Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 10:49 pm You just to conclusions, I don't lack imagination, quite the contrary.

Now shush babblehead, go do something useful with your life, philosophy isn't the way.

You mean "jump" to conclusions? Anyway, if you know history, you should know that those who we consider great minds today, were rediculed by their initial peers. I'm not saying I'm great, but I do claim my right to be heard and the validity of the essense of my message. That you don't like me or my message is irrelevant in all senses.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 9:39 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 9:30 pm Ok, well that was all weird.
But now that you are reading my stuff again I'll just paste in something you neglected to think about...

For something to be natural, it must belong somewhere within nature, and therefore within the universe that nature incorporates.
The creator you describe, created the universe, and therefore nature, and therefore existed prior to nature.
For a thing to be caused by natural events and laws, the causes must exist within nature.
Super means above, or beyond.
Natural means existing in or derived from nature
Supernatural means that the object of discussion is not contained within, caused by, or a product of nature.
The being that creates nature is therefore necessarily supernatural.
It really makes no difference whether you like to think of him as just a normal guy sitting in in his vest at a computer.

Tell me something. In this environment, supposing the being you describe doesn't want us to prove their existence, but somebody does so...
Why wouldn't this being be able to revert the virtual universe to a snapshot prior to that proof and simply kill the person who did the proving as an act of bug fixing? If they can do that with time and space and destiny, then what is wrong with describing their powers as unlimited?

I have that power over the computers I run, I'm not supernatural nor omnipotent in my universe, but I sort of am in theirs.

You are absolutely right.

The fact that I am not being stopped, gives a few possibilities:

- This simulation is nothing special. They wanna see how it turns out. They find it funny that they got made.
- This simulation is not being supervised. It will be analysed after it's finnished.
- This could be a global network phenomenon in their world. They can attempt to influence us, but they cannot alter the game or stop it.
- Probably more I didn't think of.

Tactically that answer wasn't a good choice. You've simply accepted the point that the being you hypothesise has the powers of a god, and you seem to be accepting the supernatural nature. So, once again, this isn't a question of science. Your belief is fundamentally religious in quality. You just have a god who doesn't require worship so far as anyone knows.... Although if you think about that.... they probably created religion, so maybe they do want worshipping...

And maybe if we stop worshipping lots of various gods, they might define the function: giant_virgin_eating_volcano(x)
And in there, this dude with the computer can set a loop that operates [while the number of virgins sacrificed to the volcano is less than 100; destroy_a_city(); return: "Feed me $(100 - x) virgins or I destroy another city"]

So you probably need to start rounding up some virgins until we're sure we don't live in a computer simulation.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 9:30 pm For something to be natural, it must belong somewhere within nature, and therefore within the universe that nature incorporates.
The creator you describe, created the universe, and therefore nature, and therefore existed prior to nature.
For a thing to be caused by natural events and laws, the causes must exist within nature.
Super means above, or beyond.
Natural means existing in or derived from nature
Supernatural means that the object of discussion is not contained within, caused by, or a product of nature.
The being that creates nature is therefore necessarily supernatural.

I also pointed this out, not as well spelled out I think.

Tell me something. In this environment, supposing the being you describe doesn't want us to prove their existence, but somebody does so...
Why wouldn't this being be able to revert the virtual universe to a snapshot prior to that proof and simply kill the person who did the proving as an act of bug fixing? If they can do that with time and space and destiny, then what is wrong with describing their powers as unlimited?

Such an act would be a violation of the natural deterministic law of the simulation, rendering greater proof of their existence than whatever the killed being came up with.
OK, the simulation could be non-deterministic, but there is no simulation of development of humans from non-humans without determinism to assure that events don't take a completely different path. If everybody getting close to figuring out about the existence of the supernatural suddenly dies, we'd quickly evolve to avoid that line of thinking, and that unexplained trait itself would be noticed.

So if the simulation is so entirely flawed as to render such a proof possible to the 'inhabitant', the fix is to create a different natural law that doesn't leave evidence of the supernatural layer. Given a simulation that is not subject to interference, it is actually hard (impossible??) to conclude the simulation from within. It is the interference (such as burning bushes or exercise of free will from a supernatural agent) that gives away the secret of the existence of the supernatural.

Thought I'd run with your bug-fix-via-smite idea there.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 9:39 pm The fact that I am not being stopped, gives a few possibilities:

- This simulation is nothing special. They wanna see how it turns out. They find it funny that they got made.
- This simulation is not being supervised. It will be analysed after it's finnished.
- This could be a global network phenomenon in their world. They can attempt to influence us, but they cannot alter the game or stop it.
- Probably more I didn't think of.

I can think of a couple:
- They don't actually care if they're known by us.
- You haven't actually rendered any sort of evidence. Their secret is safe.

I may have presented 16 points, but my actual "evidence" is: The CotWF, non-locality, the physical contant, math and string theory/the holographic principle.

But since the admin put this in Metaphysics, the point of connecting dots or making a scientific argument, makes no sense.

THANKS ADMIN!!!

IF I connect the dots, it will be in a new thread, where it belongs!

Noax wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:17 pm - They don't actually care if they're known by us.

Good point!
Seems similar to mine:
- This simulation is nothing special. They wanna see how it turns out. They find it funny that they got made.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm I'll leave the conclusion up to you. Because: who am I to tell you?

But if I add up all the parts, the sum of them = A Matrix.

I don't see how it is possible to distinguish between the two possibilities:
1. The world is real and weird.
2. The world is simulated and weird

So I am keeping an open mind.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:29 pm I may have presented 16 points, but my actual "evidence" is: The CotWF, non-locality, the physical contant, math and string theory/the holographic principle.

No connection from those 16 points was made to your belief, and many of the points were inaccurate, and others actually argue against it.
Does simulation theory predict UFO's? It would break natural law (as we currently know it) if they just appeared from nowhere, so it wouldn't really be a simulation of some set of laws then, would it? If the computer program was designed to insert a random UFO now and then, it would become part of natural law that a UFO could just appear at any time. Still no distinction.

The only connection I see is "I find all these points weird", and it has been pointed out that it doesn't seem to distinguish this idea:

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:09 amI don't see how it is possible to distinguish between the two possibilities:
1. The world is real and weird.
2. The world is simulated and weird

Indeed. No distinction. A scientific bit of evidence would be a distinction: Current theory predicts (empirically observable) X, but the simulation theory predicts Y. Put a thread in science if you have that, else keep using this one.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pmBut if I add up all the parts, the sum of them = A Matrix.

Matrix is a virtual reality (like Pacman), not a simulation. In both Pacman and Matrix, humans are real, but their bodies are virtual avatars with no will of their own. In Pacman, the human knows the reality is virtual, and in the matrix he doesn't. In a simulation, the beings are free willed (natural), and not just avatars to be possessed by real beings to experience the virtual world. I think you envision the full simulation (not VR), but this reference to the Matrix makes me suspect that you've not a clear idea yourself.

But since the admin put this in Metaphysics, the point of connecting dots or making a scientific argument, makes no sense.

wtf posted some nice ways to present it as a scientific proposal instead a metaphysical one, but even then, it would be science, not philosophy of science. I suggest continued posting to this thread instead of just creating a new one each time. Don't let admin deter you from what you want to say.

QuantumT,

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:29 pm I may have presented 16 points, but my actual "evidence" is: The CotWF, non-locality, the physical contant, math and string theory/the holographic principle.

But since the admin put this in Metaphysics, the point of connecting dots or making a scientific argument, makes no sense.

THANKS ADMIN!!!

IF I connect the dots, it will be in a new thread, where it belongs!

It is a metaphysic and Metaphysics is still a perfectly respectable pursuit in Philosophy the last time I looked.

You can raise all the new threads you like and connect whatever dots you wish but if it looks like Metaphysics then into Metaphysics it will go. Although if you think you are making a 'scientific argument' then maybe you should be posting it in a science forum?

AMod.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm 8: The Holographic Principle.
At the event horizon, at a black hole: What happens? Susskind won the argument against Hawking: Events are displayed as "holograms" at the edge of the universe!
But! Not only black hole events are displayed! All events are!
Who's watching?

Admittedly my understanding of this topic is somewhat shallow, correct me if I'm wrong. From what I've seen it's mainly the Information paradox and the Holographic principle that lead to this disturbing trend in science nowadays that makes a few scientists so enthusiastic about proving that we live in a simulation. Like this possibility was the best thing since sliced bread for them; I have no idea why. Sure, the simulation can never be ruled out, and the infinite multiverse hypothesis also automatically has to contain simulated universes, even though I'd argue that their ratio would be very low, which is my primary reason for rejecting the simulation hypothesis (I expanded on this and my other objections in the Electrical reality topic, and I largely agree with Noax's objections too. The interpretations of QM are in particular way off.)

But back to the Information paradox. If I understand correctly, it all probably goes back to one certain question about QM: are quantum fluctuations genuinely random or apparently random? Hawking, Susskind and almost everyone else seem to have taken the genuinely random interpretation for granted. They hardly could have done otherwise; this is what we can tell from our experiments, an apparently random local behaviour of a universal nonlocal determinism for example may forever be unprovable, even if it might be a possibility.

So they had to take the genuine randomness route with genuinely random quantum fluctuations. As black holes evaporate, physical information is lost, which pretty much breaks physics. Maybe it's true and this is how the world actually works, which would really be painful. So they had to come up with all kinds of ideas to fix it, and so they came up with an even worse idea: that information is encoded on the event horizons of black holes. That's the ultimate mindfuck, because information is just an abstraction of physical systems, not an additional physical component. Science has therefore entered magical thinking territory.

Then there's the Holographic principle: an n dimensional something can be represented on an n-1 dimensional surface. That's all nice and well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the case for our universe.

So the way I see it: we have a forced but maybe incorrect assumption (genuine QM randomness) resolved by a cognitive error (encoded information), married to a mathematical tool and physical possibility taken literally and for granted (holographic principle applied to the universe). And that's the main argument for the simulation hypothesis. That's too forced imo. It's reasons like this why I started the "Information does not exist as such" topic on this forum. Some scientists and philosophers take it very seriously nowadays that information exists in addition to matter/energy, which is nonsense, and as long as they have this belief it's no wonder that many people think they are holograms or the world is a simulation and so on. People like Susskind and Dennett may have lead humanity a little astray, for a while.

Overall I see the topic as heavily metaphysics of course, but wouldn't call the simulators supernatural; they use no Magic. I think the multiverse hypothesis is the simplest and most likely "unprovable extension" to the world we see, it easily beats the simulation hypothesis. With the simulators we also also may fall into the "yeah but where did God came from" type of infinite regression too: the existence of the simulators should possibly be explained as well, which again may need further simulators or other universes and so on; and we eventually may have a multiverse again.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 8:12 pmBostrom has the right concept, but his definitions are too narrow. He names ancestor simulations, but that is just one option among endless possibilities. In my mind they could have countless reasons to simulate us. My favorite one is: Entertainment / Playing God.

Who are 'they'?

I think you are being shortsighted to think that this simulation would be for some others fun. Have you ever considered that the ever increasing state of entropy could be the reason that we MUST interface to a simulation? If our material bodies are removed from the equation, and we are reduced to pure consciousness, perhaps just our brains remain, then our existence becomes extremely efficient. It is then comprehensible that the simulation system may be A.I.
I know from many years of experience that we are in a reality that has a third-party intelligence at its backbone, able to manipulate reality easier than one could with putty and have been arguing the case on this forum, pretty much from day one, so good luck!

Atla wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 6:40 am I think the multiverse hypothesis is the simplest and most likely "unprovable extension" to the world we see, it easily beats the simulation hypothesis.

Which I find nice; I think the multiverse idea is the least depressing out of the three possibilities that usually come up (one universe, simulated universe, multiverse).

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 9:28 amI think you are being shortsighted to think that this simulation would be for some others fun. Have you ever considered that the ever increasing state of entropy could be the reason that we MUST interface to a simulation? If our material bodies are removed from the equation, and we are reduced to pure consciousness, perhaps just our brains remain, then our existence becomes extremely efficient. It is then comprehensible that the simulation system may be A.I.

The lack of actual science behind "The last question" is the reason the story is listed as fiction.

I know from many years of experience that we are in a reality that has a third-party intelligence at its backbone, able to manipulate reality easier than one could with putty and have been arguing the case on this forum, pretty much from day one, so good luck!

You call him a third party intelligence now and he does his work via simulation instead of brute creation? I thought he was more potent than that.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 9:28 amI think you are being shortsighted to think that this simulation would be for some others fun. Have you ever considered that the ever increasing state of entropy could be the reason that we MUST interface to a simulation? If our material bodies are removed from the equation, and we are reduced to pure consciousness, perhaps just our brains remain, then our existence becomes extremely efficient. It is then comprehensible that the simulation system may be A.I.

The lack of actual science behind "The last question" is the reason the story is listed as fiction.

...a great story though.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 9:28 amI know from many years of experience that we are in a reality that has a third-party intelligence at its backbone, able to manipulate reality easier than one could with putty and have been arguing the case on this forum, pretty much from day one, so good luck!

You call him a third party intelligence now and he does his work via simulation instead of brute creation? I thought he was more potent than that.

...he? he who?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:01 pmYou mean "jump" to conclusions? Anyway, if you know history, you should know that those who we consider great minds today, were rediculed by their initial peers. I'm not saying I'm great, but I do claim my right to be heard and the validity of the essense of my message. That you don't like me or my message is irrelevant in all senses.

Yes dunno why I left "jump" out.

That's because they got judged by ignorants, don't think I'm an ignorant.

- don't have any formal education
- I'm a prodigy savant in principle analytics
- do my own lawsuits
- has good reasoning skills
- told senior staff what to do and how to do their work in a newspaper, fought all chief of staff and director all at once, ofc they wanted me fired but since I reduced several tasks with many hours they suddenly shut up, that exceeding both IT departments, 2 higher business education and 150+ sales staff etc.

I'm really good at what I do, and I know you haven't shown a shred of evidence of your "alleged ooh soo high intellect and abilities".