attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:57 am
Ok, so what are the two hypothesis's'ss?
VR hypothesis (what most of the pop articles/movies envision, like Inception) - a kind of brain in vat scenario, where consciousness is not part of the 'simulation'?
VR is one, yes. Experiencer, time, and the simulation mechanism are all real, and the virtual experience is fed to the real experiencer by the mechanism in real time. Result is that the experiencer gets zero information about reality since all empirical experience is artificial. Calling it a Brain in Vat is misleading because it implies the experiencer is/has something that resembles our notion of a pink gloppy brain, but that is all just the artificial story we are fed.
The simulation hypothesis has no experiencers plugged in. Time is part of the simulation, not real, so processing performance is irrelevant. It is a simulation of perhaps a mathematically describable thing, and is perhaps deterministic if it doesn't involve randomness. Humans would be simulated at the quantum level and would behave identically to the humans being simulated, be they existing or not. A bat could probably be simulated at the bio-chemical level, enough that it would fly around with echolocation navigation and such, but running such a simulation would inform nobody what it is like to be a bat. Simulation of even a virus at the quantum level is probably beyond any technology.
I disagree - even a concept car is a generic object of a 'car', it may have other attributes that are being tested for safety, but it remains a simulation of a car.
Fine. I wasn't sure of your terms. We are simulating a universal car, not a particular. I think that word says it better than 'generic'. Yes, its a car either way, but I don't consider the simulation to be the ontological creation of a car. The car isn't a simulation, it is merely being simulated. See the difference? I think it is important.
Precisely why I argue that the term 'simulation' should not be used where we are talking about reality, since we have no awareness of another reality being simulated.
On the contrary, both proposals say that we have nothing but awareness of the reality being simulated. Instead we lack awareness of the reality where the simulation is being run.
Yes, its the latter. I apologise, since I am coming from the POV that our reality is a construct of a 3rd party, all matter, including our brains are part of the construct, which I am stating is a projection.
That's what 'virtual' means. The God-as-creator model is not a computational model. God creates a real
physical universe, not just an artificial experience generated by a device for souls to plug into. It is sort of virtual I guess in that our bodies are real avatars for the mind/souls that control them. But a real universe means that real things change when choose to do things, but not so if the experienced world is artificial.
The hypothesis is wrong by its use of the term 'simulation' since it is requiring that reality is being simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is a other reality.
The car (or the minecraft VR world) got simulated without an ounce of evidence that there is such a car or world. Both were made up concepts. The simulation and the VR ideas both allow the reality that we experience to be that of an idea. It cannot be a model of where the computing is being done, because the sort of physics in our universe is incapable of running such a computation. The reality in the layer above would have to be more complex.