Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[Skepdick]

There is one worse: you can't even determine if you are conscious. You could be an AI and not know it. You could be a p-zombie. How do you tell that you aren't one?

You can't tackle this issue without appealing to self-knowledge of your own identity.

That is not important as I am not approaching Simulation Theory as a 'problem'. The best I can do is accept that I am consciousness, whether artificial or not, is not an issue.

What I am saying is that you can neither test nor falsify the claim about your own consciousness. It's just a label/property you've ascribed to yourself.

You can tell me that a rock doesn't have "it", you can tell me that other people have "it" - but you can't tell me what "it" is.

Of course, this equally applies to your own interpretations of the evidence. In that, your interpretation doesn't allow for you to seriously contemplate the idea that Simulation Theory may be correct.

You have this backwards. .I am a computer scientist - I seriously contemplate recursion.

My interpretation allows for BOTH interpretations to be correct. Either we live in a simulation OR I am projecting the property of my mind (self-reference) to the Universe. My interpretation also acknowledges that I can't discern which interpretation is the correct one.

Obviously if this reality is a computer simulation, then we are talking about a computer which is beyond our ability to understand the nature of its mechanics. Therefore it would be unwise to assume that your knowledge of computers is sufficient in allowing you to draw the conclusions you apparent think are the correct ones.

This is irrelevant. A Universal Turing Machine is UNIVERSAL can simulate any other Turing machine. We call this virtualization.

It can ALSO simulate ANY physical process.

Computation is theoretically universal. practically - we are still learning how to realize computers using quantum physics.

The languages which a Turing machine can recognise are precisely languages of the recursive type.

This is the formal version of "it's turtles all the way down".

You will have to expand on this statement in order for it to make any sense.

All formal languages (such as Mathematics) are recursively enumerable.

IF you can describe reality in Mathematics, then you can explain reality to a Turing machine.

Basic minds perhaps.

If Turing machines are "basic" then what sort of simulated reality are you talking about? You must have some other idea of "computation".

Obviously if we exist within a Reality Simulation, the minds that created the machinery must be more advanced than we, with minds within it, can possibly accurately understand.

Not necessarily. The minds that created the machine simply replicated their own reality into our virtual reality.

In computer science this is called a Quine. A program that replicates itself.

You are assuming that the programmers created the machinery also created the simulation to run that way.

I am not saying anything about the programmer's intent. I am not even saying that you are a product of their intent. Maybe you are a bug, not a feature.

There is an important distinction to be made between deterministic and non-deterministic programming.

It is not my language. It was around long before I was born.

You have adopted it as your own. Along with the properties that it possess. A recursive language has caused you to think you live in a sumulation.

The language itself can be sorted mathematically. That was the point I was making, and why I wrote that it was another piece of evidence (empirical) which points to the possibility. The existence of mathematics itself is also evidence that we exist within a Simulated Reality.

Mathematics is invented not discovered. Exactly like any other language.

It's a formal language. Formal language theory is computer science. Recursively enumerable languages ARE formal languages.

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

That's why I pointed you to the Chomsky hierarchy.

Semantics.

Indeed! Semantics. This happens to be one of the prime interests of computer scientists/formal language theorists.

What does Mathematics mean?

When it comes to deaf people communicating with non-deaf people, they are using signs which derive from languages which are based upon sounds.
Rather than take a small percentage of the population to try and insist your point, why not focus on the broader ramifications of what I am pointing out?

Because I understand the ramifications better than you do.

Communication goes hand-in-hand with computer science. It's Information theory. Which should be obvious by its name.

THE Mathematical Theory of Communication.

A New Reason for Why the Deaf May Have Trouble Reading

Basically if they have not heard the sounds of the letters which form the words, they learn the written word by associating the sign for that word, to said word.

• "They see the word and there's some kind of an orthographic representation. And some of the research in our center has shown that when deaf readers read an English word, it activates their sign representations of those words.”

The written word is simply a code used to describe the sounds of language. Mathematics is simply a code used to calculate the value of the code used to describe the sounds of language.

Language is more than just sounds. Communication is more than just language.

As one would expect it to, if we do indeed exist within a Simulated Reality.

Even if we don't exist in a Simulated Reality - we still have Mathematics and Computers.

Something. With Simulation Theory we can deduce that whatever created the machinery is, at least, indirectly the cause of that event.

The event itself might be the result of placing a Conscious Entity within the mechanism which allowed for the Simulation to unfold as the Consciousness interacted with it, causing the creation of the things we see and experience, to unfold as they have done, are doing, and will continue to do.

So you've worked your way up to God. Only instead of saying "God created the universe", you are saying "The Programmers created the universe".

Either way you aren't addressing the infinite regress: who created the creators? And recursion remains.

I can't tell whether our reality is created or not, but I can tell that recursion is a phenomenon of human experience.
When you understand that paradox, you will understand what all the hoo-ha about creationism is about.

What exists - exists! It has always existed long before we were here, and it will always continue to exist long after we depart.

The knowledge ABOUT what exists is created by powerful humans. It exists in the form of language. That's how we, humans, communicate our knowledge/experiences.

[AlexW]

I can't tell whether our reality is created or not, but I can tell that recursion is a phenomenon of human experience.

I like most of what you said before, but: recursion is not a “ phenomenon of human experience”, it is a phenomenon/result of conceptual thought and as such of language. It belongs to the conceptual dimension of reality, not to the underlying, directly experienced reality.

[VVilliam]

There is one worse: you can't even determine if you are conscious. You could be an AI and not know it. You could be a p-zombie. How do you tell that you aren't one?

You can't tackle this issue without appealing to self-knowledge of your own identity.

That is not important as I am not approaching Simulation Theory as a 'problem'. The best I can do is accept that I am consciousness, whether artificial or not, is not an issue.

What I am saying is that you can neither test nor falsify the claim about your own consciousness. It's just a label/property you've ascribed to yourself.

You can tell me that a rock doesn't have "it", you can tell me that other people have "it" - but you can't tell me what "it" is.

I fail to see what the above statement has to do with simulation theory.


Of course, this equally applies to your own interpretations of the evidence. In that, your interpretation doesn't allow for you to seriously contemplate the idea that Simulation Theory may be correct.

You have this backwards. .I am a computer scientist - I seriously contemplate recursion.

Even so, I fail to see what you argument against Simulation Theory is...indeed, I am not even sure that you are arguing against it.

My interpretation allows for BOTH interpretations to be correct. Either we live in a simulation OR I am projecting the property of my mind (self-reference) to the Universe. My interpretation also acknowledges that I can't discern which interpretation is the correct one.

That is basically my position - Although I am more interested from that point in thinking about what it might mean if it is correct that we do exist within a simulation, where those thoughts then take me, and in that, what correlations between my actual thoughts and the external unfolding 'story' of my experience in the external have which might strengthen or weaken my suspicions regarding existing within a simulation.

A Universal Turing Machine is UNIVERSAL can simulate any other Turing machine. We call this virtualization.

It can ALSO simulate ANY physical process.

Computation is theoretically universal. practically - we are still learning how to realize computers using quantum physics.

It is unclear to me what particular relevance this information is, in relation to the OP topic.

The languages which a Turing machine can recognise are precisely languages of the recursive type.

This is the formal version of "it's turtles all the way down".

You will have to expand on this statement in order for it to make any sense.

All formal languages (such as Mathematics) are recursively enumerable.

IF you can describe reality in Mathematics, then you can explain reality to a Turing machine.

Again. It is unclear to me what particular relevance this information is, in relation to the OP topic.


Obviously if we exist within a Reality Simulation, the minds that created the machinery must be more advanced than we, with minds within it, can possibly accurately understand.

Not necessarily. The minds that created the machine simply replicated their own reality into our virtual reality.

If you can show me any evidence of human-created interactive simulations which are anywhere equal to that of the Universe, I could go ahead and agree with you.

It is not my language. It was around long before I was born.

You have adopted it as your own. Along with the properties that it possess. A recursive language has caused you to think you live in a sumulation.

Again, it is difficult to understand what it is you are arguing. Perhaps you are saying that you do not operate under an recursive language which has caused you to think you do not live in a simulation?
If, not, then once again, what is the relevance of you bringing this up?


The language itself can be sorted mathematically. That was the point I was making, and why I wrote that it was another piece of evidence (empirical) which points to the possibility. The existence of mathematics itself is also evidence that we exist within a Simulated Reality.

Mathematics is invented not discovered. Exactly like any other language.

I have not said mathematics or languages were discovered. I said they are a way of decoding what is discovered.

When it comes to deaf people communicating with non-deaf people, they are using signs which derive from languages which are based upon sounds.
Rather than take a small percentage of the population to try and insist your point, why not focus on the broader ramifications of what I am pointing out?

Because I understand the ramifications better than you do.

I see that you believe this to be the case, but you are certainly not making yourself at all clear, so I am left unimpressed by your statement.

A New Reason for Why the Deaf May Have Trouble Reading

Basically if they have not heard the sounds of the letters which form the words, they learn the written word by associating the sign for that word, to said word.

"They see the word and there's some kind of an orthographic representation. And some of the research in our center has shown that when deaf readers read an English word, it activates their sign representations of those words.”

The written word is simply a code used to describe the sounds of language. Mathematics is simply a code used to calculate the value of the code used to describe the sounds of language.

Language is more than just sounds. Communication is more than just language.

Be that as it may, my focus in relation to the OP has to do with the evidence concerning the written [English] language and how the sounds are represented by the codes of the alphabet and how in turn, words and word-strings can be sorted into groups of numeric values.

As one would expect it to, if we do indeed exist within a Simulated Reality.

Even if we don't exist in a Simulated Reality - we still have Mathematics and Computers.

Point being, we have Mathematics and Computers and Simulations. We cannot claim that we would have these things IF we did not exist within a Simulated Reality Experience.

What caused the Big Bang?

Something. With Simulation Theory we can deduce that whatever created the machinery is, at least, indirectly the cause of that event.

The event itself might be the result of placing a Conscious Entity within the mechanism which allowed for the Simulation to unfold as the Consciousness interacted with it, causing the creation of the things we see and experience, to unfold as they have done, are doing, and will continue to do.

So you've worked your way up to God. Only instead of saying "God created the universe", you are saying "The Programmers created the universe".

Either way you aren't addressing the infinite regress: who created the creators? And recursion remains.

I created this thread from another discussion which branched away from the main focus of the Thread OP "Existence" where I think I had addressed the problem of infinite regress.

In the simplest of terms, The Original Creator must have always existed. Infinite regress can happen moving out from that point, and branch out like the fractals of a Mandelbrot set.

In relation to our own existence, it is not important exactly how many simulations occurred before our simulation was created. We only require three specific conditions. The Original Creator position [That which had no beginning/is not a simulation] and that which was created directly from that position and our own simulated reality.

(The reason I include the medium simulation between us and The Original Creator is for the purpose of explaining alternate [NDEs and OOBEs etc] reality experience which can be had by us while we are still experiencing our dominant reality experience. )

I can't tell whether our reality is created or not, but I can tell that recursion is a phenomenon of human experience.
When you understand that paradox, you will understand what all the hoo-ha about creationism is about.

My general thoughts on that can be found here in the the thread I mentioned.

If you are against the idea of Creation/a Creator, because you have a problem with Theism in general, you might want to check your bias at the door. Simulation Theory is not necessarily only a Theist-based idea, and my focus is not on what The Original Creators motives may be for having created things, nor what the motives for the creation of our particular simulated reality may have been.

If you are simply resisting or rejecting the idea of a Simulated Universe solely because it brings in the idea of a Creator/Creators which might upset your non-theist position, there is little point in you and I continuing to have any discussion on the matter.

It is my understanding that if we do indeed exist within a Simulated reality experience, scientists should eventually be able to determine this adequately enough, by simply using science. What might prevent them from bothering, would only then be because they are more concerned with upholding a non-theist position in relation to their use of science and subsequent interpretations of what the science reveals, than they are at uncovering the truth.

Fortunately the individual is able to make determinations of their own - enough anyway, that any opinions of scientists who are unwilling to uncover the truth, and are more interested in preserving the idea that all that is the universe, is all that there is, and is simply a product of a mindless accident, rather than any planned and intended unfolding event [as Simulation Theory implies] are not particularity relevant to said individual.

[Skepdick]

I like most of what you said before, but: recursion is not a “ phenomenon of human experience”, it is a phenomenon/result of conceptual thought and as such of language. It belongs to the conceptual dimension of reality, not to the underlying, directly experienced reality.

Every time you use the English word "I" you are referencing yourself. That' recursion.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between your experience of thoughts and your experience of reality.

It's all "experience".

[Skepdick]

Even so, I fail to see what you argument against Simulation Theory is...indeed, I am not even sure that you are arguing against it.

I am arguing for it AND against it. At the same time.

Because I am aware of the limits of what it is that I am allowed to know, and what it is that I am not allowed to know given the human condition.

They are just two different perspectives - two different narratives of the same experience. Even though people insist that you can't hold two contradictory beliefs - I am doing it because I am being told that I can't do it.

If contradictions didn't exist I wouldn't be able to contradict myself when I feel like it.

That is basically my position - Although I am more interested from that point in thinking about what it might mean if it is correct that we do exist within a simulation, where those thoughts then take me, and in that, what correlations between my actual thoughts and the external unfolding 'story' of my experience in the external have which might strengthen or weaken my suspicions regarding existing within a simulation.

That's precisely the point. Simulation theory falls just outside of the limits of the empirically knowable.

That is - it satisfies the "testability" criterion of science (as you demonstrate - you are interpreting everything I tell you as evidence for it).
But it doesn't satisfy the "falsifiability" criterion of science. You can't tell me what sort of evidence you'd notch against simulation theory.

It is unclear to me what particular relevance this information is, in relation to the OP topic.

IF you want to reason ABOUT our reality as being a "simulated reality" - you can trivially assume that OUR reality is nothing more than a software application running on God's personal computer. And YOUR computer is a computer inside God's computer.

If you want to understand how computers-in-computers work you study Universal Turing Machines.

If you can show me any evidence of human-created interactive simulations which are anywhere equal to that of the Universe, I could go ahead and agree with you.

You are confusing the "inside" and "outside" perspectives now. You can only tell that our simulations suck because you are comparing them to the real world.

But if we do live inside a simulation and you've never seen the real world, you can't possibly tell if THIS simulation is equal to the Universe.
Because what you are calling "the Universe" isn't.... It's only a simulation of the Universe.

Again, it is difficult to understand what it is you are arguing. Perhaps you are saying that you do not operate under an recursive language which has caused you to think you do not live in a simulation?
If, not, then once again, what is the relevance of you bringing this up?

Is it possible that because language is recursive; and because the human mind is recursive that you have landed up with the idea that
we live inside a simulation?

Could it be that "the universe" is whatever the universe is (we don't really know), but computers (as we have invented them) are replicas of how our minds work? We, humans are copying/re-inventing our minds.

We are inventing thinking machines based on how we think.

I have not said mathematics or languages were discovered. I said they are a way of decoding what is discovered.

If you insist that we live in a simulated reality the distinction is immaterial.

Both the virtual machine and the hypervisor are Mathematics. It's ALL language!

I see that you believe this to be the case, but you are certainly not making yourself at all clear, so I am left unimpressed by your statement.

Naturally. I am not trying to impress you.

Is just the way it works - I've been working with computers since the age of 5. I am 37 now. I have empirical intuitions that you don't.
It's difficult to relate those intuitions to things that you might deem familiar.

Be that as it may, my focus in relation to the OP has to do with the evidence concerning the written [English] language and how the sounds are represented by the codes of the alphabet and how in turn, words and word-strings can be sorted into groups of numeric values.

The fact that you think English words contain numeric values leads me to think you are failing to see the nuance between natural languages and formal languages.

Also....there really isn't any relationship between the sounds you make and the words you write. English is alphabetic but highly nonphonemic.

Point being, we have Mathematics and Computers and Simulations. We cannot claim that we would have these things IF we did not exist within a Simulated Reality Experience.

Of course we can! I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that we have Mathematics, Computers and Simulations right now. We, humans, invented them.

I am not certain that we live in a simulation. I merely acknowledge that it's possible. But it's not a new idea

What caused the Big Bang?

Something. With Simulation Theory we can deduce that whatever created the machinery is, at least, indirectly the cause of that event.

You can do the exact same thing with any religion. Whatever caused The Universe is what theists call "God". Why is your theory better?

Your theory can no more answer "What caused the cause?" than any religion can answer "What caused God?"

The event itself might be the result of placing a Conscious Entity

See! You are re-inventing God

I created this thread from another discussion which branched away from the main focus of the Thread OP "Existence" where I think I had addressed the problem of infinite regress.

You really haven't addressed it because it can't be addressed. If we live in a simulation, what caused the non-simulated world?

In the simplest of terms, The Original Creator must have always existed. Infinite regress can happen moving out from that point, and branch out like the fractals of a Mandelbrot set.

Everybody arrives at the "Uncaused Cause"! Everybody comes up with this stop-gap to "solve" infinite regress. Everybody forgets about Occam's razor!

If uncaused causes exist then why can't we just assume our Universe is an uncaused cause?

What do we gain by re-inventing The Original Creator?

In relation to our own existence, it is not important exactly how many simulations occurred before our simulation was created. We only require three specific conditions. The Original Creator position [That which had no beginning/is not a simulation] and that which was created directly from that position and our own simulated reality.

So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation.

(The reason I include the medium simulation between us and The Original Creator is for the purpose of explaining alternate [NDEs and OOBEs etc] reality experience which can be had by us while we are still experiencing our dominant reality experience. )

But you don't need simulation theory to address that? "Human Imagination, ingenuity and Creativity" is a perfectly good answer! Don't outsource that to The SImulation - own it.

Humans come up with great ideas -> Humans manifest their ideas into reality. That is how creation/ self-expression works! That is what all artists do!

To use the cliche: make your dreams come true.

If you are against the idea of Creation/a Creator, because you have a problem with Theism in general, you might want to check your bias at the door.

You really mis-understand. The only difference between your way of thinking and mine is that I have internalised the metaphor/archetype of The Creator (God).

I have the power to create anything that I imagine because I wield the power of language/thought.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. --John 1:1

The way I understand that passage from the Bible is exactly the way I understand metalinguistic abstraction in computer science.

Wielding language as an instrument of thought is power! Metaphorically speaking - I became God because I can create simulated universes.

Simulation Theory is not necessarily only a Theist-based idea, and my focus is not on what The Original Creators motives may be for having created things, nor what the motives for the creation of our particular simulated reality may have been.

It's the same idea. Every philosophy. Every religion. Every deep thinker who has gone down to the depths of their own mind comes up with it.

Everybody plugs the infinite regress hole with "The Uncaused Cause". What you may or may not realize but you have intuitively chosen to solve the halting problem by putting an end to infinite regress.

If you are simply resisting or rejecting the idea of a Simulated Universe solely because it brings in the idea of a Creator/Creators which might upset your non-theist position, there is little point in you and I continuing to have any discussion on the matter.

