not always existed.

Precisely Then why do you still NEED to ask it?

I didn't need to ask the question. It was your question and you asked it;

I am simply explaining WHY [you] asked the question. It is because the question can be asked, and because the question can be asked, I saw in that a good reason for why the universe is unlikely to have always existed.

So it is only peculiar in relation to the idea that the universe has always existed.
Since the question can indeed be asked, it is evidence that the universe has not always existed.

You are asking it. Not me. The question doesn't interest me.

Winking about it isn't going to help your argument.

So what? I am not arguing.

If the universe has always existed, I would not be trying to understand my place within it.

What does the one have to do with the other? The universe has always existed - you haven't always existed.

The universe has and will outlive you.

It is false to claim that the universe has always existed while at the same time claim that everything that is the universe ceases to exist.

If the universe is eternal, then everything that is the universe, is also eternal.

You and I do not know that we will ever cease to exist. The best we can do is acknowledge that our current forms we occupy, do expire.

Since I am trying to understand my place within it, "The Universe is a Simulated Reality" gives me much better scope in which to do so.

That is perfect! Understanding the universe through the lens of computation is something I highly, highly encourage. Which means that you have to understand the lens first.

Which is why I am referring you to the relevant topics in computer science. You are trying to eat the elephant in one go - start with bite-sized chunks.

I am not interested in your referrals. If you yourself cannot explain in simple terms what it is you are [not ] arguing about, then what you have to say about it remains cloaked behind the mysterious curtain of hearsay, [claims without backing] and will be treated as such.

, whereas "The Universe has always existed" is simply hand-waving away the ability to be insightful, as if it were something to avoid.

The only thing to avoid is the mind projection fallacy. First you have to learn where your mind stops and where the universe begins. It doesn't sound like you've figured out the line yet.

Mind projection is a natural elemental attribute of being human. To say it is a fallacy is contrary to the facts. The best one can do along those lines is to be aware that mind projection can be subject to false interpretation. This is why we argue/discuss the variables and [at least make honest attempt to] identify the false.

So far, I have presented adequate case for the universe NOT having existed forever, as well as ongoing adequate case for why the universe is possibly [even likely] a simulated reality, and you have danced with language, making sounds which have no significant meaning...at least none which you have been able to make clear about.

Perhaps if you thought about the software and the hardware as being 'two sides of the same coin' and also thought about consciousness as being neither the software or the hardware, but rather The Original Creator of the software/hardware, you might be able to expand your thinking outside of what it presently is occupied within.

Remove those parameters and explore the rabbit hole, rather than insist upon the relative safety of inside the cup-hole as your preferred position.

[That is what the ability for mind projection exists for.]

That is not how "VVIlliam" operates. VVilliam is not designed to operate at half-arsedness.

Then why does VVilliam keep tripping over the mind projection fallacy like a half-arse?

The rabbit hole does indeed have a network of warrens which do indeed need to be navigated. The fact that we posses the ability to mind project shows us what an essential tool mind projection is for such a job.

And you needn't be frightened by the prospect either. Look around. You already exist in a rabbit hole and you do not know for sure even, that it isn't a product of mind projection itself. A simulation created by a mind projecting.

[AlexW]

Which is why I am using a model that's much closer to consciousness.

Computers are recursive. Oceans aren't.

Consciousness is not recursive - only our conceptual descriptions are (conceptual thought generally is).
Thus: Computers are similar to conceptual thought (no wonder, they are children of human thought) - consciousness is like the ocean, not recursive

Pretty sure consciousness is not in my skin, eyeballs, voicebox or ears.

No, its not in your skin, eyes... but its also not in your head or in your brain.
Its not in anything as its not a thing - but all things are "made of" it.

I could say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

You could say that, but it wouldn't be true

Some computers languages are capable of introspection - others aren't. The ones which are capable of introspection are "self aware".

The ones which are capable of introspection are "self aware" in the sense that they can think about the concept of self (and attach it to other concepts - eg mind or body), that's all.

OK, but what is consciousness?

Not a thing.

What? You don't make choices in life? That's ill-advised as per Buridan's ass.

Depends what you mean with "you".
I - the conceptual individual/person - make decisions.
I - consciousness - do not.

[Skepdick]

I lean toward it being the case. The evidence so far can be interpreted that way.

It can be interpreted both ways - and there is no way to determine which interpretation is "right" or "wrong". We already covered that.

And as I replied, this is also evidence that we exist within a simulated reality.

Yes. You said that. If floats - it's a witch. If it doesn't float - it's also a witch.

That's how confirmation bias works. Which is why science insists on falsification.

The "problem" I was referring to, is "why should the notion we exist within a simulated reality, BE a problem?"

Living in a simulation is not a problem - it doesn't change anything. The problem is that you can't determine if it's true or not.

I wasn't being philosophical. Are you saying that scientists using science are not seeing the universe as it is?

I am saying that NOBODY sees the universe "as it is". Not even scientists.

Or perhaps you are being somewhat pedantic and playing with language?

"Playing with language" is precisely what science does. All of our physics equations are in the language of Mathematics.

ALL of our computational theories are in the same language.

Perhaps if I changed the sentence to "Sure, one could choose not to see it as it presents itself" - which of course is plainly where I went with my argument.

And I am simply pointing out that reality is not "presenting itself" to you except through the lens of your perception.

You will have to expand your argument [preferably in layman's terminology] otherwise the above sentence remains nonsensical. Why either/or?

Because the "outside" perspective is not available to you - you are stuck inside the universe. You cannot study it as a whole.

I can only take what you offer and reflect it back. If you feel you are being strawmaned, then I suggest your use of one-liners may be the cause.

One liners are sufficient with people who don't mis-interpret things.

So this is what many scientists theorize is happening. Does your claim "Nobody sees the universe "as it is"." apply to this 'heat death' theory?

Yes. It's just a theory. It's scientific - ergo it's falsifiable. In layman's terms the word "falsifiable" means - it could be wrong.

In any case. The universe won't really "die" after heat death - it will remain at maximum entropy for eternity.

While you contemplate that, I am happy to engage with the idea, but it does not bode well with the idea that the universe has existed forever as that which has an end must therefore have a beginning.

Maximum entropy doesn't have an end. It's eternal nothingness.

It is not something that we project human properties upon. We understand that even stars have a use-by date.

If you only care about the utility of stars - sure! The sun is useless to us if it goes super-nova. But the stuff the sun is made up of doesn't disappear - it just gets "re-arranged".

We understand that there has been no thing identified in the universe which doesn't have a use-by date, and this can lead us to conclude, that the answer to your question "Why can't the universe have always existed?" is "Because the universe itself shows us that it is not eternal."

The notion of "use", "utility" and "work" are human concepts. The universe itself is eternal - you just won't be able to "use" it. Because it won't support life anymore.

Beginning and end are relative to actuality.

Where is this "actuality" exactly? If you are having trouble pin-pointing it let me help you.

Is "actuality" in the past, present or future?

Time is measured by the movement involved with entropy [in the case of the universal properties observed] and that which observing the movement. Like mathematics and language, time is a device invented to help us decode the universe.

You are going to have a really hard time decoding the universe's wave function. You will need a computer about the size of Sagitarius A.

Let us not get ahead of ourselves with defensive expressions! We are specifically investigating the idea that the universe is eternal and the idea that the universe is a simulated reality. So far simulated reality universe is ticking the boxes whilst eternal universe is not.

You are confused. Both theories tick the boxes.

What I am busy pointing out to you is that you can't decide which story is true.

Or so I perceive it. You have yet to make an effort to tell us of your perceptions regarding the universe being eternal.

I have made exactly as much effort as you have.

The crux of the matter is that I recognize both perspectives, you only recognize your perspective.

I have one more perspective than you do.

In order for you to use such comparison, you have to separate humans/the human experience FROM the universe.

So then how would scientists study the universe without empiricism/experience?

IF the universe is eternal, THEN everything that is the universe [including humans/the human form] should likewise be eternal.

We should - but we aren't. Prolonging human life is something scientists/doctors etc. are actively working on.

Since the human form [like Stars] are not eternal, and since we cannot identify anything which is eternal, it is safe to say that the universe is not eternal.

Well, that's just black-and-white thinking. Humans live twice as long in 2020 than they did 2000 years ago. We are making progress.

It's slow and our bodies decay before we can transfer all of our experiences/knowledge out of our heads.

It obviously is, because [________]? [please show us the obvious.]

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

It is not necessary to determine before one can suspect. The clues are there.

You really have missed the point. I suspect that the universe MIGHT be a simulation. I also suspect that the universe MIGHT NOT be a simulation.

One of those hypothesis must be true. I don't know which one because the clues are undecisive.

For example, IF the computer in your [head] that you had, ceases to function [halts] and you continue to exist in an alternate experience THEN you can determine that the universe you had experienced, was indeed a simulation.

OK, but then I wouldn't be able to tell anybody else.

As well as that, you can also determine that you are not and never were 'the computer'.

On the contrary! That would THEN convince me that I was actually living in a simulation. How else could I possibly explain the fact that I died, but I am still alive?

I do not even know if an Eternal Reality exists, but I do know that I can grasp the idea and play with it. That alone is curious.
The idea that "Time Does Not Exist Within an Eternal Reality" is easy enough to get the gist of.

You know! It could go either way. I can't decide which theory is true...

But hey... if you are interested in knowing more about undecidability. There is a field of science that might interest you.

Why do you think human minds love the idea? What do you think human minds are? Something which is shaped and influenced by human experience.

Oh, trivially. Human minds are like computers. They process information - they recognize patterns, they use language, they communicate with others, they make decisions.

As far as I can tell - I am a computer. Makes sense - computers are made in our image, after all.

IF the universe is a simulated reality, THEN what is to stop us from thinking therefore, that before we were 'humans' we designed the simulation in order to experience it as humans?

Nothing. Nothing also stops us from thinking that we designed the simulation so we can prolong existence.

Because that's what computers do - they calculate the future. If I buy 2 apples, and I buy 2 more i WILL have 4 apples <--- future.

So it's totally possible that in order to buy ourselves time we choose to invent computer simulations and then - live in them. That way we can control time. Right now we can't.

IF that were the case THEN it is not 'the human mind' that we are. Mind, yes. Human, not so much - not then anyway.
But that would not mean that we [as non-human mind] do not love a good story. A great story would be that which involves many stories within the main story. All stories have beginnings and endings all made 'real' within the main story which had no beginning and will have no end.

I don't care about reading stories - I care about writing my own.

And what of false contradictions. Do these also exist?

Contradictions are false by definition. What I am telling you is that the definition is wrong. There are such things as true contradictions.

You appear to have the habit of making little one-line statements without backing these up with you own examples of evidence. This does not help your case.

You are doing exactly the same thing as me. Why does it help your case, but not my case?

Are you able to explain the contradiction in simple terms as to why you think the arrow of time should exist within an eternal universe?

I am not saying that it SHOULD exist in an "external universe" - I am saying that because my perception is limited by science (experience) that I can't tell you anything more about it.

It's how I experience time. It's how everybody experiences time.

Why separate the two? Why not understand them as both computational? As BOTH being the instrument we use to help us understand our self?

Because I literally can't understand the universe without understanding my mind first.

I USE my mind to understand the universe. My mind is a computer. I understand how computers work.

I have not changed the subject. I am examining your question "Why can't the universe be eternal?" I am offering answers which point to that not being the case.

And I am pointing you to the fact that it's either eternal or it isn't, but you still need a computer (a mind) to DECIDE that.

The question "Why can't the universe be eternal?" derives from the fact of perceptions. It is a perception which can be examined.

Then examine you perception. Is your mind a computer?

Either way - you need an algorithm to decide that...

Perceptions are like that. They can change. Even so, we cannot say for sure that they are not eternal.

Precisely! Nor can we say for sure that they aren't.

You need an algorithm to decide either way.

But the question is not "Why can't my perceptions be eternal?" The question is "Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because you don't have access to the universe except through your perception.

Given that we are each aware of the universe and we are part of it, but have yet to agree together on what the universe is, your statement that "The Universe is self aware" [because we are part of it] is obviously false. The best we could do in relation to your statement is to say that "The universe is attempting to become self aware [through us]

We can do even better! We can't determine whether the universe is or isn't self-aware.

In order to determine that - we would need an algorithm.

Bacteria is self aware too. Yet it is likely not aware of the universe in the same way that we are. Indeed, the universe is not fully self aware through us.

OK. Are you self-aware?

What algorithm did you use to decide?

Nether have you. But if the universe IS a simulated reality, and is not eternal, then my awareness of it will more likely work out more successful [for me] than if I believed it were eternal.

It's not going to make any difference. I really doubt that "the nature of the universe" features into your daily decision-making.

It doesn't feature into mine any way. Whether it was OR it wasn't a simulation makes no difference to me. I'll still continue to live my life the way I life my life.

Not to forget, my argument against the universe being eternal is that IF it were, THEN it should be fully self aware. And if we [our human awareness] are the gauge by which that is measured, we too should be eternal AND fully self aware.

That's a pretty silly argument, because if it were true then you are not eternal - you can never be self-aware.

Maybe the universe is and you aren't. Who knows?


Are you familiar with Curry's paradox? I think you'll find it relevant to your IF...THEN... claim.
The problem with your reasoning really is Curry's paradox though. This line in particular....

Consequences for some formal logic
In the 1930s, Curry's paradox and the related Kleene–Rosser paradox played a major role in showing that formal logic systems based on self-recursive expressions are inconsistent.

That we are not, is significant evidence that the universe is not eternal. That is my argument.

No, it's just evidence that YOU are not eternal.

Now who is strawmanning?

Who? Not me. I am self-aware of the fact that I am a computer. Because I am recursively referencing myself.

I think I have been plain enough. I have given many reasons why it is very unlikely that the universe is eternal. I have shown "Why the universe cannot be eternal." I have asked you to show why it can be. You have made noise in answer, but there is no thing [so far] substantial revealed in that noise which we can deduce as evidence to support the idea that the universe is eternal.

I have told you why. Because I don't have decisive evidence either way.

I don't have an algorithm to determine which theory is true.

Maybe it's eternal - maybe it isn't. You still don't understand that just because I am arguing against you it doesn't mean I am arguing for me.

I am arguing against both of us.

Obviously I expect it to be more than it currently is.

I think that is called a you-problem. The universe doesn't really care much what you expect from it.

I expect that it will eventually be made into a vast machine, provided consciousness continues to be part of its composition.
I expect that, because what else can consciousness DO with the universe, except to shape it into a useful machine?

So why haven't you done that yet? Shape it the way you want it to be shaped!

And since that is a work in progress, we can ascertain that the universe is not eternal.

Because you haven't finished shaping the universe to match your expectations, the universe is not eternal?

That's a weird argument.

And what is 'The Universe"?

The universe is ALL that exists. Did you not know that?

And what of your question - "Why can't the universe have always existed?" Is that not an expectation which can be examined for an answer?

It could have always existed! It could. have also had a beginning and an end.

Anything is possible! I am just not sure whether the answer changes anything in practice.

Are you able to explain to us why you think that it is?

Are you able to explain what explanation might appease you?

Yes. I have [and will] continue to do so.

That's not an explanation....

Correct. This is also why it bodes well to understand that I am currently experiencing a simulated reality which we are referring to as "The Universe".

What happens if you are not allowed to know the answer?

If the universe has always existed, then - because we know that consciousness is part of it - that consciousness would already know, and would always have known.

You are consciousness. Why don't you know?

Why the question is peculiar is because if the universe had always existed, the question would not need to be asked. So it is only peculiar in relation to the idea that the universe has always existed.
Since the question can indeed be asked, it is evidence that the universe has not always existed.

Just because the question can be asked it doesn't mean that the question is meaningful.

What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? 42!

I didn't need to ask the question. It was your question and you asked it;

I didn't! I don't care what the universe is. It could be made out of unicorn poop - it wouldn't bother me.

I am simply explaining WHY [you] asked the question. It is because the question can be asked, and because the question can be asked, I saw in that a good reason for why the universe is unlikely to have always existed.

You are still missing the point.

Both hypotheses are equally likely given the evidence. That's why I can't decide which one is true.

It is false to claim that the universe has always existed while at the same time claim that everything that is the universe ceases to exist.

Is it false, or just not true? Oh wait - you don't even know what truth is....

If the universe is eternal, then everything that is the universe, is also eternal.

You are not eternal, so you are not the universe?

You and I do not know that we will ever cease to exist.

I know you will cease to exist.

The best we can do is acknowledge that our current forms we occupy, do expire.

When you die you've ceased to exist (as far as I am concerned). Maybe you are trapped inside a corpse which is no longer responding to your will ... but you can't communicate with the outside world. So.... for all practical (read: USEFUL) purposes you don't exist.

I am not interested in your referrals.

Uh.You want to understand the computer we live in, but you don't want to understand what a computer is?

OK... Good luck!

If you yourself cannot explain in simple terms

In the simplest possible terms: It's pretty complex!

You MAY want to consider studying some computational complexity theory

If you want to simply understand complexity.

what it is you are [not ] arguing about, then what you have to say about it remains cloaked behind the mysterious curtain of hearsay, [claims without backing] and will be treated as such.

When you back up your claims - I'll back up mine. Till then - you get what you give.

Mind projection is a natural elemental attribute of being human. To say it is a fallacy is contrary to the facts.

To say the universe is a computer BECAUSE my mind is a computer is contrary to the facts.

The best one can do along those lines is to be aware that mind projection can be subject to false interpretation.

OK then. So if your mind is not a computer, then what is it?

This is why we argue/discuss the variables and [at least make honest attempt to] identify the false.

There's irony in that. Deciding true and false.... requires a computer.

but if your mind is not a computer... what is it?

So far, I have presented adequate case for the universe NOT having existed forever

Let me be the judge of that - you haven't.

You have contrived an argument to fit your conclusion, but everybody does that. What nobody an do is to determine whether their conclusion is true or false.

, as well as ongoing adequate case for why the universe is possibly [even likely] a simulated reality

It's as likely that it is, as it is that it isn't. That is what it means to say "I don't know" - I don't know how to decide.

, and you have danced with language, making sounds which have no significant meaning...at least none which you have been able to make clear about.

What is unclear to you when I say "You can't decide which hypothesis is true" ?
What is unclear to you when I say "Both hypotheses are equiprobable"

Perhaps if you thought about the software and the hardware as being 'two sides of the same coin' and also thought about consciousness as being neither the software or the hardware, but rather The Original Creator of the software/hardware, you might be able to expand your thinking outside of what it presently is occupied within.

Perhaps if you saw yourself as the creator of knowledge, you would see yourself the way I see myself?

Remove those parameters and explore the rabbit hole, rather than insist upon the relative safety of inside the cup-hole as your preferred position.

Go for it. I've already been down the rabbit hole... I am telling you the truth, but you don't believe me. Maybe you should go down and check for yourself.

The rabbit hole does indeed have a network of warrens which do indeed need to be navigated. The fact that we posses the ability to mind project shows us what an essential tool mind projection is for such a job.

Perfect. So then instead of aiming for the question "What is the universe?" - try to answer "what is the mind?"

Walking before running...

And you needn't be frightened by the prospect either. Look around. You already exist in a rabbit hole and you do not know for sure even, that it isn't a product of mind projection itself. A simulation created by a mind projecting.

I think you are projecting your fear onto me I am comfortable not knowing what the hell is going on.

It bothers you more than it bothers me.

But if you insist that you want to understand The Simulation, but you don't even know what your mind is; and you don't even know what a computer is....


That's not going to work.

[Skepdick]

Consciousness is not recursive

Are you not a particular example of "consciousness"? Sounds to me like you are referring to yourself.

That's recursion.

- only our conceptual descriptions are (conceptual thought generally is).

Great! Can you give me an example of a non-conceptual description?

Thus: Computers are similar to conceptual thought (no wonder, they are children of human thought) - consciousness is like the ocean, not recursive

The ocean doesn't speak about itself. Consciousness does.

No, its not in your skin, eyes... but its also not in your head or in your brain.
Its not in anything as its not a thing - but all things are "made of" it.

How do you know?

You could say that, but it wouldn't be true

Sounds like you have decided. At least your mind is a computer, even if you don't know what consciousness is.

The ones which are capable of introspection are "self aware" in the sense that they can think about the concept of self (and attach it to other concepts - eg mind or body), that's all.

Precisely. Exactly the same thing humans do!

Not a thing.

I didn't ask you what it isn't. I asked you what it is.

Depends what you mean with "you".
I - the conceptual individual/person - make decisions.
I - consciousness - do not.

I think your problems would go away if you stopped equivocating the "I"

What are you?

[Sculptor]

Recently I have been engaged in discussion [which started with this post] regarding the existence of nothing [aka "no-thing"?] and since the discussion fragmented from the main topic subject, I thought I would start a thread in this forum to invite discussion on both ideas and whether The Theory Nothing Exists is compatible with Simulation Theory.

To flesh out what I [at least] understand about The Theory Nothing Exists, it is not positing that no-thing(s) exist, but rather, that there is an actual counterpart to existence which is "non-existence", and that non-existence actually exists as something which can be either experienced as real or conceptualized as possibly real.

Contradiction

It appears that the main reason for the positing that nothing exists is that most humans seem to have a memory of not existing..or to the point - emerging from a state of nothing into something, therefore, since we apparently come from nothing, then it must exist, for that is where we come from.

No they do not. Having no memory of a previous state is not the same as having a memory of not existing.

The Simulation Theory posits that we exist within a reality simulation [one among possibly countless simulations] so in a sense we are not experiencing anything which is real. The things we think we are experiencing are not real but simulated to be experienced as real.

But that would mean that reality IS a simulation, not that there is no such thing as reality.

Q: Are both theories able to be shown as non-contradictory to each other?

No But they are contradictory to themselves. And therefore not capable of comparison with each other.

Simulation theory also implies a created thing, effectively pointing to the expanded idea that IF we are experiencing a Reality Simulation, THEN there has to be a Creator [or Creators] involved.

Is this compatible with The Nothing Exists Theory?

Obviously those smart enough would reply "Yes!" because Simulation Theory could include the possibility that a 'nothing' sector was built into the overall simulation.

We can point to our own experience of coming into this reality, as we have a memory of having come out of such a sector.

But then of course, we have to acknowledge that the "nothing sector" resides within the simulation, and so is only real to those also within the simulation. That in itself does not give us an adequate answer to the question "Is nothing an actual real place which has to also exist outside of this simulation, but is not a simulation itself?"

Which places the focus of attention upon The Creator(s) position outside of this simulation. Is/are The Creator(s) themselves existing within a simulation - [intelligence would favor the 'yes' answer] and if so, how do we know that this pattern doesn't repeat itself? [infinite regress fallacy]

The answer is that infinite regress is illogical. At some point there has to be a "Source-Point" otherwise Simulation Theory would have to be dismissed as an explanation for existence. Or if not completely dismissed, then one would have to conclude that everything and nothing is simulated and nothing created everything and everything created nothing.

It becomes an eternal loop which - going nowhere - [we don't know where] - seems pointless in relation to consciousness, which has the unfortunate role of having to experience simulated reality, because consciousness too comes from nothing/something/something/nothing and is simulated.

Therefore the only way to make conscious experience sensible in relation to Simulation Theory and Nothing Exists Theory is to remove the illogical infinite regress fallacy, which leaves us with the idea that At Some Point there was/is an Original Creator [not Creators] and it is from this origin, that all else became through and Original Simulator created by the original Creator.

In relation to the idea that our simulated reality was created by creators who themselves were/are in an simulation - this idea should be included for the sake of fairness, but ultimately doesn't [shouldn't?] matter.

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.

That is the short and curlies of it.


Intelligent Comments, as usual, most welcome

PLONK!