Holy shit is this a funny thread!

A pissing contest over a no true Strawman.

That's one answer, what's the other?

Ok, no more hints after this one.

When a union is perfected it becomes complete...

All sorts of things happen all around the universe that have nothing to do with the "wants" of conscious beings. — ZhouBoTong

I don't necessarily disagree here but wonder what makes you say that that is not the case?

Infinite "worlds" would be popping in and out of existence constantly if all wants were suddenly fulfilled) — ZhouBoTong

More like the inverse.

I just realized, are you already thinking the world is almost entirely deterministic and our will is the last hiding place for an undetermined world? — ZhouBoTong

Pertaining to any conscious entity I don't see why not.

Guess I'd make a lousy solipsist because no, that doesn't make sense to me. — noAxioms

Dreams are just an example here if it's really that hard to comprehend.

You're saying the original universe is simulating the experience of something with the same rules as itself. How might you know that? — noAxioms

Hmmm, it seems to me that to emulate the ancestor universe would be pointless, so I don't think there are hidden variables at play in any particular sub-universe. It would require one to continuously rewrite the code of the current universe to be able to simulate it with new rules. Not impossible though.

Even in a world where every want is met, only the meeting of wants would be wholly deterministic. — ZhouBoTong

What do you mean?

No, but do those exist to a solipsist? — noAxioms

To a solipsist, the only universe that exists is one in which their self is the same with the world. Does that make more sense?

You talking about the scale of the container universe simulating this one? The properties of that are completely undefined, so I can offer no opinion. — noAxioms

That's true; but, we can measure models and traits of the original universe through measurement and observation of this one, yes? Kinda, Plato's cave or Kantian noumenal.

Continuously expanding or not, I can count the electrons in it, so it seems countably infinite, no? — noAxioms

Are you also considering the multitude of multiverses also? Yeah, I know, uncountable or countable? Seems to me that determinism is inescapable either way.

As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision. — noAxioms

No, not really. Any solipsistic universe can be (potentially) uncountably infinite, as per the pre-existing universe from where the solipsist derives their solipsism.

It goes from countable to uncountable when growing 10%?
If not, what do you mean by that reply? — noAxioms

I meant that it is either uncountably infinite or continuously expanding.

See my response to ZhouBoTong

And now everyone wants more than they have — ZhouBoTong

I don't think the process can keep on going on forever unless there truly are no limits to wants. But, at that point it would be the same as saying that a universe where every want can be satisfied is tantamount to a perfect world, no?

What happens when a union is perfected?

So, the differences are superficial? A world where everyone gets what they want can only exist in an infinitesimally small timeframe; but, for that moment in time, the wavefunction won't collapse.

That isn't what I said at all. — Bartricks

What were you trying to say, then?

This is actually pretty interesting to consider. I can't come up with reasons why a world where nobody wants anything is necessarily more deterministic than a world where people want stuff?? — ZhouBoTong

Because if panpsychism is true, then nobody would want anything more than what they have. I know, it sounds like communism or some such; but, this is just a point of maxima convergence.

But then that just amounts to saying that you can't imagine anywhere better once you understand that this world is the best.

But in that case we could just say that this world is maximally good or something. The addition of 'best of all possible worlds' seems to add nothing. — Bartricks

Yep, a perfect world, is one where nobody wants anything more, at which point everything then HAS TO become deterministic.

You read that PDF I sent you?

It seems to point towards panpsychism.

So it is an actual world? Or just an imaginary one? — Bartricks

It can be both...

I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile: — Gnomon

But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism...

What's a 'possible world'? I have no clear idea. — Bartricks

One where things could have happened differently.

An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel. — noAxioms

I think it more as an issue of countably infinite alphabets versus uncountably infinite alphabets as an analogy.

I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming? — Gnomon

Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds!

;

I don't follow. :smile: — Gnomon

Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.

If, then, what?

I guess it will take some time.

I'm so fucking tired right now.

I guess I gazed into the abyss for too long.

Yeah, I saw a person eating their own shit. I saw thing you know.

How do I decompress without imploding? Cuz that's how I feel at the moment.

No, not jail. Just to a psychiatric hospital.

Voluntary commit to an institution?

I'm not making this shit up.

How long do we have to wait for the answer of the riddle? — Nils Loc

I'm still waiting for answers.

Fine...

Who does a triple agent work for?

How? — TheMadFool

If an entity becomes a solipsist, then isn't that tantamount to becoming a (lower-case-g)od?

With the caveat that this entity cannot prove to itself that it is god.

I don't think solipsism is a proven thing. — god must be atheist

It's rather transcendental rather than provable.

I'll let you rethink that a little.

If the claim "This is the best of all possible worlds" were true, then you would not be questioning it. — Pantagruel

No, I would actually be propounding, and exalting it!

It really isn't that complicated. Although, those two are pretty cool, yes?

Because of solipsism it must be pantheism.

What you guessed would mean god dwells in this world; but he does not, according to theMadFool: Because god is beyond time, beyond space, and beyond matter... that is, on the "other side", which is not this side, not this world. God's spacial, temporal and material existence excludes him from occupying space and happening in time in our spacial and temporal world. Which means he is in another world, so it can't be Pantheism, either. — god must be atheist

It must be pantheism.

God simply exists and nowhere have I heard people claiming a world for god to inhabit. — TheMadFool

Pantheism?

“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.” — Possibility

So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's?

The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection. — Gnomon

No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones.

Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree. The self-guided rational goal must include the possibility of wavefunction collapse and a static (best) wavefunction non-collapse.

(Intelligent design and the fact of simulated realities, overlap)