I guess the Matrix is a simulation to many sentient programs, and VR to many other sentient programs (Smith and Oracle, for example) and humans.The Matrix is also an example of a VR, not an example of the simulation hypothesis. — noAxioms
After decades of reading fantasy/scifi, I haven't been able to get started for the last few years.I just find it difficult to read fiction. — punos
If I could makes any one book required reading for everyone, it would probably be Dune.I never read the Dune book or books — punos
And they usually fail, it seems to me. The large muscles that are in motion can't be stopped sufficiently by the smaller ones. Still, they are able to try.I assume it takes practice to get very good at that. — punos
Difficulty to test it. If I know I'm on the wrong screen, I don't commit myself in the first place.I'm also sure you can train yourself to be more conscious about taping that icon. It's probably a good idea to at least run that experiment on yourself. See how it goes, and see what you learn. — punos
Yes. If human minds exist because of physics. Or, since the human body, particularly the brain, seems indispensable for the existence of human minds, if they exist solely because of physics.↪Patterner if it doesn't exist because of physics, it exists because of human minds, but human minds exist because of physics, then...
Then human minds aren't fundamental, they exist because of physics, and indirectly those other things exist because of physics too. — flannel jesus
Indeed. Fundamental things are not responsible for books, televisions, the internet, space shuttles, music, automobiles, bombs, poetry, mathematics, and a billion other things we could list. Not one of these things exists because of the laws of physics and properties of particles. They only exist because of human minds. I do not think the sole cause of the world being reshaped so thoroughly, in so many ways, could be not real.I think we need a way for non fundamental things to still be real. Basically. Because WE are non fundamental, and my mind is the most real thing I know. — flannel jesus
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:. It's really hard to type causal instead of casual using swipe text on my phone — flannel jesus
What makes free will possible?The second important point is: the lack of determinism does not imply free will, it only implies randomness, and randomness is not what makes free will possible. — noAxioms
That's what I'm asking.Speak for yourself. I picked the cars as an example since I consider it to be making choices, even if I don't think it is a very good example of AI. They're complicated, but still very much automatons, but they do make choices about which route, which lane to use, and so on. If that's not choice, then fundamentally, as a physicalist, what am I doing that is different? — noAxioms
I suspect the reason believers who don't engage in empirical research don't engage in empirical research is their minds aren't strong in that area. "God did it" and "How does it work" are not incompatible thoughts. Francis Collins is such a strong believer that, when he finished mapping the human genome, he called it the Language of God. Also Mendel, Carver, Maxwell, Cantor, Kelvin, Heisenberg, and many others."Does naturalism state that we currently know of all things natural?" -Patterner
Quite the opposite. It implies that it is far better to say "We don't know how X works yet" than to say "X? Oh, that's done by Gods, magic, woo, whatever. The latter attitude discourages research. The former methodology encourages it.
Hence the dark ages when methodological supernaturalism was prevalent, and the explosion of knowledge when methodological naturalism took over some 7 centuries ago give or take.
If your question is about a new kind of physics that implements mind, well, if it can be shown that such is how it really works, then it falls under naturalism, yes. But nobody is treating it as something that can be investigated. The whole point of woo is that it be based on faith in lieu of lack of evidence. So empirical research into any of it is discouraged. — noAxioms
Agreed. The question of freedom arises when asking whether or not the decision to fix the race is anything other than physical interactions. Are we anything other than extraordinarily complex wind up toys?Yes, that's right. But that form of determinism does not amount to anything that could threaten freedom. There's a difference between being able to determine which horse will win the race, in the sense of being able to predict the result of the race and being able to determine which horse will win the race by fixing the race. Laplace's demon can do the first, but not the second. — Ludwig V
Right. But our will is the result of physical interactions. Regardless of their complexity, physical interactional are physical interactions.The pool balls can come to rest in a huge number of arrangements after being struck by the cue ball at the break. But I wouldn't say any arrangement is ever a choice.
— Patterner
Pool balls don't seem to be an example of something enacting will, of something making choices. — noAxioms
The pool balls can come to rest in a huge number of arrangements after being struck by the cue ball at the break. But I wouldn't say any arrangement is ever a choice. Aside from the greater numbers and complexity of the types of physical interactions, in what way are our choices different if we don't have free will?Not having free will does not mean you have no choice. — noAxioms
Does naturalism state that we currently know of all things natural?Thee simulator implements physics. Physics implements your consciousness, regardless of whether the physics is simulated or not. Under supernaturalism, this isn't true. — noAxioms
If entities create a simulation that includes other entities that do not have free will, the creators would be ... what's there right word ... idiots if they held the creations responsible for their choices. i'm not sure it would be worse to hold characters in a story you write responsible for their choices.I don't hold a presumption that the entities in the simulation will be held responsible for their choices, by entities not in the simulation. — noAxioms
I don't know why you think that, even in principle, the demon cannot exist inside of the same universe it's capable of predicting, even if that universe is 100% physicalist and 100% deterministic. But actually, two thoughts came to mind. My first thought was that you thought something that is not 100% physicalist and 100% deterministic would be, as it were, breaking the rules.↪Patterner I have no idea what the first thing is that you're disagreeing with — flannel jesus
I don't know what you have in mind. But if it's the first thing I can think of, I disagree. First, it could, itself, be ruled entirely by determinism.↪Patterner It should be noted, and maybe already has, that even in principle the demon cannot exist inside of the same universe it's capable of predicting, even if that universe is 100% physicalist and 100% deterministic. — flannel jesus
I agree. I think Laplace was just saying something with all knowledge of where everything is and of all the forces would be able to calculate everything for the future. Sure worried be nice, since it could tell us about any asteroids that are going to impact the Earth. It could probably solve cold fusion pretty easily, also.That's fair enough. I'm just trying to say that it isn't an empirical idea - no amount of empirical evidence will confirm it, or refute it. — Ludwig V
It's Laplace's premise. It's not mine. I don't believe it to be the case.IF determinism rules all things..." but does it? What's your evidence? — Ludwig V
My guess is that he didn't want to get into God, because that would be a discussion about why God set things in motion in exactly that way. What's the plan, what's the purpose. That kind of thing. He only wanted to discuss the positions, properties, and forces.Interesting that he doesn't mention that God would be such an intellect. — Ludwig V
I don't think it was specifically for you.That's... now what I said. That's not even a response to what I said. — flannel jesus
Autocorrect?↪Ludwig V it doesn't struggle have to, though. — flannel jesus
Yes. I would not interpret Laplace's words as including any other universes. The defined system is the universe.Nonetheless, it is treating the universe as a closed system. — Ludwig V
I answer Yes to both. Why not? That's the premise. Determinism rules all things, and LD has the perception and intellect to figure everything out.1 If LD cannot figure some things out, what follows? Does it follow that determinism is false? No.
2 If LD can predict everything accurately for the next nyears where n is any number you like. Does it follow that determinism is true? No. — Ludwig V
LD is also aware of where every particle in the universe outside of our solar system is, which way each is going, and can calculate which will interact with our SS, and when. Even if two hunks of rock a thousand light-years away that are not heading this way are going to collide, and some debris from that collision will then head this way.If you think of some restricted problem, such as the movements of the planets in our solar system, this seems to work. But it treats the solar system as a closed system and restricts the predictions that are made about it. — Ludwig V
I didn't get a notification of this. Glitch the matrix?That's exactly what they want me to believe.
— Patterner
Do you think avatars in video games can believe anything? — Janus
That's exactly what they want me to believe.I am not an avatar in a video game, for the usual Cartesian reason. There's a "me" in here having subjective experiences. — fishfry
Well, I mean, since LD doesn't actually exist, no, it isn't really useful in determining whether or not the universe is deterministic. LD isn't a diagnostic tool. It's just an interesting way of expressing what a deterministic universe is like. If we actually had an LD, all of our questions would be answered. It might say, "Quantum events are uncaused. Therefore, I can't know precisely how things at the quantum level will look at any point in the future." Or it might say, "Quantum events only appear uncaused to humans, because you don't have sufficient intelligence (or senses, or technology) to understand the causes. But I see their causes and understand them, so I can calculate where everything at the quantum level will be at any point in the future."Then LD isn't really useful in determining whether or not the universe is deterministic. — Harry Hindu
Certainly, the macro physical universe is deterministic. We can calculate a whole lot of what's going to happen in the future. We know when Haley's comet will be back again. We know when the next high tide will be on any beach. We can shoot a moving target with a gun, drive cars, play baseball, and any number of other things.The question then is if the universe is not deterministic, then why does it appear that it is? How are we able to make consistent predictions and when our predictions fail we can point to some information we lacked in making the prediction. We only know that our prediction failed when we have access to new information. — Harry Hindu
I don't see why not. If idealism is correct, the reality the minds are thinking up that we take to be physical has consistent properties, rules, etc. No reason LD couldn't know all there is to know about all those properties, rules, etc., regardless of their true nature.I agree. I guess where I was headed is that an idealist can also be a determinist. LD can be revised to know everything about a universe that is essentially mind. — frank
That, I believe, is the point of LD. Maybe? If all is deterministic, then numbers and information, and consciousness and intent, are irrelevant. It can all be reduced to particle physics, just as thermodynamics can. I suppose it would know why brain states also feel like mental states to us. But if "feel like" is all there is, but they have no casual power, and are, themselves, determined by the physical events, then it doesn't matter. Itt doesn't interfere with the calculations.That's if you limit LD to so-called physical events, which automatically excludes non-physical things like numbers and mental states. We could imagine an LD that has knowledge of the non-physical stuff, right? — frank
I believe this is saying that LD knows everything about everything IF everything about everything is deterministic. That, I believe, is the point of Laplace's thought experiment.We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. — Laplace