Philosophy Now Forum

Interesting diagram:

http://en.arguman.org/the-universe-is-a-simulation

PhilX

Q. Is the universe a simulation?

A. No. However Isaac Newton thought it was.

Q. Does the "science" of physics model the universe as if it were a simulation?

A. Yes. That's what Newton designed it to do.

Obvious Leo wrote: A. No. However Isaac Newton thought it was.

Have you got a reference for that claim? I find it highly unlikely.

wtf wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: A. No. However Isaac Newton thought it was.

Have you got a reference for that claim? I find it highly unlikely.

Most certainly I have a reference for this claim in the words of the man himself. Isaac Newton defined the universe as an artefact of the mind of god and in the modern language of information theory any reality which is the creation of a creator is defined as a Virtual Reality, otherwise known as a simulation. Physics still models the universe as if it were the creation of an external causal agent.

Obvious Leo wrote:

wtf wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: A. No. However Isaac Newton thought it was.

Have you got a reference for that claim? I find it highly unlikely.

Most certainly I have a reference for this claim in the words of the man himself. Isaac Newton defined the universe as an artefact of the mind of god and in the modern language of information theory any reality which is the creation of a creator is defined as a Virtual Reality, otherwise known as a simulation. Physics still models the universe as if it were the creation of an external causal agent.

Still waiting for the specific reference. You are really stretching here. And in any event it was Berkeley (a critic of Newton) who said that the moment-to-moment continuity of our subjective experience is created by God. You really need to provide a specific reference so that we can examine the context. Newton thought no such thing as what you claim.

Obvious Leo wrote:Isaac Newton defined the universe as an artefact of the mind of god and in the modern language of information theory any reality which is the creation of a creator is defined as a Virtual Reality, otherwise known as a simulation.

By this definition anything we create are also virtual realities being all artefacts of OUR minds making even God a simulation. Since god at the time of Newton and Leibniz still had a home in the minds of most people, philosophers, scientists and commoners alike, it made complete sense to think of the Universe as a creation, an artefact, of the mind of God.

Physics still models the universe as if it were the creation of an external causal agent.

Whether it does or not physics does not define a GOD entity as the external causal agent which is what you're implying.

You should really make an effort to get rid of your "Newton" hangup. The whole structure now is something even Newton could barely recognize.

Dubious wrote: Whether it does or not physics does not define a GOD entity as the external causal agent which is what you're implying.

It's not what I said. I merely said that physics models the world as if it were a created entity instead of as one which is sufficient to its own existence. This is entirely due to the Newtonian assumption that physical reality is determined according to a suite of physical laws whose origins lie external to the universe itself. And NO, physics has emphatically NOT moved beyond this a priori Newtonian assumption because it is inextricably embedded within the models of physics themselves, which is why they describe a universe which makes no sense.

Obvious Leo wrote: I merely said that physics models the world as if it were a created entity instead of as one which is sufficient to its own existence. This is entirely due to the Newtonian assumption that physical reality is determined according to a suite of physical laws whose origins lie external to the universe itself.

I take exception to this interpretation. I am no expert but I am an amateur student of the history and lore of all things Newton.

My understanding is that when he announced his theory of gravity, Newton was roundly and strongly criticized. His theory did not say WHAT gravity was; but only HOW it behaved.

The competing theory of gravity was Descartes's theory of vortices, in which the universe was filled with little tornados that made the planets move around the sun. Descartes's idea is clearly superior to Newton's, because Descartes is telling us what gravity is. It's a vortex. People said Newton should explain what gravity is, not just how it behaves.

Newton famously addressed this point. He said, regarding the ultimate cause of gravity, "I frame no hypotheses." Newton was saying that not only didn't he know what gravity was; but that science is not about ultimate causes; but only mathematical description.

In so doing, Newton defined science for all time. It's about building mathematical models of what we can observe. We do not make up stories about "causes." This is something many people still don't understand to this day.

Newton's own words (in translation from the original Latin, of course) are as on point today as they were 300 years ago.

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

You see that Newton understood the problem; and forever banished mysticism and "causes." Rather, "propositions are inferred from the phenomena." You do experiments and build models. You don't make up stories about causes.

Newton would have been the last person on earth to invoke God as an underlying cause of gravity. Though Newton was involved in the religious disputes of his time and tried to find secret messages in the Bible, he NEVER let his metaphysical thoughts enter his scientific work. He drew the line. There is no mysticism in his physics.

The idea that Newton invoked the "mind of God" as an underlying cause of the universe is completely at odds with the writings of Newton on this very subject.

I do believe you may well have read that quote from George Berkeley, who famously criticized Newton's fluxions (derivatives) as the "ghost of departed quantities." Berkeley had a philosophy called subjective idealism. He believed that there was no "out there" out there; that since everything we can perceive is mediated by our senses; that our senses are all we can know. There is no physical world at all.

Now if there is no physical world out there, what gives continuity and coherence to our moment-to-moment experience? Berkeley said it's all held together in the mind of God! I'm guessing this is the story you heard and mixed it up with Newton. Berkeley was a bishop in the Catholic church, so it made perfect sense for him to invoke God when he got stuck for an explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

Newton had religious interests, but he kept them strictly separated from his scientific work. He explicitly rejected occult explanations in science. Newton simply couldn't have said what you claim he said.

Obvious Leo wrote: And NO, physics has emphatically NOT moved beyond this a priori Newtonian assumption because it is inextricably embedded within the models of physics themselves, which is why they describe a universe which makes no sense.

I believe this is something you're projecting on to science. I'd agree that there are a lot of scientists who don't understand Newton's deep point about the nature of science as descriptive and not explanatory. That's scientism, the over-estimation of what science actually is.

But Newton did not make that mistake. He understood that science is only about what we can observe. "I frame no hypotheses." Those are the man's words. If he came back today he'd oppose scientism and insist on basing science on what we can observe.

Note that in response to your belief that Newton thought the universe was "determined" by physical laws, Newton responds directly to your very complaint! Newton says, "in this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

In other words Newton well understands that claiming our observation-based models are universal is only an inductive assumption.

Why not an emulation?

Arising_uk wrote:Why not an emulation?

Emulate often means to surpass what you're imitating. So what would this universe be better than? Are you suggesting the universe itself is evolving?

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:Why not an emulation?

Ah, that old chestnut. PhilX finally makes an excellent point, lets see where Mr Arising heads from here.

attofishpi wrote:Ah, that old chestnut. ...

Why a chestnut? As I pretty much never hear people talk about emulations but often simulations.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ah, that old chestnut. ...

Why a chestnut? As I pretty much never hear people talk about emulations but often simulations.

I've considered as i posted why the saying is 'that old chestnut' for things that have existed\repeated as you have done so re Nick Bostrom's analysis. You are the one that brings to the table rather efficiently the word emulation in these matters, the fact that you rarely hear others talk of such a thing suggests perhaps you are unique Arising.

Care to address PhilX's apt statement and questions.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Emulate often means to surpass what you're imitating. So what would this universe be better than? Are you suggesting the universe itself is evolving?PhilX

No, I'm using this meaning ,

Emulate - reproduce the function or action of (a different computer, software system, etc.).

In contrast to this,

Simulate - produce a computer model of.
p.s.
For the first time I have something to thank you for PX as that 'diagram' is more than that, what an interesting idea that site has.
p.p.s
I see that Cerverny has posted an argument/proposition.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Emulate often means to surpass what you're imitating. So what would this universe be better than? Are you suggesting the universe itself is evolving?PhilX

No, I'm using this meaning ,

Emulate - reproduce the function or action of (a different computer, software system, etc.).

In contrast to this,

Simulate - produce a computer model of.
p.s.
For the first time I have something to thank you for PX as that 'diagram' is more than that, what an interesting idea that site has.
p.p.s
I see that Cerverny has posted an argument/proposition.

I found no reference to 'Cerverny'. What argument/proposition? ..and btw on thread recording you are hilarious last post Wed Oct 21, 2015