The Simulation Argument

[Greta]

I agree with Atla in that infinite regression is the issue, as it is with ideas around God.

If God formed its intelligence from chaos, could we infinitely regress where chaos is involved?

How would God know that that was the first time It had emerged from chaos?

A deity/deities may have emerged and been subsumed back into chaos a billion times beforehand for all anyone knows - and the same could be said for the big bang, for that matter, which is a fun thought

[attofishpi]

I agree with Atla in that infinite regression is the issue, as it is with ideas around God.

If God formed its intelligence from chaos, could we infinitely regress where chaos is involved?

How would God know that that was the first time It had emerged from chaos?

That is a great question Greta, wow. Perhaps it could never know.

A deity/deities may have emerged and been subsumed back into chaos a billion times beforehand for all anyone knows - and the same could be said for the big bang, for that matter, which is a fun thought

I don't find much by way of fun with my comprehension of God.
I am not the biggest advocate of the buy bull, but I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's 'A history of God', and am intrigued by the statement, apparently issued by God to Isaiah:-
'No god was formed before me, nor will be after me..'
I found the statement was from Isaiah 43:10.

I find this intriguing because it, God, in the statement is considering time, and also appreciating that itself 'formed'.
In reading Armstrong's book, it appears that the prophets pre to the formation of Judaism, were reluctant to receive and indeed preach this 'God' entities instruction, whereas all along I had the assumption that these people, considered prophets, would have been exalted at the idea.
Since I know God\'God' to exist, I have little doubt that 'it' would have the capacity to know that 'it' is the sole creator of our reality.

But you didn't answer my question, can we infinitely regress within chaos?

[bahman]

You cannot know the decision and the moment that it is made even if you could pause the simulation.

Not even if your brain is a part of the process?

Are you simulating a metaphysical discussion?

This is the way that simulation works: We know a set of equations that the system is subjected to. We know initial state of the system. We compute the state of the system in later time.

The problem in here is that you cannot simulate a system which contains agents with free will because there is no equation that can predict a decision.

[QuantumT]

This is the way that simulation works: We know a set of equations that the system is subjected to. We know initial state of the system. We compute the state of the system in later time.

The problem in here is that you cannot simulate a system which contains agents with free will because there is no equation that can predict a decision.

Well if that was true, VR and gaming in general would be impossible. When you play, you make descisions all the time, and the computer responds instantly.

I don't even know what this is. Homotopy principle (for solving differential equations) is all that came up. Seems unrelated.

If you had looked in my initial posting, you'd have seen that I repeated my first ten points, and that The H.Principle = The Holographic Principle.


People, I'm overwhelmed with all the response you've given me in this thread. If your question to me has been overlooked, please feel free to ask again. One Q at a time is prefered

[Greta]

If God formed its intelligence from chaos, could we infinitely regress where chaos is involved?

How would God know that that was the first time It had emerged from chaos?

That is a great question Greta, wow. Perhaps it could never know.

A deity/deities may have emerged and been subsumed back into chaos a billion times beforehand for all anyone knows - and the same could be said for the big bang, for that matter, which is a fun thought

I don't find much by way of fun with my comprehension of God.
I am not the biggest advocate of the buy bull, but I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's 'A history of God', and am intrigued by the statement, apparently issued by God to Isaiah:-
'No god was formed before me, nor will be after me..'
I found the statement was from Isaiah 43:10.

I find this intriguing because it, God, in the statement is considering time, and also appreciating that itself 'formed'.
In reading Armstrong's book, it appears that the prophets pre to the formation of Judaism, were reluctant to receive and indeed preach this 'God' entities instruction, whereas all along I had the assumption that these people, considered prophets, would have been exalted at the idea.
Since I know God\'God' to exist, I have little doubt that 'it' would have the capacity to know that 'it' is the sole creator of our reality.

But you didn't answer my question, can we infinitely regress within chaos?

I didn't answer because I didn't feel qualified to answer. My first thought is that infinite regression is like infinity - a sign that a mistake has been made, but that's only a guess based on the assumption that time is linear.

So at least one of the ancient authors believed God to have "been formed". I like the terminology - the passive voice suggests that something else formed God. So no deity preceded God (according to one ancient writer) but something else did and that was seemingly God's maker. In that case, if God exists, then maybe chaos is the ultimate expression of reality with God an underling?

[Noax]

4. Light Speed.[/b]
The computer has a limit to it's processing power, so there is also a limit of potential in the simulation.

That assumes that time as experienced is not simulated within our simulation, which seems absurd.

If I write a program to simulate a clock, then I will set the tick to tock as I like and the clock that is being simulated will not know anything about it. Likewise, when I fire up a Docker container with a virtual system in it, I will run it when I want it to run, stop it when I want it to stop, and it won't know there was any time lost unless I enable a time service to give it that information (which I don't usually do).

It isn't absurd for a VR setup, but it is absurd for simulated beings. I'm not sure if QuantumT is clear on the distinction. This point suggests a VR (simulated experience for a real experiencer), but others suggest a simulation of experiencers, not a simulation for experiencers.

In a VR setup, there are two different time definitions (real time and natural time), and they need to sync. CPU needs to keep up or the real experiencer will notice the drag on natural time, as they do in say minecraft when I set the resolution beyond the capacity of my graphics board.

Or, the processor is sufficiently quick to react in real time.

This comment suggests a VR setup since it references 'real time'. Real time matters not a hoot for a pure simulation.

If you pause your movie player in the middle of a dialogue, does the actors notice that?

If you halt your game, does your characters notice?

We are INSIDE! Any lag, pause or halt is for the OUTSIDE to be percieved. For us, it's just biz as usual!

This post on the other hand suggests a pure simulation. No, the characters don't notice a pause in a simulation, but the VR experiencers very much do.

You seem to be unsure if we are real in this simulation or simulated. Is it VR or not?

I have an argument against the simulation argument. Let's assume that free will is real. This means that one cannot know the decision until it is made. The knowledge of decision is however is needed beforehand to allow the correct simulation. Therefore our universe is not a simulation.

You seem to be referring to the VR setup, in which case the 'one that doesn't know' is the experiencer playing the game, and thus very much does know the decisions since he's making them. If I play Pacman, the machine doesn't need to know which direction Pacman is going to turn before I've conveyed the decision to it.
A non-VR simulation would not have 'free will' as you define it here, so the point is moot. The processor can be slow and inefficient and the simulated being will not notice, per the reasons given by FDp above.

[QuantumT]

You seem to be unsure if we are real in this simulation or simulated. Is it VR or not?

Well I was using VR as an argument to show that free will and computing can agree.
It seems unlikely that 7.5 billion people are hooked up to a machine "out there". Much more likely that we are AI's and part of the simulation.

But who knows? None of us do! We are inside. Forever ignorant of the "outside". Maybe we'll know when we "die"?

[bahman]

This is the way that simulation works: We know a set of equations that the system is subjected to. We know initial state of the system. We compute the state of the system in later time.

The problem in here is that you cannot simulate a system which contains agents with free will because there is no equation that can predict a decision.

Well if that was true, VR and gaming in general would be impossible. When you play, you make descisions all the time, and the computer responds instantly.

That is not true. There is always a lag between your decision and what you experience in virtual reality. There is also a lag between your decision and your act. You of course can increase duration between your decision and act. Other way around needs serious practice such as martial art.

[QuantumT]

That is not true. There is always a lag between your decision and what you experience in virtual reality. There is also a lag between your decision and your act. You of course can increase duration between your decision and act. Other way around needs serious practice such as martial art.

A lag would never be percieved from the inside, where we are, only by the outside observer.

[Noax]

You seem to be unsure if we are real in this simulation or simulated. Is it VR or not?

Well I was using VR as an argument to show that free will and computing can agree.

Very well then. There is no 'free will' then, defined as 'remote controlled beings', or 'possessed', and Bahman's point is about VR, not what you are envisioning. So then there is no need for real-time programming since real time is immaterial (hah!) to the simulation.

A simulation of this scale is something completely beyond the capacity of any computer as we can envision it, even given an arbitrary large scaling facter to the resources available to it. The nature of the reality where this is being done would be incomprehensible to us, because such a simulation with our physics is impossible. The machine would need to deal with infinities the way we deal with finite values. That is beyond our physics.

It seems unlikely that 7.5 billion people are hooked up to a machine "out there". Much more likely that we are AI's and part of the simulation.

A single experiencer makes it a VR and would change what it is fundamentally. Adding a few billion more is trivial compared to what is already proposed.

But who knows? None of us do! We are inside. Forever ignorant of the "outside". Maybe we'll know when we "die"?

If we can know after we die, then we're not simulated. Are you sure you don't have a VR in mind??? You answer the question finally, but then contradict that answer with a comment like this one.

[bahman]

I have an argument against the simulation argument. Let's assume that free will is real. This means that one cannot know the decision until it is made. The knowledge of decision is however is needed beforehand to allow the correct simulation. Therefore our universe is not a simulation.

You seem to be referring to the VR setup, in which case the 'one that doesn't know' is the experiencer playing the game, and thus very much does know the decisions since he's making them. If I play Pacman, the machine doesn't need to know which direction Pacman is going to turn before I've conveyed the decision to it.

The machine needs to know your decision at the moment you make it or in advance in order to sustain you. In the first case the speed for any instruction should be infinite and that is not possible unless the machine is a mind. The mind should be omnipresent and omniscient though. In the second case you could have a normal machine with finite speed but that is not possible since one cannot know a decision in advance. The only way that the second scenario could work is to mix a timeless being, God who has foreknowledge and has ability to sustain things, with us. But one can show that the second case is problematic too. We can discuss that if you are interested. I believe that we are minds interacting through illusion, given the definition of mind, essence of any being with the ability to experience and decide. We can discuss that if you are interested too.

A non-VR simulation would not have 'free will' as you define it here, so the point is moot. The processor can be slow and inefficient and the simulated being will not notice, per the reasons given by FDp above.

What is FDp?

[bahman]

That is not true. There is always a lag between your decision and what you experience in virtual reality. There is also a lag between your decision and your act. You of course can increase duration between your decision and act. Other way around needs serious practice such as martial art.

A lag would never be percieved from the inside, where we are, only by the outside observer.

That is not true. I can perceive the lag between my decision and act/moving my hand for example. I can even delay my act.

[QuantumT]

That is not true. I can perceive the lag between my decision and act/moving my hand for example. I can even delay my act.

Those are not lags, but time itself.
It's like saying: Usain Bolt can run 100 meters with only a 9.58 second lag

[Philosophy Explorer]

I have an argument against the simulation argument. Let's assume that free will is real. This means that one cannot know the decision until it is made. The knowledge of decision is however is needed beforehand to allow the correct simulation. Therefore our universe is not a simulation.

You seem to be referring to the VR setup, in which case the 'one that doesn't know' is the experiencer playing the game, and thus very much does know the decisions since he's making them. If I play Pacman, the machine doesn't need to know which direction Pacman is going to turn before I've conveyed the decision to it.

The machine needs to know your decision at the moment you make it or in advance in order to sustain you. In the first case the speed for any instruction should be infinite and that is not possible unless the machine is a mind. The mind should be omnipresent and omniscient though. In the second case you could have a normal machine with finite speed but that is not possible since one cannot know a decision in advance. The only way that the second scenario could work is to mix a timeless being, God who has foreknowledge and has ability to sustain things, with us. But one can show that the second case is problematic too. We can discuss that if you are interested. I believe that we are minds interacting through illusion, given the definition of mind, essence of any being with the ability to experience and decide. We can discuss that if you are interested too.

A non-VR simulation would not have 'free will' as you define it here, so the point is moot. The processor can be slow and inefficient and the simulated being will not notice, per the reasons given by FDp above.

What is FDp?

I believe FDP is referring to FlashDangerPants.

PhilX

[QuantumT]

9. ...string theory computercodes, it is sooooo obvious!

It would be if actual computer code was found in string theory equations. So they found a type of math in the equations for information representation in string theory that bears a close resemblance to a method of encoding (not to be confused with code) compressed data. The pop-science articles have apparently interpreted the finding as a discovery of actual computer code in string theory.

You might not like it, but James Gates did find Shannon coding in supersymmetry equations! The question is not if it's there or not, but why it's needed.

As with all evidence of a simulation, it is not proof by itself, since it can be interpreted many ways, but when the amounts pile up, the probability rises.

There is no direct proof of a simulation! Only evidence that can be interpreted in that direction - especially within QM.