I am not "resisting" it. And on any given day I can argue for theism and against theism. I can also argue for atheism and against atheism.
And on a 3rd day you will see me arguing that both atheists and theists are idiots (because I am agnostic).

I am agnostic with respect to simulation theory also. Literally - you can't know whether it's true. For exactly the same (epistemic) reasons that you can't know whether God exists.

It's all just language games.

It is my understanding that if we do indeed exist within a Simulated reality experience, scientists should eventually be able to determine this adequately enough, by simply using science.

How? I am a scientist. I have absolutely no idea how to test or falsify your claims.

What might prevent them from bothering, would only then be because they are more concerned with upholding a non-theist position in relation to their use of science and subsequent interpretations of what the science reveals, than they are at uncovering the truth.

Seeming as I am perfectly comfortable with uttering the English sentence "I believe in God because I am God" your criticism doesn't hold.

Fortunately the individual is able to make determinations of their own - enough anyway, that any opinions of scientists who are unwilling to uncover the truth, and are more interested in preserving the idea that all that is the universe, is all that there is, and is simply a product of a mindless accident, rather than any planned and intended unfolding event [as Simulation Theory implies] are not particularity relevant to said individual.

The crux of the matter here (and this may sound like an insult) is that I don't see you as an individual. Sorry.

You are externalising all of your power to The SImulation.

Yes. The world you live in was absolutely created. The language you are using was absolutely created. The knowledge that you are referencing (computers, simulations, mathematics) was absolutely created. It was all intentional (indeed).

Is just that The Creator isn't who you think it is. It's billions of ordinary men and women just like you and I. Who embraced thinking differently, had a vision and created the society you find yourself in.

Listen to your grandmother. You can do anything you put your mind to (just as soon as you figure out philosophy is just mind/language games).

[AlexW]

You seem to be drawing a distinction between your experience of thoughts and your experience of reality.

It's all "experience".

I am drawing a distinction between the conceptual interpretation and the direct experience of reality.
I agree, thought is being experienced, but, and this is the important part, not the conceptual structures it creates.

Every time you use the English word "I" you are referencing yourself. That' recursion.

The word “I” refers to a concept, to an idea (as all words do). The recursion is as such only present in language, in definitions, not in reality.

It’s the same with computer systems, recursions arise in software, in programmatic structures, not in hardware.

[Skepdick]

I am drawing a distinction between the conceptual interpretation and the direct experience of reality.
I agree, thought is being experienced, but, and this is the important part, not the conceptual structures it creates.

You don't have any "direct" experiences of reality. Neuroscience has demonstrated this over and over again.

As parts of your brain are altered/removed/damaged - so is your "direct experience". To the point where left and right hemisphere can disagree about what it is they are "seeing".

Surely you've heard of the person who's both an atheist and a theist.

The word “I” refers to a concept, to an idea (as all words do).

I am pretty sure that when I use the word "I" I have a referent in mind. An actual object/phenomenon to which the word "I" refers to.

The recursion is as such only present in language, in definitions, not in reality.

If that were true then the word "I" would exist, but the thing uttering the word wouldn't.

It’s the same with computer systems, recursion arise in software, in programmatic structures, not in hardware.

When you work with virtualization there is no such distinction. The hardware is software; and the software is hardware.

You may have heard of The Cloud. It's basically how it works. Computers-in-computers.

It's also why you will hear me often speak about homoiconicity. The Philosophical ideas of monism/dualism/non-dualism correspond to the Computer Science ideas of code as data.

Or atman is brahman - it's the same concept.

[AlexW]

When you work with virtualization there is no such distinction. The hardware is software.

You may have heard of The Cloud. It's basically how it works. Computers-in-computers.

I know what a virtual machine is, it emulates hardware, but its still a piece of code, as such an algorithm.
I am talking about the real world difference between hard and software.

If that were true then the word "I" would exist, but you wouldn't.

Exactly right.
The “I” that is only conceptual (which is nothing else but the individual person) doesn’t exist in reality.
Its a mental mirage.

You don't have any "direct" experiences of reality.

That’s true, in a way... the real I doesnt experience reality, it is reality.

[Skepdick]

I know what a virtual machine is, it emulates hardware, but its still a piece of code, as such an algorithm.
I am talking about the real world difference between hard and software.

You are kind of missing the point.

If a piece of software cannot determine whether it's running on "real" hardware or "virtual" hardware from the software's point of view there is no empirical difference - it's just an interface.

And so - the same thinking applies. Whether we exist in a real reality, or a virtual reality. It makes absolutely no difference to us because we can't tell a difference.

For all you know you are a brain in a vat and we live in The Matrix.

Exactly right.
The “I” that is only conceptual (which is nothing else but the individual person) doesn’t exist in reality.
Its a mental mirage.

So how come I am seeing words on my screen? How is it that the conceptual "I" has causal properties on the world?

You've fallen into the trap of Dualism - the problem of mental causation.

That’s true, in a way... the real I doesnt experience reality, it is reality.

Which sums up in the sentence: perception is reality.

At least. That which we call "reality" is only a perception of the real thing. The map is not the territory and all of the other common aphorisms of dualism.

[VVilliam]

It's the same idea. Every philosophy. Every religion. Every deep thinker who has gone down to the depths of their own mind comes up with it.

This observation points to a clue in itself. The idea has always been around, although "Simulation" is the modern term for it. "Creation" is an older term, but can only mean the same thing.
Perhaps the idea hasn't gone away completely because is requires serious addressing, because it is a possible reason for this particular existence.

Everybody plugs the infinite regress hole with "The Uncaused Cause". What you may or may not realize but you have intuitively chosen to solve the halting problem by putting an end to infinite regress.

Only in the one direction. "plugging the hole" as you put it, is Occum's Razor being applied. There is a hole and it does need plugging.

I am agnostic with respect to simulation theory also. Literally - you can't know whether it's true.

Those two statements are oxymoron in regard to one another. The agnostic position would remain in the position that if we did exist within a simulated reality, science should be able to be used uncover that at some point eventually, provided that scientists are looking into it seriously.

Given that scientist have made known things which were once unknown, and those things uncovered cannot rule out the possibility that we are existing within a simulation, the agnostic-based question then has to be asked. "Why has it not been scientifically ruled out?"

The crux of the matter here (and this may sound like an insult) is that I don't see you as an individual. Sorry.

You are externalising all of your power to The SImulation.

Yes. The world you live in was absolutely created. The language you are using was absolutely created. The knowledge that you are referencing (computers, simulations, mathematics) was absolutely created. It was all intentional (indeed).

Is just that The Creator isn't who you think it is. It's billions of ordinary men and women just like you and I. Who embraced thinking differently, had a vision and created the society you find yourself in.

Listen to your grandmother. You can do anything you put your mind to (just as soon as you figure out philosophy is just mind/language games).

You appear to have great faith in current human society. However, the OP subject isn't about that at all.

Since this is a Philosophy forum, you complaints about philosophy are besides the point. Philosophy is necessary in order that the individual remains in a position whereby claims from any sector of human society are critically examined. Your denouncing this as merely mind/language games shows your grasp of philosophy is far less than your grasp of computer science. The logical [and rhetorical] question one can ask themselves in relation to that is "Why are you engaging in a philosophical forum if you believe it is nothing more than language and mind games?"

Everybody arrives at the "Uncaused Cause"! Everybody comes up with this stop-gap to "solve" infinite regress. Everybody forgets about Occam's razor!

If uncaused causes exist then why can't we just assume our Universe is an uncaused cause?

What do we gain by re-inventing The Original Creator?

Regarding your thinking I am 'reinventing The Original Creator, this would be the natural outcome of deeper thinking in relation to the idea we exist within a creation. We needn't drag old notions of 'what God is" into a modern world where some of those notions have been proven incorrect by scientific investigation.

Also, we cannot simply throw out the notion of Creator/Creation altogether, on the shaky argument that human beings got some things wrong so everything about those things must also be wrong and we should drop that altogether. (and ignore grandmothers uplifting advise that we can do anything we put our minds to.)

To do so is to move away from the agnostic position.

As your statements clearly show, you are conflating the idea that accepting the notion that there may be an Original Creator, somehow means we have to place aside our belief in ourselves and that we should give all our personal power to that notion and forgo being the creative individuals that we can be. That is false assumption.

It is my understanding that if we do indeed exist within a Simulated reality experience, scientists should eventually be able to determine this adequately enough, by simply using science.

How? I am a scientist. I have absolutely no idea how to test or falsify your claims.

Listen to your Grandmother. Did she not tell you that you can do anything that you put your mind to? The key thing in that is in engaging your mind to that purpose.

So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation.

The primary problem with that idea is the fact that there are beginnings and endings involved.

I am happy to go through the argument with you. If we are to assume that Our universe is all that exists and that it has always existed, we will then need to explain [among other things] why there is an apparent beginning to it...because something that has always existed should not have a beginning.

[AlexW]

You are kind of missing the point.

If a piece of software cannot determine whether it's running on "real" hardware or "virtual" hardware from the software's point of view there is no empirical difference

That is true for the piece of software - but the real "you" is not a piece of software, its the hardware (consciousness = hardware / conceptual thought = software)
The hardware itself doesn't care one bit if software is being executed or not / if the patterns present in its memory banks are conceptually interpreted or not.
It is only the software, the conceptual interpretation that "wants to know" (seems to be part of the programming ... a program wants to know it source/origin) - the program can (and apparently does) attempt to understand it conceptually, but it cannot know/experience the hardware directly - why? because only the hardware experiences anything - the software never experiences anything - all it does is interpret experience (and by doing so cutting it into pieces, into observer and observed etc)

So how come I am seeing words on my screen? How is it that the conceptual "I" has causal properties on the world?

