In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, David Chalmers is interviewed about his latest book : Reality +. It's described as "an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality". He uses the modern metaphor of Virtual Reality in a manner similar to that of Plato's Cave. He describes his Reality + concept in terms that are amenable to my own Enformationism thesis. "The fact that we are conscious beings does not negate the idea that we are sims, since consciousness is substrate independent, emerging from the organization of a complex system, . . . the entities in virtual reality are real . . . they are digital objects, made of information or bits." [my bold] The video game movie TRON is a good illustration. When the hero is inside the game, that simulated world becomes his reality. The only difference is that when you die in our "virtual" reality, you can't leave the game and go back to your "actual" reality. That is, unless there is a techno-heaven for virtual souls to retire to. The interviewer sums up the book : "It is likely that we live in a computer simulation but that should not worry us because everything is still real".I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is. — Agent Smith
Yes. That's the argument Cypher made in The Matrix : the illusion was the only reality he had known, before he was "woke" into the harsh reality of the dismal subterranean refuge of the metaphorically named Zion. Several scientists & philosophers (ding an sich) have discussed the same problem with simulated-reality proposals : if you can't tell (experience) the difference, what's the difference? However, as lusty French males used to say, in a different context, "vive la difference". :smile:I recall making an argument that the fact that people think it's possible for reality as we know it to be an illusion (simulation) implies that the real McCoy (true reality) is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the copy (virtual reality). Why should anyone then try to, well, wake up from what we fear/suspect is only a dream? The doubt would only reappear even if it does so, now, at another level so to speak. — Agent Smith
Oui, oui. Since the real world is good enough for survival, but far from optimum, the human mind has developed the unique ability to imagine something better than real. That illusory something is usually referred to as "Ideal". And that's why hard-nosed, leather-hearted Realists are so scornful of the impossible idealistic illusions fostered by optimists and religious authorities (e.g. heaven & nirvana). But, imaginary future states -- such as making-out with the woman in red -- are what drives ambition & progress for humanity. Yet, with age comes the wisdom to lower our expectations : in reality, that gorgeous woman is out of your league. :smile:Why, in your opinion, is the real on every occasion, portrayed as being worse than the illusion. Too good to be true is the taekeaway here, oui? You will recall that drop-dead gorgeous platinum blonde with an hour-glass figure dressed in electrifying red in the training program developed by Mouse in The Matrix? — Agent Smith
Well, I definitely support instead rational thinking and argumentation, as imperfect and versatile as these can be among human beings ...The argument gains strength under Idealism im which god is the all-seeing eye and things are the way they are for a very simple reason - God thinks them! — Agent Smith
Well, I definitely support instead rational thinking and argumentation, as imperfect and versatile as these can be among human beings ...
(BTW, don't forget that God is a concept created by human beings, anyway.) — Alkis Piskas
From some aspect, you might be right. Although I have a difficulty imagining God being examined under a microscope or measuring its electic field as it is done with electrons ...God is as much a concept as an electron is in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith
From some aspect, you might be right. Although I have a difficulty imagining God being examined under a microscope or measuring its electic field as it is done with electrons ... — Alkis Piskas
You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you?There have been attempts, successful/not, you be the judge, to prove the existence of God à la how experimental physicists did for the itsy-bitsy electron. — Agent Smith
↪trogdor I'm not quite sure I follow. — Agent Smith
You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you? — Alkis Piskas
You are not referring to Higgs boson, which took the nickname "God particle", are you? — Alkis Piskas
My point is that God's a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. In that sense then it can never be proven true although it can be considered provisionally true via experimental evidence. — Agent Smith
It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund
To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson as The God Particle, partly to suggest that it world explain one of the great remaining mysteries of physics : the cause of gravitation. But, the tongue-in-cheek name was also intended to be provocative, perhaps to tweak the know-it-alls who see no need for a Universal or First Cause of the physical world. :joke:Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund
It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.) — Alkis Piskas
No, no. This is not the right perspective. @Agent Smith was not referring to Higgs boson ("God particle"). It was just a question I asked ... In fact, a wrong one!To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson... — Gnomon
They have indeed a very strong appeal to everyone of us. And there's a reason for that: one of the things that attracts most the interest of a human being is mystery. Mysteries are a sort of magnetic material that is attracted by our mind acting as a magnet. In a more "crude" form, you can see that even in babies, how their attention is totally absorbed, with their face showing a big wonder, by certain things that have a special appeal to them. To a certain extent, you can see that even in animals. Mystery is a universal attractor in all kinds of life!I'm particularly interested in miracles as evidence. — Agent Smith
What could possibly be simplest explanation for all phenomena? A ToE (theory of everything)? One with just one entity obviously, oui? — Agent Smith
No one's ever made the first jump. — Tank
mystery — Alkis Piskas
Non. I use the word G*D, to refer to the Whole of which we humans and sub-atomic dots are merely Parts. No part is fundamental to reality. However, I do sometimes refer to Generic Information as "fundamental". It's not a particle though, but the Creative Potential for all real forms. Maybe, we could call it the "God Potential", non? :joke:What kinda a particle would you say deserves the name The God Particle? It has to be, well, fundamental to reality as we know it, oui? — Agent Smith
God Potential — Gnomon
What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith
Ya, it does. The ultimate simple is not a part (one of many), but the Whole (all-encompassing Unity).What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith
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.