The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:40 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:09 pm
Do you believe in free decision and the fact such a decision cannot be known before decision is made? You cannot program free decision.
Either you don't understand what a fast computer can do, or you don't understand what a decision is.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:07 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:40 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:09 pm
Do you believe in free decision and the fact such a decision cannot be known before decision is made? You cannot program free decision.
Either you don't understand what a fast computer can do, or you don't understand what a decision is.
How do you define free decision?

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:14 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:07 pm
How do you define free decision?
It's basicly as simple, as asking a computer for a random number.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:26 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:14 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:07 pm
How do you define free decision?
It's basicly as simple, as asking a computer for a random number.
So you toes a coin every time you freely decide? I respectfully disagree.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:48 pm

bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:26 pm
So you toes a coin every time you freely decide? I respectfully disagree.
I think that's disrespectful to the computer. It literally makes a choice! :mrgreen:

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:59 am

QuantumT wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:48 pm
bahman wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:26 pm
So you toes a coin every time you freely decide? I respectfully disagree.
I think that's disrespectful to the computer. It literally makes a choice! :mrgreen:
That is why we don't send computer to prison for decision they made. :mrgreen:

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:10 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:35 am
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.
No you don't, this was your statement:- 'On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated.'
You are stipulating a plausibility to the hypothesis that reality is simulated.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:35 am
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.
The knowledge is simply 'of our reality' - following from that I am stating that there might be something generating, constructing, projecting it, as what those suggesting a 'simulation' are implying, but again using an incorrect terminology, since we have no awareness of any other 'reality' to simulate.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
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'.
Interesting, I've never heard of such a beast, would you like to elaborate?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:54 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:10 am
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:35 am
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.
No you don't, this was your statement:- 'On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated.'
You are stipulating a plausibility to the hypothesis that reality is simulated.
The 2nd statement of mine says that IF we are in a virtual reality, then we only have awareness of the virtual reality fed to us. IF we are simulated, then we only have awareness of the reality being simulated. In both cases, the first comment of mine applies: we would have no awareness that respectively there is a different reality that isn't this virtual one of which we are aware, or that we are simulated somewhere. In neither case would there be a distinction from a non-virtual or simulated scenario.
This is not a blanket truth. Most virtual realities are very detectable since most experiencers come into them with memory of having entered them, memory of a different reality. Since we don't have that, the whole projection idea is pretty far fetched.
The simulation thing is very much a blanket truth. That I might be simulated somewhere does not ever make me a simulation.
The knowledge is simply 'of our reality' - following from that I am stating that there might be something generating, constructing, projecting it, as what those suggesting a 'simulation' are implying, but again using an incorrect terminology, since we have no awareness of any other 'reality' to simulate.
We have knowledge of our experience, which would be whatever is piped to us if a projection. You perhaps seem to be talking about the creators of the virtual reality having knowledge of what reality they decide to feed us. That could just be made up, just as it is in most VRs of which I am aware.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
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'.
Interesting, I've never heard of such a beast, would you like to elaborate?
I've also programmed asynchronous digital computers, which is a similar concept except it is all on/off, not analog voltage values. Both lack instructions, a CPU and clock. You instead have a collection of hardware devices like a bunch of adders, multipliers, invertors, integrators, differentiators, comparators, memory, wave generators, etc. The bigger computers have more of these. Our general purpose one would often have several of these components unused, but they were there if you needed them, and you could run something that needed more of one component than the machine had. You'd need a bigger machine.
Anyway, it is all programmed like an old telephone switchboard by hooking it all up with wires with plugs at each end. Memory would lock the input voltage when a control line crossed some threshold. A differentiator would have one voltage going in, and the line out was a voltage representing the slope of the input line, with a knob on the element to set the gain. A lot of the elements had knobs. All very tricky to get all the settings right to get your 'program' to do what you expect. An oscilloscope is your friend when debugging your project.
The analog computer was in a university lab, sitting right next to a Dec PDP-8 with 4 cards to hold a whopping 64k of memory. I've made async digital constructs to control a model railroad. Still have and use my Kohavi switching theory textbook. Wonder if they still use it in classes today.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:16 am

Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:54 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:10 am
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
That is not contrary to what I said. I agree with it.
No you don't, this was your statement:- 'On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated.'
You are stipulating a plausibility to the hypothesis that reality is simulated.
The 2nd statement of mine says that IF we are in a virtual reality, then we only have awareness of the virtual reality fed to us. IF we are simulated, then we only have awareness of the reality being simulated. In both cases, the first comment of mine applies: we would have no awareness that respectively there is a different reality that isn't this virtual one of which we are aware, or that we are simulated somewhere. In neither case would there be a distinction from a non-virtual or simulated scenario.
This is not a blanket truth. Most virtual realities are very detectable since most experiencers come into them with memory of having entered them, memory of a different reality. Since we don't have that, the whole projection idea is pretty far fetched.
The simulation thing is very much a blanket truth. That I might be simulated somewhere does not ever make me a simulation.
The knowledge is simply 'of our reality' - following from that I am stating that there might be something generating, constructing, projecting it, as what those suggesting a 'simulation' are implying, but again using an incorrect terminology, since we have no awareness of any other 'reality' to simulate.
We have knowledge of our experience, which would be whatever is piped to us if a projection. You perhaps seem to be talking about the creators of the virtual reality having knowledge of what reality they decide to feed us. That could just be made up, just as it is in most VRs of which I am aware.
Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:53 pm
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'.
Interesting, I've never heard of such a beast, would you like to elaborate?
I've also programmed asynchronous digital computers, which is a similar concept except it is all on/off, not analog voltage values. Both lack instructions, a CPU and clock. You instead have a collection of hardware devices like a bunch of adders, multipliers, invertors, integrators, differentiators, comparators, memory, wave generators, etc. The bigger computers have more of these. Our general purpose one would often have several of these components unused, but they were there if you needed them, and you could run something that needed more of one component than the machine had. You'd need a bigger machine.
Anyway, it is all programmed like an old telephone switchboard by hooking it all up with wires with plugs at each end. Memory would lock the input voltage when a control line crossed some threshold. A differentiator would have one voltage going in, and the line out was a voltage representing the slope of the input line, with a knob on the element to set the gain. A lot of the elements had knobs. All very tricky to get all the settings right to get your 'program' to do what you expect. An oscilloscope is your friend when debugging your project.
The analog computer was in a university lab, sitting right next to a Dec PDP-8 with 4 cards to hold a whopping 64k of memory. I've made async digital constructs to control a model railroad. Still have and use my Kohavi switching theory textbook. Wonder if they still use it in classes today.
It seems to me we are not making any progress. I think a lot of that stems from your insistence on knowing the conditions for which the 'simulation hypothesis' has some degree of an argument, and unfortunately, I am at a loss as to what the conditions actually are. You state two scenarios, Virtual reality, and Simulated reality. I don't see that virtual is part of the argument. I own a HTC VIVE VR set, it presents a virtual world. Within my everyday life, I see no argument for a 'virtual world', even though I am aware that solid matter is as maleable as putty to the 3rd party entity. In the virtual world, the conscious entity is seperate, however is immersed within the simulated virtual world. Then you have the other alternative, that we are part of THE simulation, this is what I am interested in.
So I think at this point I need some clarification from you as to why you insist on continually bringing the term 'virtual' to the table. Since I am arguing that this IS our primary reality, there is nothing 'virtual' about it.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:59 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:16 am
In the virtual world, the conscious entity is seperate, however is immersed within the simulated virtual world.
Yes, that's the distinction. A separation of entity from the world it experiences. I figured this is the projection hypothesis of which you spoke because the reality is projected to and controlled by the external conscious entity. There is very much projecting going on.
I don't see that virtual is part of the argument. I own a HTC VIVE VR set, it presents a virtual world. Within my everyday life, I see no argument for a 'virtual world', even though I am aware that solid matter is as maleable as putty to the 3rd party entity.
I also see no argument for it. A VR world is always vastly simplified from the place that is real. You remember strapping on your Vive. You retain memory of being something else and of how physics sort of works. That we don't retain such a memory of a world outside this one is evidence that we are not a separate thing outside this world, or at least not a thing that has its own memory. Maybe we are a conscious entity that uses the VR to hold memory, in which case the conscious entity doesn't play much of a controlling role. VR has time outside the virtual world, but our universe has time as part of it. That sinks the VR hypothesis right there.
Nevertheless, all these pop shows you linked are usually talking about VR, bringing up the Matrix and Inception, both VR scenarios. I cannot think of a motion picture about the actual simulation hypothesis that the scientists typically posit. Hard to build an interesting plot around it.
Then you have the other alternative, that we are part of THE simulation, this is what I am interested in.
I didn't get that as much since I don't see projecting going on in this scenario. Your proposed name seems inappropriate if this is the scenario to which you refer. It is a monistic model, and it usually appeals only to those who entertain the idea that a supernatural mind isn't necessary for consciousness.
So I think at this point I need some clarification from you as to why you insist on continually bringing the term 'virtual' to the table.
Because of your use of the word projection, implying a separate entity onto which a reality is projected, as does your Vive.
Since I am arguing that this IS our primary reality, there is nothing 'virtual' about it.
Agree. I thought you were trying to retitle something, not argue for or against it.

I'm not arguing for the simulation hypothesis, and think that our physics does not lend itself to being simulated.
For one thing, our laws of physics are not the sort of thing that are open to the sort of simulation anybody has in mind. You would have to simulate a valid real (not epistemological) interpretation of QM, and that choice makes for different problems for the simulation. You can have your simulation be in some state at a given time, or your can have it not able to alter events that have already occurred in the past of said given time. You can't have both. That's really freaky and impossible to simulate on any hypothetical computer in a universe like this one.
The VR scenario has the same problem of course. A defined experiencer can't have his past actions altered (unless memory and his will are altered with it), so locality is a must. But then there is no defined state, which makes for an exponential amount of work for the simulator to do. No finite amount of computing capability is up to the task, which means the thing would not be able to keep up. The Vive simulates a reality with much simpler physics (no QM, relativity, or finite light speed).

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:41 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:59 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:16 am
Then you have the other alternative, that we are part of THE simulation, this is what I am interested in.
I didn't get that as much since I don't see projecting going on in this scenario. Your proposed name seems inappropriate if this is the scenario to which you refer. It is a monistic model, and it usually appeals only to those who entertain the idea that a supernatural mind isn't necessary for consciousness.
The 'projection' I will address below, but count me out of believing there is something 'supernatural'. The 3rd party I know to exist must be part of the natural universe.
Noax wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:59 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:16 am
So I think at this point I need some clarification from you as to why you insist on continually bringing the term 'virtual' to the table.
Because of your use of the word projection, implying a separate entity onto which a reality is projected.
You seem to be forgetting that what our consciousness 'constructs' is a projection upon it. For example, if you close you eyes and imagine an apple, therein lies the 'projection'.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:05 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:41 am
You seem to be forgetting that what our consciousness 'constructs' is a projection upon it. For example, if you close you eyes and imagine an apple, therein lies the 'projection'.
A thing is not a projector if what it is doing in within itself. Not what the word means. The simulation hypothesis is not a hypothesis explaining imagined experiences.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:15 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:05 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:41 am
You seem to be forgetting that what our consciousness 'constructs' is a projection upon it. For example, if you close you eyes and imagine an apple, therein lies the 'projection'.
A thing is not a projector if what it is doing in within itself. Not what the word means. The simulation hypothesis is not a hypothesis explaining imagined experiences.
The 'thing' is a 3rd party entity that constructs reality such that we can perceive it. It is a projection to our consciousness.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:12 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:15 pm

The 'thing' is a 3rd party entity that constructs reality such that we can perceive it. It is a projection to our consciousness.
You make it sound like the reality is separate from the perceiving consciousness. That isn't naturalism. You can redefine the word to you liking, but it still isn't naturalism.
Also, your 3rd party (claimed to be natural) is creating nature. Nothing in nature can do that. I don't need a 3rd party to project an apple image to me when I imagine an apple. I seem to be capable of the abstraction on my own.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2585
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:51 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:12 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:15 pm

The 'thing' is a 3rd party entity that constructs reality such that we can perceive it. It is a projection to our consciousness.
You make it sound like the reality is separate from the perceiving consciousness.
Yes I do believe they are distinctly different. It is one thing to arrange atoms, even to the subatomic level, but to have them perceivable..what you and I take for granted, is something different to the inherent reality that affords such a projection.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:12 pm
Also, your 3rd party (claimed to be natural) is creating nature.
No, it is nature.
Noax wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:12 pm
I don't need a 3rd party to project an apple image to me when I imagine an apple. I seem to be capable of the abstraction on my own.
But you do understand that within your mind there is a projection...of an apple. I don't think such a thing as consciousness is at all within the material comprehension of physics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests