The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4339
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:38 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:44 pm
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 suppose the VR thing matters because it might become a moral issue when considering degradation/termination of the experience of one of the virtual experiencers. The rules seem different if you are taking you marching orders from a story that makes you comfortable for whatever reason, but lacks any actual evidence.
Yes. I seem to be failing at getting worked up anymore. I've hit that stage of cautious resignation, for better or worse. Perhaps I have another role to play? Getting people worked up over my ambivalence, perhaps?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:10 am
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:07 am
Hence, I have proposed that 'projection hypothesis' would be a better terminology.
So same proposal with a different name? What is the proposal? Part of what my comments concerned is that there are two very distinct proposals.
Yes, but you are talking about the content of the hypothesis rather than the name of the hypothesis. Its the same proposal, just a more accurate title.
Unless we are aware that there is something else that is being simulated, the term simulation should not be used.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:10 am
Scientists usually talk about actual simulations, but pop science like the links you put out are typically about VR like in the matrix. Which one of the two do you wish to attach the label 'projection'?
Consciousness is part of the projection (matter including our brain)...not VR BIV, although it still has a valid argument.
Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:10 am
..perhaps I don't understand your assertion about knowing the reality that is projected. Do you mean 'knowing that it exists'? Most would not say that each minecraft reality exists.
It depends on how reality is defined. Minecraft is not a reality, even when considered derivative..if the other four senses were attached I might have a different opinion.
We all know reality exists, I cannot be certain other minds exist, I think therefore I am and sensing what is..aparently existing as 'matter'.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:38 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 pm
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:44 pm
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 suppose the VR thing matters because it might become a moral issue when considering degradation/termination of the experience of one of the virtual experiencers. The rules seem different if you are taking you marching orders from a story that makes you comfortable for whatever reason, but lacks any actual evidence.
Yes. I seem to be failing at getting worked up anymore. I've hit that stage of cautious resignation, for better or worse. Perhaps I have another role to play? Getting people worked up over my ambivalence, perhaps?
Ah, cmon Dalek...you know its been ages since i've felt like exterminating someone. (he was an arsehole anyway and the doctor told me to!)

Where the f' have you been anyway? AWOL is not acceptable!

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4339
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:05 am

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:38 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 pm
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 suppose the VR thing matters because it might become a moral issue when considering degradation/termination of the experience of one of the virtual experiencers. The rules seem different if you are taking you marching orders from a story that makes you comfortable for whatever reason, but lacks any actual evidence.
Yes. I seem to be failing at getting worked up anymore. I've hit that stage of cautious resignation, for better or worse. Perhaps I have another role to play? Getting people worked up over my ambivalence, perhaps?
Ah, cmon Dalek...you know its been ages since i've felt like exterminating someone. (he was an arsehole anyway and the doctor told me to!)

Where the f' have you been anyway? AWOL is not acceptable!
Haven't been quite my exterminating self lately I'm afraid, atto. I'm hoping it's a temporary thing, but much of the fight just fails me these days... blah, I don't want to be depressing or anything lol.... I pop in and out every so often still, though. I do like you folks, and couldn't really bring myself to leave entirely. This forum is a bit of a sanctuary for my brain.

Anyway, I'll be alright. How are you doing, atto?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:11 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:05 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:38 pm


Yes. I seem to be failing at getting worked up anymore. I've hit that stage of cautious resignation, for better or worse. Perhaps I have another role to play? Getting people worked up over my ambivalence, perhaps?
Ah, cmon Dalek...you know its been ages since i've felt like exterminating someone. (he was an arsehole anyway and the doctor told me to!)

Where the f' have you been anyway? AWOL is not acceptable!
Haven't been quite my exterminating self lately I'm afraid, atto. I'm hoping it's a temporary thing, but much of the fight just fails me these days... blah, I don't want to be depressing or anything lol.... I pop in and out every so often still, though. I do like you folks, and couldn't really bring myself to leave entirely. This forum is a bit of a sanctuary for my brain.

Anyway, I'll be alright. How are you doing, atto?
Ah well, the more life is fighting me the more I fight.. It's when life becomes easy one feels like taking a short cut.. :D

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4339
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Canuckistan

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:15 am

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:11 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:05 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 am


Ah, cmon Dalek...you know its been ages since i've felt like exterminating someone. (he was an arsehole anyway and the doctor told me to!)

Where the f' have you been anyway? AWOL is not acceptable!
Haven't been quite my exterminating self lately I'm afraid, atto. I'm hoping it's a temporary thing, but much of the fight just fails me these days... blah, I don't want to be depressing or anything lol.... I pop in and out every so often still, though. I do like you folks, and couldn't really bring myself to leave entirely. This forum is a bit of a sanctuary for my brain.

Anyway, I'll be alright. How are you doing, atto?
Ah well, the more life is fighting me the more I fight.. It's when life becomes easy one feels like taking a short cut.. :D
Oh, I better not think about shortcuts yet, if you get my drift lol! We can both fight the good fight. Just might take me a bit to get in shape for it. I appreciate the pep talk though. It all helps, and I'll stick with it.... Cheers, atto. :)

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am
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 those who don't seem to know the difference.
Unless we are aware that there is something else that is being simulated, the term simulation should not be used.
That's why I brought up the car. In one case, say forensics of a car accident attempting to work out the scenario by simulation that yields similar damage, I am quite aware that there is this real something-else that is being simulated. On the other hand, with a simulation of a concept car for purposes of safety design improvements, there is no something-else that is actually being simulated. There is no real car. The same software might be used for both cases, but only one is a simulation? The other a projection? You give no examples to help me understand this distinction between awareness of something else and not awareness of it. How can a simulation be done with no awareness of what the process is simulating? I am aware of the concept car even though it is nonexistent. Why is the word 'projection' better in either case?
Consciousness is part of the projection (matter including our brain)...not VR BIV, although it still has a valid argument.
Unable to parse this. You seem to be talking VR, but you say not VR. I'm really trying to understand why 'projection' is a good word in the name of the theory. What is being 'projected' onto what else? Does the theory actually propose this, or are you telling them what their theory must be?
It depends on how reality is defined. Minecraft is not a reality, even when considered derivative..if the other four senses were attached I might have a different opinion.
Obviously the VR hypothesis has all senses attached, and all memory of non-virtual absent. Minecraft is but a crude model of it, immersing actually none of the senses nor the memory.
We all know reality exists
If by 'reality' you mean 'that which exists', then the statement is a tautology.
If by 'reality' you mean noumena, then both the simulation hypothesis and the VR hypothesis suggest otherwise, so this is just an assertion in this context. The hypothesis is wrong because we all know it is wrong. Hmm... Doesn't convince me.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am

Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am
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 those who don't seem to know the difference.
Ok, so what are the two hypothesis's'ss?
VR - a kind of brain in vat scenario, where consciousness is not part of the 'simulation'?
Consciousness being part of the 'simulation'?
Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am
Unless we are aware that there is something else that is being simulated, the term simulation should not be used.
That's why I brought up the car. In one case, say forensics of a car accident attempting to work out the scenario by simulation that yields similar damage, I am quite aware that there is this real something-else that is being simulated. On the other hand, with a simulation of a concept car for purposes of safety design improvements, there is no something-else that is actually being simulated. There is no real car. The same software might be used for both cases, but only one is a simulation?
I disagree - even a concept car is a generic object of a 'car', it may have other attributes that are being tested for safety, but it remains a simulation of a car.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
You give no examples to help me understand this distinction between awareness of something else and not awareness of it. How can a simulation be done with no awareness of what the process is simulating?
Precisely why I argue that the term 'simulation' should not be used where we are talking about reality, since we have no awareness of another reality being simulated.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am
Consciousness is part of the projection (matter including our brain)...not VR BIV, although it still has a valid argument.
Unable to parse this. You seem to be talking VR, but you say not VR. I'm really trying to understand why 'projection' is a good word in the name of the theory. What is being 'projected' onto what else? Does the theory actually propose this, or are you telling them what their theory must be?
Yes, its the latter. I apologise, since I am coming from the POV that our reality is a construct of a 3rd party, all matter, including our brains are part of the construct, which I am stating is a projection.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:07 am
We all know reality exists
If by 'reality' you mean 'that which exists', then the statement is a tautology.
Well, Luke Skywalker had a bad ride on one of those.
Noax wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:48 pm
If by 'reality' you mean noumena, then both the simulation hypothesis and the VR hypothesis suggest otherwise, so this is just an assertion in this context. The hypothesis is wrong because we all know it is wrong. Hmm... Doesn't convince me.
The hypothesis is wrong by its use of the term 'simulation' since it is requiring that reality is being simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is a other reality.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:05 am

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am
Ok, so what are the two hypothesis's'ss?
hypothi...
VR hypothesis (what most of the pop articles/movies envision, like Inception) - a kind of brain in vat scenario, where consciousness is not part of the 'simulation'?
VR is one, yes. Experiencer, time, and the simulation mechanism are all real, and the virtual experience is fed to the real experiencer by the mechanism in real time. Result is that the experiencer gets zero information about reality since all empirical experience is artificial. Calling it a Brain in Vat is misleading because it implies the experiencer is/has something that resembles our notion of a pink gloppy brain, but that is all just the artificial story we are fed.

The simulation hypothesis has no experiencers plugged in. Time is part of the simulation, not real, so processing performance is irrelevant. It is a simulation of perhaps a mathematically describable thing, and is perhaps deterministic if it doesn't involve randomness. Humans would be simulated at the quantum level and would behave identically to the humans being simulated, be they existing or not. A bat could probably be simulated at the bio-chemical level, enough that it would fly around with echolocation navigation and such, but running such a simulation would inform nobody what it is like to be a bat. Simulation of even a virus at the quantum level is probably beyond any technology.
I disagree - even a concept car is a generic object of a 'car', it may have other attributes that are being tested for safety, but it remains a simulation of a car.
Fine. I wasn't sure of your terms. We are simulating a universal car, not a particular. I think that word says it better than 'generic'. Yes, its a car either way, but I don't consider the simulation to be the ontological creation of a car. The car isn't a simulation, it is merely being simulated. See the difference? I think it is important.
Precisely why I argue that the term 'simulation' should not be used where we are talking about reality, since we have no awareness of another reality being simulated.
On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated. Instead we lack awareness of the reality where the simulation is being run.
Yes, its the latter. I apologise, since I am coming from the POV that our reality is a construct of a 3rd party, all matter, including our brains are part of the construct, which I am stating is a projection.
That's what 'virtual' means. The God-as-creator model is not a computational model. God creates a real physical universe, not just an artificial experience generated by a device for souls to plug into. It is sort of virtual I guess in that our bodies are real avatars for the mind/souls that control them. But a real universe means that real things change when choose to do things, but not so if the experienced world is artificial.
The hypothesis is wrong by its use of the term 'simulation' since it is requiring that reality is being simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is a other reality.
The car (or the minecraft VR world) got simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is such a car or world. Both were made up concepts. The simulation and the VR ideas both allow the reality that we experience to be that of an idea. It cannot be a model of where the computing is being done, because the sort of physics in our universe is incapable of running such a computation. The reality in the layer above would have to be more complex.
Last edited by Noax on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:35 am