It doesn't.
What sees these word is not the conceptual self, it is consciousness seeing itself (and even this is not true - consciousness is the knowingness itself - there is no separation between the "words on screen" and consciousness)

Which sums up in the sentence: perception is reality.

Yes, but there is no observer separate from the observed - they are "not two".
The perceiver is not more than an idea (and so is the separate percept).

[Skepdick]

That is true for the piece of software - but the real "you" is not a piece of software, its the hardware (consciousness = hardware / conceptual thought = software)
The hardware itself doesn't care one bit if software is being executed or not / if the patterns present in its memory banks are conceptually interpreted or not.

You are drawing too strict a conceptual line between hardware and software. In practice - that line doesn't even exist.

Look at your computer - show me where the line is. Show me where the software is.

You can't do it because the "software" exists as voltages in transistors. In quantum computers "software" exists as quantum statets in qubits.
In both cases the "software" exists as matter. Exactly like the hardware.

The system is holistic. Both hardware AND software are required for "computation".

It is only the software, the conceptual interpretation that "wants to know" (seems to be part of the programming ... a program wants to know it source/origin) - the program can (and apparently does) attempt to understand it conceptually, but it cannot know/experience the hardware directly - why? because only the hardware experiences anything - the software never experiences anything - all it does is interpret experience (and by doing so cutting it into pieces, into observer and observed etc)

I think you are wrong. If two hemispheres (when separated) can have different experiences of the same reality - it suggests to me that the "experiencing" is happening in the software not the hardware.

What sees these word is not the conceptual self, it is consciousness seeing itself (and even this is not true - consciousness is the knowingness itself - there is no separation between the "words on screen" and consciousness)

I didn't ask you what SEES the words. I asked you what CAUSED the words.

You did. You typed them. It wasn't the hardware - hardware has no intent. It was the software.

But if you are willing to abdicate your agency on the matter - who am I to stop you?

Yes, but there is no observer separate from the observed - they are "not two".

I am not the one dualising them into "hardware" and "software". I see both components as necessary for the whole to function.

The perceiver is not more than an idea (and so is the separate percept).

In the paragraph above you insisted that the observer is not separate - they are not two. In this paragraph you are trying to separate them.

That is the tension between dualism and monism. Good luck resolving it

[Skepdick]

This observation points to a clue in itself. The idea has always been around, although "Simulation" is the modern term for it. "Creation" is an older term, but can only mean the same thing.
Perhaps the idea hasn't gone away completely because is requires serious addressing, because it is a possible reason for this particular existence.

Or perhaps the idea hasn't gone away completely because humans have never stopped creating new knowledge.
And so we fool ourselves because the lines we drew "man made vs natural" no longer make sense - the scientific progress we make is not possible without the technology we invent.

Those two statements are oxymoron in regard to one another. The agnostic position would remain in the position that if we did exist within a simulated reality, science should be able to be used uncover that at some point eventually, provided that scientists are looking into it seriously.

Then you do not understand agnosticism or science. The scientific epistemology has limits. Limits that scientists/physicists are well aware of. There are things you are "allowed" to know and things you are not "allowed" to know.

This stems simply from the fact that you are attempting to study the system from within the system. You can't The Universe from the outside - you are stuck in it.

Given that scientist have made known things which were once unknown, and those things uncovered cannot rule out the possibility that we are existing within a simulation, the agnostic-based question then has to be asked. "Why has it not been scientifically ruled out?"

Because it cannot be ruled out. It's unfalsifiable. That's precisely what makes it unscientific - it's not even wrong.

You appear to have great faith in current human society. However, the OP subject isn't about that at all.

Not in the "current" one - I have faith in society in general. Few thousand years of history and all - we live in the world we live in because of the people who came before us. They made society the way it is.

Since this is a Philosophy forum, you complaints about philosophy are besides the point.

See! You are obviously not a scientist. The way science progresses is when other scientists come forward and explain to us why the scientists of the past were wrong. It's an on-going iterative, continuous improvement process - out with the old, in with the new.

I am here to tell you why philosophers of the past were wrong. Philosophers don't like this! Much of the philosophical tradition prefers eternal truths - truths that don't change even when the facts do. That is exactly how religions work.

Philosophy is necessary in order that the individual remains in a position whereby claims from any sector of human society are critically examined.

Everybody can be a critic. Very few people can create anything that other people give a shit about.

Your denouncing this as merely mind/language games shows your grasp of philosophy is far less than your grasp of computer science.

OK. You are entitled to think this Remember this conversation in a few years when you work your way to my position.

The logical [and rhetorical] question one can ask themselves in relation to that is "Why are you engaging in a philosophical forum if you believe it is nothing more than language and mind games?"

Because there are better games to be played. Far more constructive ones than the games philosophers prefer to play.

Regarding your thinking I am 'reinventing The Original Creator, this would be the natural outcome of deeper thinking in relation to the idea we exist within a creation. We needn't drag old notions of 'what God is" into a modern world where some of those notions have been proven incorrect by scientific investigation.

Science has never proven that God doesn't exist? It can't do that. The notion of God is just not scientific - it's not even wrong. And so scientists let Philosophers talk about these things - scientists don't care about things outside of this universe.

Also, we cannot simply throw out the notion of Creator/Creation altogether, on the shaky argument that human beings got some things wrong so everything about those things must also be wrong and we should drop that altogether. (and ignore grandmothers uplifting advise that we can do anything we put our minds to.)

To do so is to move away from the agnostic position.

OK, but I didn't choose to be agnostic - I don't have a choice in the matter. It's simply a fact that the universe does not allow me to know.

It's a hard limit. Pat of being human.

As your statements clearly show, you are conflating the idea that accepting the notion that there may be an Original Creator, somehow means we have to place aside our belief in ourselves and that we should give all our personal power to that notion and forgo being the creative individuals that we can be. That is false assumption.

It's not a deduction. It's an induction.

I have infinitely more evidence for my own existence than I have for the existence of God.

Listen to your Grandmother. Did she not tell you that you can do anything that you put your mind to? The key thing in that is in engaging your mind to that purpose.

There are some things optimism can't solve. The limits of what is knowable is one of them.

The primary problem with that idea is the fact that there are beginnings and endings involved.

I am happy to go through the argument with you. If we are to assume that Our universe is all that exists and that it has always existed, we will then need to explain [among other things] why there is an apparent beginning to it...because something that has always existed should not have a beginning.

OK, but it only APPEARS to us humans that the universe had a beginning. But in practice we don't really understand what happened. We have no clue what the Big Bang is.

There are many stories on the matter.One of the more peculiar one is that The Big Bang is just a white hole.

And since we have ourselves the Blackhole information paradox for all we know there was a time before the big bang. We are just not allowed to know about it.

[VVilliam]

So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation.

The primary problem with that idea is the fact that there are beginnings and endings involved.

I am happy to go through the argument with you. If we are to assume that Our universe is all that exists and that it has always existed, we will then need to explain [among other things] why there is an apparent beginning to it...because something that has always existed should not have a beginning.

OK, but it only APPEARS to us humans that the universe had a beginning.

Well that is the generally accepted scientific interpretation. The Universe has a beginning.

You stated "So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation"

Do you want to discus that possibility or not?

But in practice we don't really understand what happened. We have no clue what the Big Bang is.

There are many stories on the matter.One of the more peculiar one is that The Big Bang is just a white hole.

And since we have ourselves the Blackhole information paradox for all we know there was a time before the big bang. We are just not allowed to know about it.

Hence why science alone cannot provide answers for our existence within this universe and why arguing from scientific position against theistic and/or philosophical vantage is a solidly pointless undertaking.

Now, in relation to the possibility that this universe has always and will always exist, I think that it should have already figured out how to make itself stable and meaningful in relation to the use of its own consciousness. After all, it has had forever already to do just that. It should have already put an end to the process of infinite regress through the process of infinite progress. Yet it moves as if it has somewhere in mind that it is going.

So why has it not already figured that out?

[Skepdick]

The primary problem with that idea is the fact that there are beginnings and endings involved.

As I mentioned - that arises because your mind is only ever capable of causal reasoning.
You experience it because you experience time. It's embedded deep in our logic A -> B.

Well that is the generally accepted scientific interpretation. The Universe has a beginning.

Correct. And it's the generally accepted interpretation for a very good reason. The reason is that we don't have a way of knowing what happened "before" the Big Bang.

There is no more information upon which to base any speculation. It's a limit of epistemology. The "beginning" of our universe is the "beginning" of time.

You stated "So why can't our universe be it? Our universe is The Original Creator. It had no beginning and it's not a simulation"

Do you want to discus that possibility or not?

You are welcome to discuss it - nothing scientific will come out of it.

Hence why science alone cannot provide answers for our existence within this universe and why arguing from scientific position against theistic and/or philosophical vantage is a solidly pointless undertaking.

Yeah but if arguing from a scientific view is pointless then arguing from a philosophical view is even worse.

You don't know and you can't know what happened before the beginning. That is why I keep calling it "limit to epistemology".

Now, in relation to the possibility that this universe has always and will always exist, I think that it should have already figured out how to make itself stable and meaningful in relation to the use of its own consciousness. After all, it has had forever already to do just that.

If the universe is eternal (e.g it has no beginning or end) - it has indeed figured out how to make itself stable.

It should have already put an end to the process of infinite regress through the process of infinite progress.

Do you not hear the oxymoron when using the words "end" and "infinite" in the same sentence?

Yet it moves as if it has somewhere in mind that it is going.

No. That's not the universe - that's your experience of the universe. It's Entropy

So why has it not already figured that out?

The universe has figured it out. Humans haven't.