What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? — Benj96
↪Benj96 What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof
The MatrixCypher : You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher : Ignorance is bliss
Depends on your definition of 'living in a simulation'.Could would be living in a simulation? — Benj96
Flat out zero in my opinion. The arguments involved (usually based on probability) don't hold water.How likely do you think this is?
A simulation of our physics cannot be done with our physics, so the next level up has to be something far more complex, lacking in annoying rules like a limit of information travel speed, limit of three dimensions, etc. So on a pure probability scale, it's kind of like proposing a god: Something far more complex to explain something simple, but still too complex for you to explain. It makes the problem worse.What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation?
Programmed doesn't mean determined. One can program randomness. The simulation would implement one of several interpretations of QM, some of which involve deterministic physics (Bohmian, MWI for instance) and some of which involve randomness (Copenhagen, RQM, or anything with physical wave function collapse). Free will as defined by the dualists (am not part of physics) is out the window for a simulation, which is a monistic proposal. Randomness or lack of it has nothing to do with it.And do you think a simulation must be determined (programmed)
For someone like Cypher, knowing we "live in a simulation" makes no (positive) difference.↪Yohan The point being ...? — 180 Proof
:death: :flower:I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.
~Conan the Cimmerian, "Queen of the Black Coast" (1934) — 180 Proof
It would take enormous amount of computing power to simulate such a vast universe to such a great detail.What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? — Benj96
Are we gonna spend our lives trying to get satisfaction and meaning out something that might not even be real? — Yohan
Its simple. I have yet to find any solid foundation on which life as we know it is grounded upon, therefor I remain open to the possibility that no such foundation exists.You need to provide a compelling reason why you would take this seriously first. 'Perhaps' isn't enough. The world is full of 'perhaps' non of which we follow up. Have you ruled out Scientology or Catholicism? The simulation model to me seems just an updated tech-inspired form of idealism of which there are many models and possibilities. — Tom Storm
The question is an aspect of the more general question: What is reality? Or, how do we know what's real?Sure. Me too. But I'm not investing energy plunging down those capacious rabbit holes. — Tom Storm
Why wouldn't you want to use simulation theory as a tool to refine your understanding of reality and epistemology? — Yohan
This is a meaty philosophy topic. One of greats. — Yohan
What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof
That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)
'Demonstrate' leans toward an empirical epistemology, which I don't think is the right kind of epistemology to use when exploring metaphysical claims.Because, as I said, there is no way of knowing if simulation theory is useful for understanding anything. How do you propose demonstrating that simulation theory (or idealism, which is what it amounts to) is a true account of reality? Answer: you can't. — Tom Storm
Like some Zen guy said. Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water? Is that a reason to not seek enlightenment?And even if someone could somehow prove that idealism is true, it would not change how I behave (as far as I can tell). The world we appear to share may just be appearances, but really we have no choice but to accept it as provisionally real. — Tom Storm
But then an idealist will say "If the world(x) is indistinguishable from a hallucination(y), then the world is a hallucination."As you can see, if I can't tell the difference between x and y then, in my world, x = y. That's all there is to it! — Agent Smith
But then an idealist will say "If the world(x) is indistinguishable from a hallucination(y), then the world is a hallucination." — Yohan
How likely do you think this is? What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? Would you mind personally if it were? And do you think a simulation must be determined (programmed) or could it allow for free will (a sort of self coding open-simulation) ? — Benj96
What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.