Philosophy Now Forum

For those of you who really like crackpot computational physics based metaphysics.

Its modern, fits our current milieu, gives you a 'God' and a 'Soul' if you want one, and its bloody funny when you think about it. Pah! to the QM wavers and Relativity loons.

My favourite site for weird and interesting papers, i.e. Fredkins.

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org

Its ALL a sim I tell you! Or is that an emulation? Seems about right to me!
p.s.
Been around a while, Zuse;
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/digitalphysics.html

Arising_uk wrote:For those of you who really like crackpot computational physics based metaphysics.

Its modern, fits our current milieu, gives you a 'God' and a 'Soul' if you want one, and its bloody funny when you think about it. Pah! to the QM wavers and Relativity loons.

My favourite site for weird and interesting papers, i.e. Fredkins.

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/t ... fault.aspx

Is this anything more than regurgitated atomism?
DP is the heart of zeno's arrow, and Achiles and the tortoise paradoxes.
It seems odd to me that anyone would want to embrace DP as this makes them fall foul of these problems


Its ALL a sim I tell you! Or is that an emulation? Seems about right to me!
p.s.
Been around a while, Zuse;
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/digitalphysics.html

EDIT.
fucking hell - after looking at the entries I take it all back. Whoever built this website is a moron.
You can't get from atomism to the soul, but he wants to. And pretends to do it in three easy lessons.
There is so much crap on the Internet. I don't think we are going to make it as a species.

chaz wyman wrote:
Is this anything more than regurgitated atomism?
DP is the heart of zeno's arrow, and Achiles and the tortoise paradoxes.
It seems odd to me that anyone would want to embrace DP as this makes them fall foul of these problems

Its also Newtons absolute Space and Time I think.

I agree, its definitely that the world is discrete at the bottom level but he is a physicist so what can you expect given QM says its all particles. He's just saying what if it is?

Zuse proposed much the same thing based upon an idea that whilst the physicists use Maths to model things the actual computations have to be discrete and incremental to be solved.

Not sure the paradoxes will be a problem here as within the sim the arrow will still reach the target, its that motion in the sense of something travelling won't be true at the computational level, i.e. its Planck bits turning on and off thus giving what we call motion but nothing other than the impression in the sim will be moving. Like a 3-d game of life where the gliders move and interact but at the bottom level its just cells turning on and off.

fucking hell - after looking at the entries I take it all back. Whoever built this website is a moron.
You can't get from atomism to the soul, but he wants to. And pretends to do it in three easy lessons.
There is so much crap on the Internet. I don't think we are going to make it as a species.

Well, at least he defines the 'Soul' first using the concepts of DP and then gives a way for the godbotherers to have their cake and eat it.

I am trying to introduce Kant and German Idealism to Digital philosophy. Check it out:
https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic

Why do you think the calculation being run is necessarily about us?

Why would the automata not be a 3-D holographic planck-bit mechanism?

What if what the 'universe' is is actually an epiphenomenon a la Conway's GoL?

I'm pretty sure I'm just a disembodied brain, vatted up, with 'the world' (including all of you) bein' fed into my consciousness by way of electrode.

Could be worse.

henry quirk wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm just a disembodied brain, vatted up, with 'the world' (including all of you) bein' fed into my consciousness by way of electrode.

Could be worse.

Yes, what you perceive could actually be reality, pretty shitty that.

henry quirk wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm just a disembodied brain, vatted up, with 'the world' (including all of you) bein' fed into my consciousness by way of electrode.

yes Y?

atto,

Not really. It's possible, but not likely.

Hello Henry,



Its as unlikely as the technological singularity having already occurred.

attofishpi,

Yep...didn't I say that (about it bein' unlikely)?

Henry,


you did , i didn't.

atto,

My mistake.

I thought you 'did' (too) with "Its as unlikely as the technological singularity having already occurred".

Again: My mistake.

attofishpi wrote:Hello Henry,

Its as unlikely as the technological singularity having already occurred.

So you choose (1) from Bostrum's argument then?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html