Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, but you are talking about the content of the hypothesis rather than the name of the hypothesis. That is because I do not know which hypothesis you wish to attach this different name. There are two primary ones, and you don't distinguish which you have in mind. The pop shows you link are run by...

I don't see how it matters how or where our reality comes to us, if we are stuck with it anyway. No point in getting worked up over something we can't change. This entire site is dedicated to people who want to get worked up over things that can't be changed and don't matter in any practical way. I...

I think we have been on an entirely different page here all along. The thread is about the terminology being used, it is not an argument for or against the theories within the hypothesis, even though you have cleverly drawn me into such a debate. OK, trying to stick with that then. Again, if scient...

Defining "to exist" is a philosophical area in which I, personally, fear to tread, wise or not. So Socrates's penchant for definition enters the picture yet again! If I stick my neck out for the time being, let me pose this definition: "To exist" is to be detectable by human bei...

Here we get into two of the difficulties to which definitions and assumptions can lead: (1) Does a given definition or assumption reflect "reality", and (2) is the definition a common understanding of the word being defined? (1) A defintion is not an assertion of reality. There are 3 thin...

The universe as other than everything that exists (all there is)?? -- In my earlier post, I tried out the definition of the universe as being restricted to human-knowable nature. Such a notion is favored by folks who want to entertain a notion of the "supernatural". There are plenty of ot...

We may not know it completely, but if natural law is local by nature, then the simulation [of it] would need to follow local rules, or it is a simulation of something else. If this reality is processed and generated at a core then local laws of nature are just that, everything we determine about th...

Eventually the argument against materialism is made, based on quantum entanglement, reasoning that this could only be the case where there is centralised processing taking place, such that distances over space are only perceived, not real. Well, strawman tactics aside, this is fallacious at the cor...

Could we agree that there are two chains of causality before decision is made? Could we agree that there is only one chain of causality after decision is made? No. Chains are not individual things with identities for separate purposes, options or acts. Every effect event is a function of a web of c...

Simulation Hypothesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s James Gates & Neil Degrasse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA These are hardly discussing the same subject, and both are pop interpretations of what is really being considered by science. The first video disc...

A random out-of-nowhere universe in itself , with random chaos that leads to miraculous life, and pure luck for it to end like us, not elegant at all to me. It sounds crazy lucky. Heck, science has got further than that description. The 'luck' has been explained with chaotic inflation theory, which...

OK, so we are a very advanced computer simulation. How do you explain the origin of that? We can only speculate. It's not the job of science to investigate the uninvestigatable. A different universe is not our territory. Human science starts with the big bang, stays in this universe, and ends with ...

In other words, when I tell you the solution, you will be most likely to deny it. Most people do. Even smart and educated people. Especially them. Here it comes: We are probably living in a very advanced computer simulation! This isn't a solution to the problem any more than any other 'creator' sol...

I am afraid that I don't see how they could continue on. To me it seems that they are terminated at decision point. ... We compare X and Y at decision point. x and y are different chains of causality related to X and Y respectively. ... I don't agree that x becomes y. They are two different chains ...

Basicly we simply interpret the cotwf diffently. My logic says it's caused by the observer, yours says it's not. By calling it cotwf, or by declaring it to be caused, is already interpreting things. I personally like the idea of the cotwf causing me, not the other way around. I'm not here to convin...