The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am

Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

The major flaw is within the title:- 'Simulation Hypothesis'

It's one thing to consider there is a 3rd party entity which proponents of the 'simulation hypothesis' propose provides the 'simulation', but it is another to be so wrong about the language context that is required to be clear about our understanding.

Why is 'simulation' being used as the key defining feature of reality that these scientists comprehend?

To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.

A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party. Our reality is OUR REALITY, we have no indication that it is SIMULATING another reality, so why use the term?

'Projection Hypothesis' is what this should be labeled...not 'simulation hypothesis'.

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

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA
These are hardly discussing the same subject, and both are pop interpretations of what is really being considered by science.
The first video discusses a virtual reality, something close to this 'projection hypothesis' of which you speak. The model is dualistic, with an experiencer being fed experience that is not of the world in which the experiencer exists. So a BIV essentially. In the matrix (they mention this), they actually show the vat. The VR is not a mere projection (as would be a cinema experience), but puts the experiencer in control, as in Pacman. 'Projection' implies epiphenomenal lack of that control. The tube is titled 'simulation hypothesis' but the commentary starts right using the correct term 'virtual reality'. That hypothesis is quite different from a simulation, which is not dualistic.

I'm not going to sit through an entire hour of video. Can you please summarize the primary evidence presented? They seem to claim work done by several others, many of whom are not talking about virtual reality, but instead are really talking about actual simulations. Sounds to me like they (makers of this film) don't know the difference.

As for the second video, it is simply not representative of what Gates is actually claiming. He is being coerced heavily in the talk show. Parts of this below is taken from my prior post about this.
I suspect that he only got the spot on the show by agreeing to refer to the ECC codes as 'computer codes', because he makes no mention of computer codes in published work which they are supposedly discussing. ECC is a mathematical construct that is far older than the existence of computers or the code that runs on them.
Around 2:40 in the video Gates refers to this similarity to "computer codes". The host immediately asks if he found "computer code" (a completely different thing). Gates carefully corrects him with "computer codes". This repeats about 4 times and finally Gates caves and starts using "computer code" and even agrees to the hosts reference that this is equivalent to finding the likes of a browser or search engine, which are indeed two examples of 'computer code'. Gates at this point is letting the completely uninformed host put words in his mouth, but he stops correcting the host after a bit. I don't see Gates attempting to be a sensationalist here, but rather resigned to being in a room of idiots and caving to the circus that thrives on ratings, not accuracy.

Short story: If you want to put out Gates as evidence, link to what is claimed in his paper, not to that sensational circus of a show.
To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.
I agree, but word it as 'there is a thing being simulated'. It is a reality to observers within (as opposed to the projection to observers who are not within), regardless of if that reality is 'real' somewhere or not. They simulate cars in collisions all the time, and most of the simulated cars are not real. The idea is to find an ideal car before actually putting that one into production.
A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party.
There is no 'projection' involved in a simulation of a car crash, even if they simulate it down to the atomic level with live occupants. 'Projection' as you are using the term here implies the real experience of a virtual world, a completely different thing than a simulation. The first youtube above seems to suggests a VR, not a simulation.

Most scientific proposals of this sort of thing suggest a simulation (where we are simulated) and not a VR where only our experience is simulated. But I find the simulation argument self defeating. Sure, a certain thing X might be of a nature where it can be simulated, but what does it matter to X if somebody actually decides to simulate it? Maybe there are hundreds of simulations of X. That doesn't change the nature of X itself, therefore X is not a simulation, it is simply simulated somewhere. The observers that are part of X cannot logically propose that they are a simulation because X is not, only the simulation of X is. If there was any difference, then it isn't really X that is being simulated.

So yes, that leaves VR as the only viable proposal, but VR is outside of methodological naturalism, so science is not likely to seriously propose it.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:22 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

The major flaw is within the title:- 'Simulation Hypothesis'

It's one thing to consider there is a 3rd party entity which proponents of the 'simulation hypothesis' propose provides the 'simulation', but it is another to be so wrong about the language context that is required to be clear about our understanding.

Why is 'simulation' being used as the key defining feature of reality that these scientists comprehend?

To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.

A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party. Our reality is OUR REALITY, we have no indication that it is SIMULATING another reality, so why use the term?

'Projection Hypothesis' is what this should be labeled...not 'simulation hypothesis'.
Concur!

IMO the best description would be "a virtual reality with artificial intelligent beings".
Calling it a simulation is to presumptuous.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:28 pm

Interesting videos. I would like to add that we/minds are embedded inside a matrix create by God/Mind. We are however are not part of matrix as we obviously can affect it. I am however puzzled with how minds could be restricted inside matrix to specific location and time because to me there is no difference between mind and Mind except knowledge. That is puzzling since mind to me have the capacity to experience the whole.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by bahman » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:31 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:22 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

The major flaw is within the title:- 'Simulation Hypothesis'

It's one thing to consider there is a 3rd party entity which proponents of the 'simulation hypothesis' propose provides the 'simulation', but it is another to be so wrong about the language context that is required to be clear about our understanding.

Why is 'simulation' being used as the key defining feature of reality that these scientists comprehend?

To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.

A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party. Our reality is OUR REALITY, we have no indication that it is SIMULATING another reality, so why use the term?

'Projection Hypothesis' is what this should be labeled...not 'simulation hypothesis'.
Concur!

IMO the best description would be "a virtual reality with artificial intelligent beings".
Calling it a simulation is to presumptuous.
No, we are not artificial intelligent beings. We are minds. We however posses bodies which enable us to behave as intelligent beings.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by QuantumT » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:57 pm

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

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am

Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA
These are hardly discussing the same subject, and both are pop interpretations of what is really being considered by science.
The first video discusses a virtual reality, something close to this 'projection hypothesis' of which you speak. The model is dualistic, with an experiencer being fed experience that is not of the world in which the experiencer exists. So a BIV essentially. In the matrix (they mention this), they actually show the vat. The VR is not a mere projection (as would be a cinema experience), but puts the experiencer in control, as in Pacman. 'Projection' implies epiphenomenal lack of that control. The tube is titled 'simulation hypothesis' but the commentary starts right using the correct term 'virtual reality'. That hypothesis is quite different from a simulation, which is not dualistic.

I'm not going to sit through an entire hour of video. Can you please summarize the primary evidence presented? They seem to claim work done by several others, many of whom are not talking about virtual reality, but instead are really talking about actual simulations. Sounds to me like they (makers of this film) don't know the difference.
Eventually the argument against materialism is made, based on quantum entanglement, reasoning that this could only be the case where there is centralised processing taking place, such that distances over space are only perceived, not real. Also, detailed observations of various methods of the double slit experiment, where electrons behave as particles when observed and waves of a probable nature when not observed, suggesting efficient processing akin to that within computer simulations.
Various quotes, such as Max Planck below are metioned.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together...We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm
As for the second video, it is simply not representative of what Gates is actually claiming. He is being coerced heavily in the talk show. Parts of this below is taken from my prior post about this.
I suspect that he only got the spot on the show by agreeing to refer to the ECC codes as 'computer codes', because he makes no mention of computer codes in published work which they are supposedly discussing. ECC is a mathematical construct that is far older than the existence of computers or the code that runs on them.
Around 2:40 in the video Gates refers to this similarity to "computer codes". The host immediately asks if he found "computer code" (a completely different thing). Gates carefully corrects him with "computer codes". This repeats about 4 times and finally Gates caves and starts using "computer code"
I think I understand your point re him being coecerced to go aloing the 'codes' as opposed to 'code', in that there was only a ECC 'code' found, not multiple?
Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.
I agree, but word it as 'there is a thing being simulated'. It is a reality to observers within (as opposed to the projection to observers who are not within), regardless of if that reality is 'real' somewhere or not. They simulate cars in collisions all the time, and most of the simulated cars are not real. The idea is to find an ideal car before actually putting that one into production.
No, I am going to disagree that it should be worded: 'there is a thing being simulated', since what I am stating is that this IS our reality - the primary reality, there is no reason to believe there is or ever has been another reality where the term 'simulated' should be used.
Since knowing our reality is a construct from a 3rd party, and more recently being informed that the 3rd party is indeed divine - not the AI argument ive been banging on about, then this IS reality, not virtual, not simulated, but yes a projection from the 3rd party.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party.
There is no 'projection' involved in a simulation of a car crash, even if they simulate it down to the atomic level with live occupants. 'Projection' as you are using the term here implies the real experience of a virtual world, a completely different thing than a simulation. The first youtube above seems to suggests a VR, not a simulation.
A simulation of a car crash, is just that, a simulation. If 'they' simulate the car crash down to the atomic level as you suggest, then yes, it is still just a simulation.
If I crash my car, it is a real car crash and this does not negate the fact that our reality is a projection, a construct from a 3rd party, indeed a 'divine' entity.
Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:23 pm
So yes, that leaves VR as the only viable proposal, but VR is outside of methodological naturalism, so science is not likely to seriously propose it.
No it doesn't. 'If' there is a God that is the backbone to all our reality, it does not follow that our reality is virtual, or simulated....it IS reality.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:34 am

QuantumT wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:22 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:17 am
Simulation Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M&t=148s

James Gates & Neil Degrasse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

The major flaw is within the title:- 'Simulation Hypothesis'

It's one thing to consider there is a 3rd party entity which proponents of the 'simulation hypothesis' propose provides the 'simulation', but it is another to be so wrong about the language context that is required to be clear about our understanding.

Why is 'simulation' being used as the key defining feature of reality that these scientists comprehend?

To suggest our reality is a simulation requires knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated, and clearly, none of the scientists that are proposing the idea are aware of this..other reality.

A better terminology would be a 'Projection Hypothesis' in that our reality is indeed being projected to us, courtesy of a 3rd party. Our reality is OUR REALITY, we have no indication that it is SIMULATING another reality, so why use the term?

'Projection Hypothesis' is what this should be labeled...not 'simulation hypothesis'.
Concur!

IMO the best description would be "a virtual reality with artificial intelligent beings".
Calling it a simulation is to presumptuous.
Yes but no. The reality being projected by God (i was recently informed by a sage that it is not A.I.), is REAL, not virtual in any way and none of us are artificial.

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

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am

attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
Eventually the argument against materialism is made, based on quantum entanglement, reasoning that this could only be the case where there is centralised processing taking place, such that distances over space are only perceived, not real.
Well, strawman tactics aside, this is fallacious at the core. We may not know it completely, but if natural law is local by nature, then the simulation would need to follow local rules, or it is a simulation of something else. Likewise, if natural law involves action at a distance, then a centralized processor is not required to bring this about. Short story is that the simulation can't be deduced by being able to do something unnatural, else it isn't a simulation of nature.
Also, detailed observations of various methods of the double slit experiment, where electrons behave as particles when observed and waves of a probable nature when not observed, suggesting efficient processing akin to that within computer simulations.
I don't see how this simplifies processing.
1) Delay of processing is not eventual avoidance, so no efficiency gain.
2) Efficiency is not an issue with a simulation. I've done some chip simulations that take weeks on a crappy computer, and the only reason efficiency is an issue is because we had deadlines to meet. The simulation itself did not change due to the inadequate processor being used. It just took more simulation time, but no more 'simulated' time (only a few seconds of simulated time).
This is exactly why our physics cannot be simulated on any classic computer regardless of scale. The physics in the realm doing the simulation must be sufficiently more complex to compute an uncollapsed wave function of something not measured. I don't think even a perfect simulation of our universe with wave function collapse would yield our Earth, but I can't prove that.
Various quotes, such as Max Planck below are metioned.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such!"
I truncated it, but this is the best argument against materialism I've seen. How can material be fundamental if they've never found any? Nothing that actually occupies volume or has a location or anything you'd expect from 'material'. The comment doesn't imply a simulation, but it makes a nice attack on materialism.
Funny, but all the physical simulations I've seen actually simulate material. You'd think the simulation proponents would embrace materialism.
I think I understand your point re him being coecerced to go aloing the 'codes' as opposed to 'code', in that there was only a ECC 'code' found, not multiple?
Other way around. He found numbers that resemble ECC codes, and the talk show billed that as 'computer codes' and then the host insisted on changing that to 'computer code', which means machine instructions. Gates' paper makes no such claim. But yes, the coercion is palpable in that one minute there.
No, I am going to disagree that it should be worded: 'there is a thing being simulated', since what I am stating is that this IS our reality - the primary reality, there is no reason to believe there is or ever has been another reality where the term 'simulated' should be used.
Not sure if you understood what I was saying. As for this being the primary reality, that cannot be if God created it. God is the primary reality then, and we are just some object within that reality. If what God has done is run a simulation himself or on a device of his creation, then he has created that (process?) instead. The thing simulated doesn't need to be a reality, just like they simulate cars that don't exist. It is a thing, but not necessarily a real thing. Anyway, I agree with you about this being our reality, our primary one.

A simulation of a car crash, is just that, a simulation. If 'they' simulate the car crash down to the atomic level as you suggest, then yes, it is still just a simulation.
What it isn't is a car. A car is not a simulation, but it can be simulated. Similarly, we are not a simulation, but with more advanced physics, it seems possible that we could be simulated. We could not be simulated with a computer as we know it, even with infinite resources.
Noax wrote:So yes, that leaves VR as the only viable proposal, but VR is outside of methodological naturalism, so science is not likely to seriously propose it.
No it doesn't. 'If' there is a God that is the backbone to all our reality, it does not follow that our reality is virtual, or simulated....it IS reality.
The VR model says there is a reality that has real experiencers and the means (a machine??) to generate a virtual experience for those experiencers. If so, this universe we experience is only an unreal virtual creation of said machine. It seems neither of us buys this story, but that's the VR hypothesis as I see it. The simulation hypothesis on the other hand has no real experiencers. They are simulated as well, not just immersed in it. I've expressed my opinion as to why that cannot be the case above. The VR thing is harder to disprove.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:07 am

Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
Eventually the argument against materialism is made, based on quantum entanglement, reasoning that this could only be the case where there is centralised processing taking place, such that distances over space are only perceived, not real.
Well, strawman tactics aside, this is fallacious at the core. We may not know it completely, but if natural law is local by nature, then the simulation would need to follow local rules, or it is a simulation of something else.
If this reality is processed and generated at a core then local laws of nature are just that, everything we determine about those laws exist but it does not then follow that it is necessarily a simulation of something else, more perhaps, just a projection of what a 3rd party wishes us to experience, indeed a reality we can exist within.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
Also, detailed observations of various methods of the double slit experiment, where electrons behave as particles when observed and waves of a probable nature when not observed, suggesting efficient processing akin to that within computer simulations.
I don't see how this simplifies processing.
1) Delay of processing is not eventual avoidance, so no efficiency gain.
2) Efficiency is not an issue with a simulation. I've done some chip simulations that take weeks on a crappy computer, and the only reason efficiency is an issue is because we had deadlines to meet. The simulation itself did not change due to the inadequate processor being used. It just took more simulation time, but no more 'simulated' time (only a few seconds of simulated time).
I think the point was with regards to the simulator computer, only processing the requirments of the virtual world for what is to be sensed - eg to the monitor for the eyes, rather than everthing going on behind ones head. In the double slit -the particles exist when viewed, when not viewed its left to waves.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
This is exactly why our physics cannot be simulated on any classic computer regardless of scale. The physics in the realm doing the simulation must be sufficiently more complex to compute an uncollapsed wave function of something not measured. I don't think even a perfect simulation of our universe with wave function collapse would yield our Earth, but I can't prove that.
Understand, any point I am making is without any comparison to our computing methods, aside perhaps that there is eventually\ultimately, a 'central' point.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
attofishpi wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
No, I am going to disagree that it should be worded: 'there is a thing being simulated', since what I am stating is that this IS our reality - the primary reality, there is no reason to believe there is or ever has been another reality where the term 'simulated' should be used.
Not sure if you understood what I was saying. As for this being the primary reality, that cannot be if God created it. God is the primary reality then, and we are just some object within that reality.
The reality that God came from quite likely is not a reality we could exist within or even comprehend, so does that make it a primary reality? It created our reality and it persists as a projection that we can continue to exist within, this is OUR primary reality.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
If what God has done is run a simulation himself or on a device of his creation, then he has created that (process?) instead. The thing simulated doesn't need to be a reality, just like they simulate cars that don't exist. It is a thing, but not necessarily a real thing. Anyway, I agree with you about this being our reality, our primary one.
But simulating a car that doesn't exist, we can both agree that yes, that is a simulation...of a car (the generic object). What I am stating is that 'simulation' should not be used as a point of examination, since we have no evidence of any preceding reality. Again, if it appears that our reality is being constructed in real time, then it is a 'projection' at this stage, not a 'simulation'.
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
So yes, that leaves VR as the only viable proposal, but VR is outside of methodological naturalism, so science is not likely to seriously propose it.
The VR model says there is a reality that has real experiencers and the means (a machine??) to generate a virtual experience for those experiencers. If so, this universe we experience is only an unreal virtual creation of said machine. It seems neither of us buys this story, but that's the VR hypothesis as I see it. The simulation hypothesis on the other hand has no real experiencers. They are simulated as well, not just immersed in it. I've expressed my opinion as to why that cannot be the case above. The VR thing is harder to disprove.
Again, I don't agree with the terms 'virtual' or 'simulation'. 'If' there is a God that is the backbone to all our reality, it does not follow that our reality is virtual, or simulated....it IS reality. I am however happy to sit on our reality being a 'projection'.
Although - some years ago I would often sing a song - oh dear what could the matter be, Brians caught up in virtual reality\insanity.

I think I need to make my suggestion as to what I mean by God being the 'backbone' of reality. Although I know God to exist, I believe that when we take any point within 3D space down to its most finite point, there is either an event or there isn't.
A binary position. I believe, that at this most finite level, God is the cause.

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

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:55 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:07 am
Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 am
We may not know it completely, but if natural law is local by nature, then the simulation [of it] would need to follow local rules, or it is a simulation of something else.
If this reality is processed and generated at a core then local laws of nature are just that, everything we determine about those laws exist but it does not then follow that it is necessarily a simulation of something else, more perhaps, just a projection of what a 3rd party wishes us to experience, indeed a reality we can exist within.
I think you are envisioning VR here, not a simulation. You seem to misunderstand my comment. I realize that the VR model is more applicable to your personal views, but I wasn't talking about it there.
Noax wrote:
Also, detailed observations of various methods of the double slit experiment, where electrons behave as particles when observed and waves of a probable nature when not observed, suggesting efficient processing akin to that within computer simulations.
I don't see how this simplifies processing.
1) Delay of processing is not eventual avoidance, so no efficiency gain.
2) Efficiency is not an issue with a simulation. I've done some chip simulations that take weeks on a crappy computer, and the only reason efficiency is an issue is because we had deadlines to meet. The simulation itself did not change due to the inadequate processor being used. It just took more simulation time, but no more 'simulated' time (only a few seconds of simulated time).
I think the point was with regards to the simulator computer, only processing the requirements of the virtual world for what is to be sensed - eg to the monitor for the eyes, rather than everything going on behind ones head. In the double slit -the particles exist when viewed, when not viewed its left to waves.
Again, these are VR issues (a computed experience) and I was talking about a simulation. And either way, since I am causally effected by everything in my past-light cone, the entire visible universe needs to be processed or it wouldn't be accurate. OK, most of the time, accuracy doesn't matter for a VR. You can just put a dot of light in the sky for a star and only process it in more detail if has a telescope on it for instance. How does the VR know the telescope effects will be experienced eventually, or that the device is a telescope at all? A VR doing any optimizations is usually very easy to detect by the experiencers.
Understand, any point I am making is without any comparison to our computing methods, aside perhaps that there is eventually\ultimately, a 'central' point.
You don't know that. Modern simulations are usually not centralized, especially the large ones. The larger the scale of the simulation, the more decentralized the distribution and processing of that information. Centralized processing actually slows the thing down. A computer that could simulate an apple down to the quantum level for 10 seconds would fill our universe and would never finish if processing was centralized.
If this is a VR being done on a device in another realm, then we have no way of knowing how centralized their physics requires their device to be, or even if the other realm has a concept of distance or volume consumed by said device.
But simulating a car that doesn't exist, we can both agree that yes, that is a simulation...of a car (the generic object).
Yes, and if the generic object included an observer, said observer could not differentiate between being part of the generic object and being simulated as part of the simulation of the generic object. The existence of the generic object (or lack of it) makes no difference to that indistinguishabilty of the experience of the observer.
There is a simulation of an observer, yes. But that doesn't make the observer a simulation. The former is a relation, and the latter is a property. The simulation hypothesis (not the VR hypothesis) is a proposal of a property of the universe, and that cannot be. Sure, we can be simulated (relation) by a realm with a fancy machine or something, but that doesn't change what we are.
What I am stating is that 'simulation' should not be used as a point of examination, since we have no evidence of any preceding reality.
I don't know what you mean by this, especially 'point of examination' and 'preceding'. Remember, my comment was about a simulation, not a VR.
Again, if it appears that our reality is being constructed in real time, then it is a 'projection' at this stage, not a 'simulation'.
VR needs to run in real time (meaning virtual time must be at pace with time in the containing reality), and it very much does not appear to be the case, so this is a huge hit against the VR proposal.
There is no need for real time in a simulation, and there is only a concept of 'real time' if the simulation is done in the same universe, which is not possible in the simulation hypothesis. Car crashes are not done real time in simulations, but they must be done real time in VR games.
'If' there is a God that is the backbone to all our reality, it does not follow that our reality is virtual, or simulated....it IS reality.
I never suggested that. The usual theistic model is a dual one, both real. The VR model is one real, the other virtual. God probably doesn't work that way. The thread is about flaws in proposals of simulations and VRs, not in the typical stance of a religious proposal. Both VR and simulation require a containing realm in which the 'computing' is run, but designation of that reality as a god is a step further. I've been in plenty of VRs, and don't consider the containing reality to be a deity despite its ability to generate a crude contained reality.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:07 am

Noax wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:55 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:07 am
'If' there is a God that is the backbone to all our reality, it does not follow that our reality is virtual, or simulated....it IS reality.
I never suggested that. The usual theistic model is a dual one, both real. The VR model is one real, the other virtual. God probably doesn't work that way. The thread is about flaws in proposals of simulations and VRs, not in the typical stance of a religious proposal. Both VR and simulation require a containing realm in which the 'computing' is run, but designation of that reality as a god is a step further. I've been in plenty of VRs, and don't consider the containing reality to be a deity despite its ability to generate a crude contained reality.
I think we have been on an entirely different page here all along. The thread is about the terminology being used, it is not an argument for or against the theories within the hypothesis, even though you have cleverly drawn me into such a debate.
Again, if scientists are considering that there is a 3rd party entity, constructing our reality, then the term 'simulation' should not be used since that would require knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated. Hence, I have proposed that 'projection hypothesis' would be a better terminology.

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

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:10 am

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:07 am
I think we have been on an entirely different page here all along. The thread is about the terminology being used, it is not an argument for or against the theories within the hypothesis, even though you have cleverly drawn me into such a debate.
OK, trying to stick with that then.
Again, if scientists are considering that there is a 3rd party entity, constructing our reality, then the term 'simulation' should not be used since that would require knowing that there is another reality that is being simulated.[/quote]That was what my car comment was about. To simulate one, you need to know about a car I suppose, but not about a real one. The thing simulated need not necessarily be 'another reality'.
Hence, I have proposed that 'projection hypothesis' would be a better terminology.
So same proposal with a different name? What is the proposal? Part of what my comments concerned is that there are two very distinct proposals. Scientists usually talk about actual simulations, but pop science like the links you put out are typically about VR like in the matrix. Which one of the two do you wish to attach the label 'projection'? I think it would be the latter (the VR) since that involves one or more subjects onto which the reality is projected. But then your comment does not apply. There is no other reality that is known since the experiencer makes of it as he wills. It becomes a video game like minecraft, which does not require knowing that there is that other reality. So perhaps I don't understand your assertion about knowing the reality that is projected. Do you mean 'knowing that it exists'? Most would not say that each minecraft reality exists.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:44 pm

I don't see how it matters how or where our reality comes to us, if we are stuck with it anyway. No point in getting worked up over something we can't change. If you're a brain in a vat, that's what you've got, and may as well accept it.

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

Re: The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

Post by Noax » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:44 pm
I don't see how it matters how or where our reality comes to us, if we are stuck with it anyway. No point in getting worked up over something we can't change.
This entire site is dedicated to people who want to get worked up over things that can't be changed and don't matter in any practical way.

I suppose the VR thing matters because it might become a moral issue when considering degradation/termination of the experience of one of the virtual experiencers. The rules seem different if you are taking you marching orders from a story that makes you comfortable for whatever reason, but lacks any actual evidence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests