Read Seth Lloyd, David Deutsch and Stephen Wolfram – 'computation' has been operationally defined quite rigorously for decades.

:up:

FYI: One of the pioneers of digital philosophy (re: pancomputationalism/digital physics) died a couple of weeks ago, Edward Fredkin. If you are not familiar with him, here's a wiki article with a summary of view on the fundamental nature of information ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics#Pancomputationalism

I became aware of Fredkin through references to him in the writings / interviews of
David Deutsch,
Seth Lloyd,
Max Tegmark,
Stephen Wolfram,
Richard Feynman,
John Wheeler,
Frank Tipler,
Eric Drexler,
Douglas Hofstadter,
Nick Bostrom et al.
In the history of Western philosophy, speculations as divergent as Peirce's semiosis-tychism (pragmaticist), Leibniz's monadology (rationalist) and Democritus-Epicurus' atomism (materialist) are the closest analogues to digital philosophy I've yet found.

I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". :eyes:

@Wayfarer @universeness @apokrisis @Janus

What do you think?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/us/harvard-college-legacy-admissions-lawsuit/index.html

As a non-lawyer I suspect that if this lawsuit rises to the level of SCOTUS review, the Supremes will vote 6-3 in favor of pro-"legacy preference", etc.

Agreed.

IMO, in an egalitarian merit-based – color-blind, race-neutral & gender-neutral – society, (A) legacy preferences for scarce social goods like higher (elite) education would be prohibited by law; also, at minimum, (B) admissions hiring & promotions at all public institutions and nonprofit firms would be regularly conducted by monitored lotteries of eligible candidates from well-regulated pools of qualified applicants; and lastly, (C1) inheritance of over e.g. $1 million (USD) would be taxed at 100% (minus $1 million) and/or (C2) payroll taxes (targetted for funding social security & other social welfare programs) on income would not be capped – or excluded from capital gains (collect via e.g. Tobin Tax) – as they always have been, AFAIK, in the US.

All feasible reforms applicable within the current American legal and fiscal system which, no doubt, would be violently opposed by (both Dems & GOP) plutocrats/oligarchs, their managerial class flunkies and the 24/7 media-triggered reactionary populist (e.g. patriarchal white supremacist) rabble. :brow:

:up:

Recently observed 'time-dilation in the early universe' might account for JWST's anomalous "six galaxies" ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/03/astronomers-observe-time-dilation-in-early-universe

No doubt.

Smart people are as capable of believing their own bullshit as anybody else is. — BC

:up:

e.g. Newton was an alchemist, etc

... because physical things cannot reach these limits, does that mean these limits don't exist? What is the nature of their existence? — Benj96

Horizons "exist" as properties of facts (not things). They are both ever approachable and unreachable; encompassing, yet never encompassed. It doesnt makes sense to me to leap to the groundless supposition that 'more (faster) than everything else' and/or 'less (slower) than everything else' might not "exist".

A systems view speaks to the balance of flow states and habits that integrate selves and their worlds. — apokrisis

:cool: :up:

:up:

More precisely: denials of complexity, uncertainty, contingency ...

What is enthalpy's relationship to entropy? I am asking for a broader ethical point. — schopenhauer1

Maybe this: right conduct's unintended, or unforeseeable, consequences á la local ordering that increases global disorder.

So why make this choice for someone else? — schopenhauer1

Obviously, because they can't make it for themselves before hand.

On the other end we have that which never changed in its entire existence. — Benj96

I don't know what you mean, Benj. Cite an unchangeable – impossible to change, or necessary (i.e. unconditional) – extant state of affairs (i.e. fact). :chin:

... the 'self' as coexisting as subject and object? — Jack Cummins

A parallax (or strange loop) e.g. mine or my corresponds to "self as subject" and yours or his/her corresponds to "self as object", no?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819465

So, I am asking, how do you see the 'self' as coexisting as subject and object? — Jack Cummins

"Self" is a confabulated, continuously sensory-updated, virtual model of this-body-moving-within-its-world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model

As an index of 'emotional identity' (subject?), "self" supervenes on 'physical continuity (object?)'; and that we cannot directly perceive the subpersonal processes which generate "self" seemingly renders it ghostly, disembodied, or free-floating aka "soul" (i.e. spectre of libertarian metaphysics, or idealism).

"Self" is to symphony as embodiment is to orchestra; disband the orchestra (death), silence the symphony (oblivion). :fire:

Last year, I had a life-changing experience at 90 years old. I went to space, after decades of playing an iconic science-fiction character who was exploring the universe. I thought I would experience a deep connection with the immensity around us, a deep call for endless exploration.

"I was absolutely wrong. The strongest feeling, that dominated everything else by far, was the deepest grief that I had ever experienced.

"I understood, in the clearest possible way, that we were living on a tiny oasis of life, surrounded by an immensity of death. I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, of adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting so starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet.

"This was an immensely powerful awakening for me. It filled me with sadness. I realized that we had spent decades, if not centuries, being obsessed with looking away, with looking outside. I did my share in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is and will stay our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable. — William Shatner, actor

*

Man cannot endure his littleness unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level. — Ernest Becker

Brilliant! Thank you. :hearts: :flower:

:up:

Ah, I see. You drank the DNC koolaid. Facts be damned. Gotcha. Have a good one, Rogue.

If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas, the Bush machine stealing Florida wouldn't have mattered.

I remember when Ralph Nader, who I admire, cost Gore the election ... — RogueAI

I don't remember this. What I do remember is that an incumbent vice-president during a time of (domestic) 'peace & prosperity' lost both the popular incumbent president's home state AND his own home state, which put in play Florida which was controlled at the time by the Bush family. Maybe – as a Green Party activist from the late 80s throughout the 90s and supporter of Nader three times for president – my recall is biased, but nonetheless Gore lost both Arkansas & Tennessee (and had refused to let Bill Clinton – unquestionably the best retail politician of his generation – campaign for him in the weeks before election day) contributed significantly more to him losing the election than a very marginal third party candidacy (IIRC, even Pat Buchanan, the far right Reform party candidate, received more votes than Gore had in some Dem precincts according to Florida election officials ... which even got chuckles from Buchanan on cable news). Blaming Gore's loss in 2000 on Nader is, it seems to me, as deluded and/or disingenuous as blaming HRC's loss in 2016 on "Bernie Bros". In both cases – losing the electors for states which, but for the Dems, wouldn't have been in play while also winning the popular vote (a feat which hadn't happened since the late 19th century) – poorly run campaigns of unlikeable candidates, aided and abetted by the DNC no less, threw away those elections.

If I had to, I bet that Trump won't be the GOP nominee (though a MAGA shithead will be).

Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux.

Btw, Putin's Bitch & MAGA GOP candidates have lost in 2018, 2020 & 2022. Despite media hysteria (which is needed apparently to keep the rabble mobilized), MAGA GOP prospects in 2024 are even bleaker in no small part due to SCOTUS' 2022, 2023 (& probably 2024) rulings.

Not seeing that leftward shift in independents yet — Mikie

Neither do I. Be patient. Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756539
Thanks, "Independents". :smirk:

Only the present is real. — Art48

A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present.

I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

:up:

I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer

"Biological evolution" models the development of life just as "Big Bang cosmology" models the development of the universe – neither model explains the "origin" of life or the universe, respectively. However, as reasons to the best explanation, both models (usually) eliminate intelligent reliance on non/super-natural "origin stories".

As long as Shillary isn't the supremely unpopular Dems nominee who carelessly throws away the election again, IMO, Traitor-Seditionist1 can't win.

Whoever the Dem candidate will be in the end will decisively beat any GOP canditate in 2024 due to a significamt "leftward" shift in support by Independents and higher turnout by Dems base voters because of Traitor-Seditionist-1's multiple prosecutions and SCOTUS' MAGA decisions on abortion plus ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819011

MAGA Supremes are pulling the plug on stare decisis in judicial review? And yet Biden still opposes 'packing the court'. :shade:

... the pleasure of pursuing knowledge. — Torus34

Science "pursues knowledge" and AFAIK philosophy does not (but rather makes explicit and interprets (for flourishing) what we do not – perhaps, cannot – know). In either regard, "The Simulation Hypothesis" seems to me an idle thought-experiment.

Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. — RogueAI

Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea how".

Naturalism is a conceptual paradigm, biology is a natural science, NeoDarwinian Evolution is a scientific model. Try not to confuse, or conflate, them, Wayfarer. 'Objections to naturalism' are irrelevant to biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? — RogueAI

At least in h. sapiens it does.

No possibility of machine consciousness?

Non sequitur.

No possibility that this is a simulation?

For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?

What does some "philosophical argument" have to do with a well-tested biological theory? :mask:

:up:

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences? — RogueAI

How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? :roll:

:up:

... anything designated 'revealed truth' will be discounted ... — Wayfarer

Any "truth" that lacks a truth-maker or corroborating public evidence is reasonably discountable (Hume, Kant, Clifford, Popper, Sagan), except, at best, as a fiction.

The problem isn't whether it's a probable possibility but, rather, that it cannot be logically ruled out. — Torus34

The "logic" may be valid but its soundness is dubious at best. An infinity of such notions "cannot be logically ruled out", but so what? Life is short, we need to sort out which of relatively few ideas are worthy of our limited time and energy to seriously consider. By all means, as I'm not aware of any nontrivial^^ grounds, please cite some for bothering to make an effort to think through "the simulation hypothesis". :chin:


^^(a distinction that makes no ontological and/or existential and/or pragmatic difference)