VR hypothesis (what most of the pop articles/movies envision, like Inception) - a kind of brain in vat scenario, where consciousness is not part of the 'simulation'?
Don't misquote me.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:05 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am
Precisely why I argue that the term 'simulation' should not be used where we are talking about reality, since we have no awareness of another reality being simulated.
On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated. Instead we lack awareness of the reality where the simulation is being run.
On the contrary, we have no knowledge that our reality is a simulation. All we have is knowledge of our reality and that there might be something generating, constructing, projecting it.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:05 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am
Yes, its the latter. I apologise, since I am coming from the POV that our reality is a construct of a 3rd party, all matter, including our brains are part of the construct, which I am stating is a projection.
That's what 'virtual' means. The God-as-creator model is not a computational model. God creates a real physical universe, not just an artificial experience generated by a device for souls to plug into. It is sort of virtual I guess in that our bodies are real avatars for the mind/souls that control them. But a real universe means that real things change when choose to do things, but not so if the experienced world is artificial.
Yes, so you need to understand that this reality, part of God's construct is not virtual. It is the reality that 'it' has provided...it is reality, not simulated.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:05 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am
The hypothesis is wrong by its use of the term 'simulation' since it is requiring that reality is being simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is a other reality.
The car (or the minecraft VR world) got simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is such a car or world. Both were made up concepts.
Aside from being irrelevant your point is incorrect. The car, again, is a generic object of a car. The minecraft world has four dimensions, a simulated gravity, bricks,trees and whatever else...simulating our reality.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:05 am
The simulation and the VR ideas both allow the reality that we experience to be that of an idea. It cannot be a model of where the computing is being done, because the sort of physics in our universe is incapable of running such a computation. The reality in the layer above would have to be more complex.
..and the 'reality' above is likely not a place where human consciousness could exist, ergo, it is not a reality that is being simulated. In a computer the complexity of the code is far more complex than the hardware.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:35 am
Don't misquote me.
Sorry. Didn't realize I had stuck that bit within your quote. I moved it.
On the contrary, we have no knowledge that our reality is a simulation.
That is not contrary to what I said. I agree with it.
All we have is knowledge of our reality and that there might be something generating, constructing, projecting it.
'That there might be' is not knowledge, just conjecture. I can equally say that there might not be something generating, constructing, projecting it.
Yes, so you need to understand that this reality, part of God's construct is not virtual. It is the reality that 'it' has provided...it is reality, not simulated.
I think I said that, yes, this is how the God model is usually described.
The minecraft world has four dimensions, a simulated gravity, bricks,trees and whatever else...simulating our reality.
Three dimensions, and certainly not our reality, even if loosely reminiscent of it. The physics is totally different. While in the minecraft world, I have evidence of it being a virtual reality. That evidence is lacking in our world.
..and the 'reality' above is likely not a place where human consciousness could exist, ergo, it is not a reality that is being simulated.
The VR hypothesis says that the 'reality' above is the place where human consciousness exists, just not what it directly experiences. No, the reality being artificially experienced by the real experiencer cannot resemble this more real place where the computing is done. Our experience is that of a universe incapable of such a computation.
In a computer the complexity of the code is far more complex than the hardware.
Simulation code is in principle quite simple (depending on the simplicity of the model), and it becomes a matter of scale to pull it off. For our very simple universe, it would suffice at a local level to program Schrodinger's equation into some initial state (hah! there probably isn't one) and let fly from there. Unfortunately no physical hardware is capable of the scaling requirements of that completely simple bit of software. The VR case needs a fast bit of hardware, but perhaps less complex, and yes, the software might be more complex than the hardware in that case depending on the nature of the experiencer. The world where the VR takes place would have to not have a lightspeed limitation like our physics does. Maybe the computer would need analog variables, not digital ones that confine any of our computers, even the 'analog' ones. I got to program an analog computer once. It isn't done with 'code'.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:33 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:57 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:31 pm
No, we are not artificial intelligent beings. We are minds. We however posses bodies which enable us to behave as intelligent beings.
Excuse me sir, but I can't see the difference between a sufficiently advanced AI and "a mind". It's all just data. Input/output. Processing.
We are mind with ability to experience, decide and cause.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:46 pm

I have an argument against simulation hypothesis which is based on the fact that free decision is real:

1) Free decision is real
2) This means that one cannot know the decision prior to decision point
3) One needs to know the decision in order to simulate a VR for a person
4) From (2) and (3) we can conclude that we are not living in a simulator

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:09 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:46 pm
I have an argument against simulation hypothesis which is based on the fact that free decision is real:

1) Free decision is real
2) This means that one cannot know the decision prior to decision point
3) One needs to know the decision in order to simulate a VR for a person
4) From (2) and (3) we can conclude that we are not living in a simulator
The fastest conventional computers we have (currently owned by NASA), are fast enough to simulate a full human lifetime (80 years), including every movement, every action and every thought, within a couple of months. So 80 years in a few months.

The machine we're in, is probably a billion times faster.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:09 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:09 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:46 pm
I have an argument against simulation hypothesis which is based on the fact that free decision is real:

1) Free decision is real
2) This means that one cannot know the decision prior to decision point
3) One needs to know the decision in order to simulate a VR for a person
4) From (2) and (3) we can conclude that we are not living in a simulator
The fastest conventional computers we have (currently owned by NASA), are fast enough to simulate a full human lifetime (80 years), including every movement, every action and every thought, within a couple of months. So 80 years in a few months.

The machine we're in, is probably a billion times faster.
Do you believe in free decision and the fact such a decision cannot be known before decision is made? You cannot program free decision.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests