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.