We are living in simulating reality
-
- Posts: 4881
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: We are living in simulating reality
"Our minds don't have direct access to reality, whether there is a reality or not, therefore we are living in simulating reality."
If this is true, then the information in the statement itself might be false on account of it being part of, and produced by, the simulation.
Discuss.
If this is true, then the information in the statement itself might be false on account of it being part of, and produced by, the simulation.
Discuss.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
That astute comment reminds me of a reminder ...
... that Norm Macdonald gave to Neil deGrasse Tyson, American astrophysicist.
Easily found on Youtube, or somewhere. Be glad to help, if necessary. I think it was one of them Tweets.
... that Norm Macdonald gave to Neil deGrasse Tyson, American astrophysicist.
Easily found on Youtube, or somewhere. Be glad to help, if necessary. I think it was one of them Tweets.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
The OP was the content of my mind in form of qualia. I then constructed a message that is accessible to the community. There are minds and qualia in this process too. You then read the message and construct a thought which is in form of qualia as well. So we have a community of minds that interact with each other through the qualia that they construct. This means that we directly only have access to qualia constructed by other minds that I call it simulating reality.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 6:58 pm "Our minds don't have direct access to reality, whether there is a reality or not, therefore we are living in simulating reality."
If this is true, then the information in the statement itself might be false on account of it being part of, and produced by, the simulation.
Discuss.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
It's like a web. The World Wide Web sounds cool, 'till you're trapped in it, 'till things get sticky, as in, too complicated.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Check out the red ... see more than red.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:33 pmWhat do you mean?Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:33 pmIs anyone not trapped in the www and the physical effects, either directly or indirectly? After all, all humans have basically the same dna according to science, which logically means the responses to stimuli are not only finite, but predictably finite .... simply by the fact of being human. Fish think alike. Humans, albeit more complicated than fish as far as we know, also think with choiceless options that are not only finite, but very finite. Thus, the legitimacy of predicting beyond the limitations of pure chance.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Our minds don't have direct access to reality because we can only be aware of what our brains bring to mind.
A simulation could be indistinguishable from physical reality but that possibility is not a fact.
Since it isn't, we may be in either. How do you know?
Re: We are living in simulating reality
What is more than red? Any help?Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:42 pmCheck out the red ... see more than red.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:33 pmWhat do you mean?Walker wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:33 pm
Is anyone not trapped in the www and the physical effects, either directly or indirectly? After all, all humans have basically the same dna according to science, which logically means the responses to stimuli are not only finite, but predictably finite .... simply by the fact of being human. Fish think alike. Humans, albeit more complicated than fish as far as we know, also think with choiceless options that are not only finite, but very finite. Thus, the legitimacy of predicting beyond the limitations of pure chance.
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Reality to me is made of two substances, minds and qualia, where the mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia and cause qualia. Therefore, what you experience, qualia, are constructed by other minds what I call simulating reality.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:49 pmOur minds don't have direct access to reality because we can only be aware of what our brains bring to mind.
A simulation could be indistinguishable from physical reality but that possibility is not a fact.
Since it isn't, we may be in either. How do you know?
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: We are living in simulating reality
bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:38 pmBy living in a simulating reality I didn't mean that the reality if there is any, is certainly a simulation. It could be, however. How? We have two things, minds, and qualia in substance dualism. Qualia are experienced and generated by the mind. We cannot directly experience other minds but only have access to the qualia they generate.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:10 pmThe main thing I took my that response was that even if you are right that we cannot experience reality directly, there may still be a reality outside of us. And it would also be odd to call it a simulation, if there is nothing else. It would be a reality, just not one with external things. A form of idealism or phenomenalism.
"We cannot directly experience other minds": I like this offer. It's a happiness ideology, of the reality of the uniformity.
There's having the slits in the minds be able to interact with other slits, versus chasing the slits themselves with the mind's Id.
Possessing the sociology units. A similar construct, to the slits reference.
First, what's a sociology unit?
Ostensibly, it's a defiance of symmetry.
Also, there's accepting the data.
Accepting the data; it is the singularity's ethos
Re: We are living in simulating reality
Your so-called "arguments" have ALREADY been PROVED to be FAULTY. So, there is, obviously, NO need to discuss them with you ANYMORE.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:50 pmI have arguments in favor of minds but I am not going to discuss them with you.
So, do you want to CLAIM here now that EACH and EVERY one of these, SUPPOSED, 'simulations' happen or occur within A FANTASY or A NON REALITY?bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:50 pmNonsense.Age wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:24 pm 2. The body DIRECTLY experiences 'things'. IF ANY one wants to CLAIM, "But what is experienced could just be in a simulation", then that is fine. However, that could NOT refute that no matter how many of these supposed simulations could be existing they ALL HAVE TO be existing within A REALITY.
If yes, then okay. But the ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY here is FAR HIGHER (or lower) than I first envisioned.
But, if no, then what, EXACTLY, are you wanting to CLAIM here is 'nonsense'?
LOL
LOL
LOL
So, according to "bahman" ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', which IS being OBSERVED and EXPERIENCED, is ALL NOT real.
But you have NOT said ANY thing LOGICAL here in support of your OBVIOUSLY STUPID, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL BELIEF of YOURS here.
-
- Posts: 4881
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: We are living in simulating reality
"Reality to me is made of two substances, minds and qualia, where the mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia and cause qualia. Therefore, what you experience, qualia, are constructed by other minds what I call simulating reality."
You should go with single substance modal dualism then because radical idealism/empiricism Berkeley style is difficult to defend. I wouldn't try it.
Okay, but do you agree that an 'objective' world of things (information) exists independently of any and all 'minds'? If so, then you should include that category of qualia in your thesis. As it stands, it gives the impression that all qualia is created by and dependent on some particular 'mind', since it isn't irreducible.
If not, you'll end up having to posit a 'god' to explain how unobserved parts of the universe can exist.
You should go with single substance modal dualism then because radical idealism/empiricism Berkeley style is difficult to defend. I wouldn't try it.
Okay, but do you agree that an 'objective' world of things (information) exists independently of any and all 'minds'? If so, then you should include that category of qualia in your thesis. As it stands, it gives the impression that all qualia is created by and dependent on some particular 'mind', since it isn't irreducible.
If not, you'll end up having to posit a 'god' to explain how unobserved parts of the universe can exist.
-
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: We are living in simulating reality
bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:05 pmI am talking about my version of substance dualism in which there are minds and qualia, the mind being an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia, and qualia is the subject of experience. I have several arguments in favor the substance dualism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:22 amYou are starting with an irrational unjustified claim, an assumption of dualism, i.e.
- Property dualism, a view in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics which holds that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties
Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:22 am Because you begin with an ASSUMPTION, the mind is independent and separate from 'reality' there is no way you will EVER realize or know what is reality-in-itself. Thus to find an answer to what is reality on the basis of dualism or physical realism is a non-starter.
If you are stating reality is with [entangled] with minds, then I will agree with you.Not, when substance dualism is established as the only viewpoint that describes reality well.
Besides there is no minds if there are no humans.
Note I stated subjected to a FSK...supported with rational philosophical reasoning.Empirical evidence alone cannot take you anywhere.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:22 am OTOH, it would be more realistic to determine [verify and justify within a FSK] what is 'real' based on experience and empirical evidence of emergences supported with rational philosophical reasoning.
Are you saying scientific facts based on empirical evidences from the scientific FSK cannot take humanity anywhere?
I meant for scientific facts from the scientific FSK to be reliable, they must be subjected to philosophical reasonings.And where is your philosophical reasoning based on the scientific FSK model?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:22 am At present the most reliable FSK to establish what is real [fact, truth, reality] is the scientific FSK-model.
Despite scientific facts are the most credible [albeit at best are polished conjectures] and to avoid Scientism, we must nevertheless subject those facts to further philosophical reasonings and scrutiny.
On this basis of reality, we must at all costs avoid the proclivities to harbor and ignore the philosophical realists urge to insist there is still something real out there independent of mind. Such ideas are a non-starter.
As such, we must adopt the view that the very realistic reality we have is that justifiable and verifiable reality from empirical evidence and supported by philosophical reasonings.
But the point is what is real in this case rest on a continuum of reality which stretch from what is highly real [90/100] to the extreme of a hallucination [real like mirage or those experienced by schizophrenics, 20/100, to a highly speculated simulated reality by highly evolved beings from light years away 1/100.
Note the contrast of my explanation of possible simulated reality [1/100] to your ASSUMPTION of a non-starter-impossible-to-be-real hypothesis.
This is why Philosophy of Science reinforces scientific facts with various qualifications of its limitations to avoid Scientism.
At present the majority of Physicists take philosophical reasonings into account when presenting their theories.
Note this Philosophy & Physics Course in Oxford University;
My point is,Physics and Philosophy are historically intertwined and each continues to contribute to developments in the other.
Philosophy played a crucial role in the two revolutions of 20th-century physics – namely, relativity and quantum mechanics – and continues to contribute both to foundational research in theoretical physics and to the articulation and critique of scientific method.
Conversely, discoveries in physics provide profound implications for philosophical inquiry, such as the nature of space and time and the behaviour of matter at the quantum realm. Students on this course can expect to investigate not only central developments in both subjects, but also this interplay.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergr ... philosophy#:
if you want to consider simulated reality, then you need to approach it from emergences, experiences and empirical evidences with a scientific FSK then proceed to speculate on the possibility of a simulated reality.
I have raised numerous threads on this subject, e.g.
Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34077
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316