The Simulation Argument

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 6:18 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 6:00 pm
Bostrom is apparently envisioning a simulation of one's own physics (simulations of their [own] evolutionary history) which is not possible given the laws of our particular physics. What QuantumT suggests is that it is a simulation being done by higher beings, in which case there are simply no rules as to the limits of their capabilities (as wtf points out). Such a simulation would not be of the evolutionary history of the runners of the simulation. But then bringing up Bostrom here hurts that argument, because he's arguing a self-simulation scenario.

Number 1 and 2 on his list are both essentially certain, so the conclusion that 3 as a remote possibility simply has no reason to even be on the list.
You can't know what is possible in a different universe. I would expect that they do not have QM, because I consider QM to be a "side effect" of a simulated universe.

No, I do not suggest that they are higher beings. The only thing I said was: They are not divine!

Speculation on motive and capabilities is just that. Speculation. We will never know.

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by OuterLimits » Sun May 27, 2018 6:59 pm

No amount of individual experience will allow you to know the nature of the source of that experience - for instance, whether it is "naturally real" or whether it is virtual - what kind of turtles the universe rests on, how many of them there are, and whether they are naturally evolved turtles or electronic virtual turtles.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 7:03 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 6:06 pm
You brought up a lot of views on science, but didn't apply any of those views to your argument. Not sure why any of the views you stated early in the OP (however accurate or not) lend evidence for or against your simulation idea. None of it seems to point to your answer at all, or at least I fail to see you explain each connection. There is no argument presented, despite the word being in the thread title. Connect the dots for us.

You seem to be saying that you like this simulation idea, totally without evidence, and to hell with us if we came to different conclusions.
All very well, but it isn't an argument. There isn't even something we can say is fallacious reasoning since no reasoning is presented.
That is your opinion, wich you are entitled to. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, so no "to hell with you". I'm okay being the only person in the universe to reach this conclusion.

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
- Ghandi

About connecting the dots for you, I will need more time. But I'd be happy to try. It's just not easy, so it'll take me a while.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun May 27, 2018 7:33 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:03 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 6:06 pm
You brought up a lot of views on science, but didn't apply any of those views to your argument. Not sure why any of the views you stated early in the OP (however accurate or not) lend evidence for or against your simulation idea. None of it seems to point to your answer at all, or at least I fail to see you explain each connection. There is no argument presented, despite the word being in the thread title. Connect the dots for us.

You seem to be saying that you like this simulation idea, totally without evidence, and to hell with us if we came to different conclusions.
All very well, but it isn't an argument. There isn't even something we can say is fallacious reasoning since no reasoning is presented.
That is your opinion, wich you are entitled to. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, so no "to hell with you". I'm okay being the only person in the universe to reach this conclusion.

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
- Ghandi

About connecting the dots for you, I will need more time. But I'd be happy to try. It's just not easy, so it'll take me a while.
Oh I see. So when I didn't agree with you, I got a PM absoultely REQUIRING me to accuse the primary prophet of a major global religion of sex crimes in order to prove I wasn't some enemy of yours. But these guys get the "no hard feelings" brush off.... FDP is very sad now :(

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 7:58 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:33 pm

Oh I see. So when I didn't agree with you, I got a PM absoultely REQUIRING me to accuse the primary prophet of a major global religion of sex crimes in order to prove I wasn't some enemy of yours. But these guys get the "no hard feelings" brush off.... FDP is very sad now :(
Mohammad did marry a 9 year old girl, and had sex with her when she turned 12. And he hallucinated and heard voices. But all that is a different subject.

The other guy is not my enemy. Neither are you. I just wondered if you two were the same person. That was my only way to test it.
Last edited by QuantumT on Sun May 27, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by Noax » Sun May 27, 2018 7:59 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 6:18 pm
You can't know what is possible in a different universe.
I didn't say otherwise. I was commenting on Bostrom's idea, which is a self-simulation, so what is possible there is the same as what's possible here. You seem to have other ideas, so I don't know why you brought up Bostrom. Most of my criticism has been against his argument because he actually presents one.
No, I do not suggest that they are higher beings.
They'd have to be, just as we are higher than Pac-Man, with us simulating him instead of the other way around. The container is higher in the hierarchy than the contained, unless you propose a circle with each of us simulating the other.
QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:03 pm
I'm okay being the only person in the universe to reach this conclusion.
You are not the first. But you are presenting it on a forum without evidence so far, so what response were you expecting? Flashing a bunch of jargon around without applying any of it seems not to demonstrate how you've reached your conclusion.
About connecting the dots for you, I will need more time. But I'd be happy to try. It's just not easy, so it'll take me a while.
That's all I was asking.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 8:12 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:59 pm
I didn't say otherwise. I was commenting on Bostrom's idea, which is a self-simulation, so what is possible there is the same as what's possible here. You seem to have other ideas, so I don't know why you brought up Bostrom. Most of my criticism has been against his argument because he actually presents one.
Bostrom has the right concept, but his definitions are too narrow. He names ancestor simulations, but that is just one option among endless possibilities. In my mind they could have countless reasons to simulate us. My favorite one is: Entertainment / Playing God.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by HexHammer » Sun May 27, 2018 9:13 pm

Sim argument is nothing but wishful thinking.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 9:24 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:13 pm
Sim argument is nothing but wishful thinking.
Or are you just afraid to question reality and your own existence?

When I first realised that this model could be real, I was confused and a little bit scared. I spent months trying to debunk it. I failed miserably.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun May 27, 2018 9:30 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:33 pm

Oh I see. So when I didn't agree with you, I got a PM absoultely REQUIRING me to accuse the primary prophet of a major global religion of sex crimes in order to prove I wasn't some enemy of yours. But these guys get the "no hard feelings" brush off.... FDP is very sad now :(
Mohammad did marry a 9 year old girl, and had sex with her when she turned 12. And he hallucinated and heard voices. But all that is a different subject.

The other guy is not my enemy. Neither are you. I just wondered if you two were the same person. That was my only way to test it.
Ok, well that was all weird.
But now that you are reading my stuff again I'll just paste in something you neglected to think about...

For something to be natural, it must belong somewhere within nature, and therefore within the universe that nature incorporates.
The creator you describe, created the universe, and therefore nature, and therefore existed prior to nature.
For a thing to be caused by natural events and laws, the causes must exist within nature.
Super means above, or beyond.
Natural means existing in or derived from nature
Supernatural means that the object of discussion is not contained within, caused by, or a product of nature.
The being that creates nature is therefore necessarily supernatural.
It really makes no difference whether you like to think of him as just a normal guy sitting in in his vest at a computer.

Tell me something. In this environment, supposing the being you describe doesn't want us to prove their existence, but somebody does so...
Why wouldn't this being be able to revert the virtual universe to a snapshot prior to that proof and simply kill the person who did the proving as an act of bug fixing? If they can do that with time and space and destiny, then what is wrong with describing their powers as unlimited?

I have that power over the computers I run, I'm not supernatural nor omnipotent in my universe, but I sort of am in theirs.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by HexHammer » Sun May 27, 2018 9:33 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:24 pm
Or are you just afraid to question reality and your own existence?
I do question reality all the time and our existence, bust still the same outcome, wishful thinking!

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 9:39 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:30 pm
Ok, well that was all weird.
But now that you are reading my stuff again I'll just paste in something you neglected to think about...

For something to be natural, it must belong somewhere within nature, and therefore within the universe that nature incorporates.
The creator you describe, created the universe, and therefore nature, and therefore existed prior to nature.
For a thing to be caused by natural events and laws, the causes must exist within nature.
Super means above, or beyond.
Natural means existing in or derived from nature
Supernatural means that the object of discussion is not contained within, caused by, or a product of nature.
The being that creates nature is therefore necessarily supernatural.
It really makes no difference whether you like to think of him as just a normal guy sitting in in his vest at a computer.

Tell me something. In this environment, supposing the being you describe doesn't want us to prove their existence, but somebody does so...
Why wouldn't this being be able to revert the virtual universe to a snapshot prior to that proof and simply kill the person who did the proving as an act of bug fixing? If they can do that with time and space and destiny, then what is wrong with describing their powers as unlimited?

I have that power over the computers I run, I'm not supernatural nor omnipotent in my universe, but I sort of am in theirs.
You are absolutely right.

The fact that I am not being stopped, gives a few possibilities:

- This simulation is nothing special. They wanna see how it turns out. They find it funny that they got made.
- This simulation is not being supervised. It will be analysed after it's finnished.
- This could be a global network phenomenon in their world. They can attempt to influence us, but they cannot alter the game or stop it.
- Probably more I didn't think of.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 9:47 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:33 pm
I do question reality all the time and our existence, bust still the same outcome, wishful thinking!
You are entitled to your opinion, but lack of imagination is not a virtue. And dismissing something you find hard to believe is neither.

I realise that my own anti-religious opinions could be seen as a contradiction to that, but atleast my theories are supported by circumstantial evidence and logic, and not by subjection to old dogmas.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 10:44 pm

This thread was moved from Science to Metaphysics. That is.... worrying.

Our moderators gets to decide reality for us, I guess, but why have a forum, if reality is set and decided?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3238
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by HexHammer » Sun May 27, 2018 10:49 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:47 pm
HexHammer wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:33 pm
I do question reality all the time and our existence, bust still the same outcome, wishful thinking!
You are entitled to your opinion, but lack of imagination is not a virtue. And dismissing something you find hard to believe is neither.

I realise that my own anti-religious opinions could be seen as a contradiction to that, but atleast my theories are supported by circumstantial evidence and logic, and not by subjection to old dogmas.
You just to conclusions, I don't lack imagination, quite the contrary.

Now shush babblehead, go do something useful with your life, philosophy isn't the way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests