More on the simulated universe

[Nearly Sane]

I know we had a thread on the idea that we are living in a simulation but couldn't find it. One of the bits in the article linked to believe claims that if we were to evidence the simulation it would be a significant as the Copernican revolution. It strikes me that even if we are, we cannot help but live in the same way.

Also, on a day to day basis I am unsure that the Copernican revolution is that significant to me



http://tinyurl.com/zeeazju

[torridon]

If we are conscious bots in a computer game, then whoever is behind the simulation would themselves also be bots in a higher still simulation and so on.  Just can't get away from them damn turtles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we are conscious bots in a computer game, then whoever is behind the simulation would themselves also be bots in a higher still simulation and so on.  Just can't get away from them damn turtles.

How do you figure that out?

[torridon]

Just applying the same thinking through. 

If the reasoning says that a conscious being is overwhelmingly likely to be in a simulation created by higher conscious beings, then the same logic would suggest that those higher beings are also overwhelmingly likely to be bots in a higher still simulation.

[Sriram]

I know we had a thread on the idea that we are living in a simulation but couldn't find it. One of the bits in the article linked to believe claims that if we were to evidence the simulation it would be a significant as the Copernican revolution. It strikes me that even if we are, we cannot help but live in the same way.

Also, on a day to day basis I am unsure that the Copernican revolution is that significant to me



http://tinyurl.com/zeeazju

The idea of a Simulated world is not very different from an illusionary world that the ancients have talked about.

Sorry to bring up NDE's again.....but the idea of a person (spirit-self) getting into a body and experiencing the world and finally getting out of it.... and feeling disconnected with the physical world is also similar to the simulated universe. Getting out of the body is no different from getting out of a VR headset.

Its all converging IMO. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just applying the same thinking through. 

If the reasoning says that a conscious being is overwhelmingly likely to be in a simulation created by higher conscious beings, then the same logic would suggest that those higher beings are also overwhelmingly likely to be bots in a higher still simulation.

I think you have interpolated the word ''overwhelmingly'' here.
If we take the theory usually considered to be overwhelmingly likely we have evolved beings creating simulated universes.

I think ''likelyhood'' is to do with probability isn't it. I don't see probabilities laid out for any explanation of the universe.

This forum forfeited it's right to ''likelihood'' when it jumped on the scientism bandwagon.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think you have interpolated the word ''overwhelmingly'' here.
If we take the theory usually considered to be overwhelmingly likely we have evolved beings creating simulated universes.

I think ''likelyhood'' is to do with probability isn't it. I don't see probabilities laid out for any explanation of the universe.

This forum forfeited it's right to ''likelihood'' when it jumped on the scientism bandwagon.

And you came along just for the ride?

[torridon]

The idea of a Simulated world is not very different from an illusionary world that the ancients have talked about.

Sorry to bring up NDE's again.....but the idea of a person (spirit-self) getting into a body and experiencing the world and finally getting out of it.... and feeling disconnected with the physical world is also similar to the simulated universe. Getting out of the body is no different from getting out of a VR headset.

Its all converging IMO. 

I think you have some sort of fixation with NDEs and OBEs; this is your Achilles heel preventing clarity of reasoning.

Most people think the idea of a simulation is a bit of sci-fi whacko stuff but I think it a better explanation of our situation than theism, for instance.  Theism has less explanatory value, is tautological in nature, and is more barking than simulation theory but it has become culturally embedded into our psyche over the millennia so we don't tend to realise how far fetched it is.

Simulation theory can explain observations, it can explain star clusters and frogs and insurance salesmen.  Theism and reincarnation both fail to explain mind/spirit or whatever - it leaves them as unexplained entities that enter into the simulation at birth and leave it at death perhaps to re-enter the simulation again in the case of reincarnation. They fail to explain the essence of what we really want to understand.  They not only fail to explain the nature of the souls,  they fail to explain any mechanism for entry into and departure from the simulation, they fail to explain the apparent developmental synchronicity between mind and body.  An octopus has nine brains - are we to imagine that nine souls having some sort of empathetic connection with each other outside the simulation descend into the simulation in tandem and merge seamlessly into the happy product of Mr and Mrs Octopus' union ?  Trying to crowbar NDEs into simulation theory only creates multitudinous new problems for it; Mr Ockham would not be impressed.

Simulation theory on the other hand has no such shortcomings, its Achilles heel is that it suggests an infinite regress of simulators who are themselves products of a higher simulation.

[Sriram]

I think you have some sort of fixation with NDEs and OBEs; this is your Achilles heel preventing clarity of reasoning.

Most people think the idea of a simulation is a bit of sci-fi whacko stuff but I think it a better explanation of our situation than theism, for instance.  Theism has less explanatory value and is more barking than simulation theory but it has become culturally embedded into our psyche over the millennia so we don't tend to realise how far fetched it is.

Simulation theory can explain observations, it can explain star clusters and frogs and insurance salesmen.  Theism and reincarnation both fail to explain mind/spirit or whatever - it leaves them as unexplained entities that enter into the simulation at birth and leave it at death perhaps to re-enter the simulation again in the case of reincarnation. They fail to explain the essence of what we really want to understand.  They not only fail to explain the nature of the souls,  they fail to explain any mechanism for entry into and departure from the simulation, they fail to explain the apparent developmental synchronicity between mind and body.  An octopus has nine brains - are we to imagine that nine souls having some sort of empathetic connection with each other outside the simulation descend into the simulation in tandem and merge seamlessly into the happy product of Mr and Mrs Octopus' union ?  Trying to crowbar NDEs into simulation theory only creates multitudinous new problems for it; Mr Ockham would not be impressed.

Simulation theory on the other hand has no such shortcomings, its Achilles heel is that it suggests an infinite regress of simulators who are themselves products of a higher simulation.

NDE's are real events and only by taking them into account can we even attempt to form a meaningful idea of the world and of our lives. Reiteration of  observed facts is not fixation. NDE's are evidence of something real that is happening. 

We cannot have theories in the air... while ignoring direct and widespread experiences.  How meaningful can such 'theories' be?!

[torridon]

NDE's are real events and only by taking them into account can we even attempt to form a meaningful idea of the world and of our lives. Reiteration of  observed facts is not fixation. NDE's are evidence of something real that is happening. 

We can explain NDEs in terms of medical science without recourse to fantastic explanations.  There is no element of claimed near death experiences that has not already been reproduced in the laboratory through neuroscience techniques or induced via ingestion of psychedelic neurotoxins.    Under severe stress brains can produce curious phenomenology that are characteristic of the underlying medical pathology; we would expect that.

[Sriram]

We can explain NDEs in terms of medical science without recourse to fantastic explanations.  There is no element of claimed near death experiences that has not already been reproduced in the laboratory through neuroscience techniques or induced via ingestion of psychedelic neurotoxins.    Under severe stress brains can produce curious phenomenology that are characteristic of the underlying medical pathology; we would expect that.

No....most serious researchers are not convinced by such 'mundane' explanations. I am not!

I am convinced that NDE's are real after-life experiences and that without taking them into account we cannot possibly form any meaningful 'theories' of the universe or of life in general.

[torridon]

No....most serious researchers are not convinced by such 'mundane' explanations. I am not!

I am convinced that NDE's are real after-life experiences and that without taking them into account we cannot possibly form any meaningful 'theories' of the universe or of life in general.

By 'most serious researchers' you probably mean the population of people who are mostly already believers in some sort of afterlife idea and are hence drawn to study NDEs to support their beliefs.  In the far bigger picture of the overall medical science community most serious researchers do not take such fantastic anecdotal claims at face value especially when they originate from patients in far from optimal health and when simpler explanations are to hand.  It is a really bad way to do science.  And anyway, even if the notion that these events do represent some sort of passage out of the simulator it does not explain the nature of the being in transit, it does not explain the mechanisms by which these beings integrate into the simulation nor the mechanism by which they detach.  In other words, far from being a good explanation, which would simplify and aid understanding, this thinking is problematic in that it infers a huge landscape of unexplained and unnecessary ideas.

[Sriram]

By 'most serious researchers' you probably mean the population of people who are mostly already believers in some sort of afterlife idea and are hence drawn to study NDEs to support their beliefs.  In the far bigger picture of the overall medical science community most serious researchers do not take such fantastic anecdotal claims at face value especially when they originate from patients in far from optimal health and when simpler explanations are to hand.  It is a really bad way to do science.  And anyway, even if the notion that these events do represent some sort of passage out of the simulator it does not explain the nature of the being in transit, it does not explain the mechanisms by which these beings integrate into the simulation nor the mechanism by which they detach.  In other words, far from being a good explanation, which would simplify and aid understanding, this thinking is problematic in that it infers a huge landscape of unexplained and unnecessary ideas.

You can't throw away most of the jigsaw puzzle pieces just because they don't fit into the 'simple' little picture that you have managed to put together with a few familiar pieces.  All pieces have to be taken into account however complex the final picture may be.

[torridon]

You can't throw away most of the jigsaw puzzle pieces just because they don't fit into the 'simple' little picture that you have managed to put together with a few familiar pieces.  All pieces have to be taken into account however complex the final picture may be.

The NDE jigsaw pieces are already accommodated in a coherent picture derived from quantum theory up to medical science - as curious phenomenological by-products of brains. Ask anyone in the 60's tripping on acid and they will soon convince you of how easily our brains produce exotic forms of experience and altered states of consciousness.  This is what brains are apt to do. 

The jigsaw that you are hijacking NDEs for has lots of holes in it, too many holes for a coherent picture.  You haven't said yet, for instance, if an NDE is the passage of a being out of a simulation, what then is the nature of that being ? You haven't said yet, by what mechanism do these beings integrate with elements of the simulation.   These are big holes in your picture and unless you can supply reasonable details to fill such holes then you can't claim to have a coherent picture into which the NDE pieces fit.  It's not so much a reasonable picture as pie in the sky thinking.

[Sriram]

The NDE jigsaw pieces are already accommodated in a coherent picture derived from quantum theory up to medical science - as curious phenomenological by-products of brains. Ask anyone in the 60's tripping on acid and they will soon convince you of how easily our brains produce exotic forms of experience and altered states of consciousness.  This is what brains are apt to do. 

The jigsaw that you are hijacking NDEs for has lots of holes in it, too many holes for a coherent picture.  You haven't said yet, for instance, if an NDE is the passage of a being out of a simulation, what then is the nature of that being ? You haven't said yet, by what mechanism do these beings integrate with elements of the simulation.   These are big holes in your picture and unless you can supply reasonable details to fill such holes then you can't claim to have a coherent picture into which the NDE pieces fit.  It's not so much a reasonable picture as pie in the sky thinking.

The 'brain of the gaps' is as bad as the 'God of the gaps' IMO.