You didn't understand the argument. — Hallucinogen

Possibly. I also could see no reason for making it in the first place. What did you want an indifferent self-created god for?

supposing simulation is true. Which you can't prove. — Vaskane

It was proven in the second premise, which had a substantial amount of supporting text below the argument.

Point out the exact statement I made that is "god of the gaps". — Hallucinogen

Your thread title!!!! and most of the statement made in your opening! — universeness

An X of the gaps fallacy is when there's an unknown connection between 2 things and someone makes an inference from the unknown to some 3rd entity. That's not anywhere in my reasoning nor in the title.

The holographic principle is a reductio ad absurdum as proven by Nietzsche — Vaskane

You're absolutely right, we need to tell Susskind et al

It's a snake-eating exercise:

Any simulation of a world — Hallucinogen

would have to simulate a world that physically exists; a hologram is digital representation of a physical object. All the rest follows from the impossibility of 'simulating' a holographic space into existence out of a mind that consists of nothing. Might as well go back to "In the beginning was the Word." (and the word was either 'quantum' or 'abracadabra'.)
The snake looked up, the hungry snake looked up, and was not fed, for its tail was only a simulation.

First, I love original attempts at proof of God arguments! Well done. Lets see if it holds.

1. Any simulation of a world either operates mechanically in physical space (e.g., in a computer) or is the result of information processing in a mind (e.g., a programmer’s mind).

Can you clarify what simulation means? How does this contrast with reality? The idea of a simulation entails an emulation of what is real correct?

For now, the only thing I can conclude is that you are currently claiming that "Our current reality is a simulation of the world."

2. The success of digital physics and the holographic principle imply that physical space is an emergent 3D representation of information processing.

So far you haven't declared what physical space is, we're assuming this is a simulation. That means we have to add an adjective for this statement to still be clear. "...imply that simulated physical space..."

With this, you're still good.

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.

Once again, add "simulated physical space" because you have not yet declared what non-simulated space would be.

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind.

As long as we retain "simulated physical space", this seems fine.

5. Restating (1) in terms of (4), our world is either scientifically indistinguishable from the result of information processing in a mind, or it is the result of information processing in a mind.

Finally we have to add, "our simulated world..." and this holds.

6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God.[/quote]

Finally you can state: "Therefore, our simulated world is the result of information processing in in a mind, this mind we call God."

We can call it God if we want, but the mind could also be called a "human" or "computer". So, very cool idea, but as you can tell without first contrasting what a simulation is vs what a non-simulated world is, its mostly circular. I've done a couple of "Prove God" posts in my past if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8924/a-fun-puzzle-for-the-forums-the-probability-of-god/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binary distinction. You either see an object or your don't. You either distinguish something from another, or you don't. Our perception is completely dependent on binary distinctions. — Hallucinogen

Clearly you do not understand what you're talking about.

without first contrasting what a simulation is vs what a non-simulated world is, its mostly circular. — Philosophim

A world is a set of objects in a space. The decision of whether something is simulated versus non-simulated would rest on whether something emerges from information processing.
I haven't spotted the circularity, could you point it out to me?

Common sense tells me that there is a difference between reflection and what is reflected. Isn't the event horizon of a black hole just a reflection of what's inside the hole? If so, the metaphysical holographic principle consists of confusing the cause with the effect, and not only that, but it tries to eliminate the cause to be left with only the effect.


There also seems to be confusion about what "information" means. In physics, information is nothing other than the more or less ordered arrangement of different objects. Whether they are waves, whether they are entangled particles, etc. And I mention these last two cases because it is how it has been theorized that information exists in the event horizon.

without first contrasting what a simulation is vs what a non-simulated world is, its mostly circular.
— Philosophim

A world is a set of objects in a space. The decision of whether something is simulated versus non-simulated would rest on whether something emerges from information processing.
I haven't spotted the circularity, could you point it out to me? — Hallucinogen

Sure. What I meant is that without defining what a non-simulated world is, but only defining a simulated world, its turned out like:

A. Its given that the world is simulated.
B. Therefore the world is simulated.

What I meant is that without defining what a non-simulated world is — Philosophim

But I just did this? A world is a set of objects in a space. The question is whether it emerges from information processing or not.

its turned out like:

A. Its given that the world is simulated.
B. Therefore the world is simulated. — Philosophim

That's not the conclusion of the argument. And it leaves out the rest of the argument, which establishes the connections between space, information processing and minds.

The possibility of a non-simulated world existing is implicit in the first part of premise 1.

What I meant is that without defining what a non-simulated world is
— Philosophim

But I just did this? A world is a set of objects in a space. The question is whether it emerges from information processing or not. — Hallucinogen

My apologies then, I misunderstood or misread your intentions. I'll give it another read.

1. Any simulation of a world either operates mechanically in physical space (e.g., in a computer) or is the result of information processing in a mind (e.g., a programmer’s mind). — Hallucinogen

A non-simulated world is a set of objects in space. But if that's the case, then a simulated world is not a set of objects in space. Seems clear. But premise one doesn't address this. It notes that a simulation runs in either a non-simulated world, or a mind. These really aren't separate issues though. A mind is not itself a simulation right? Meaning that it is a non-simulated bit of reality that simulations can run in. Is this what you intended, or did you intend for minds to be simulations themselves?

2. The success of digital physics and the holographic principle imply that physical space is an emergent 3D representation of information processing. — Hallucinogen

It doesn't imply that the world is not a set of objects in space however. The simulations we run result in simulated outcomes. An accurate simulation of a non-simulated world can be applied to a non-simulated world without difficulty. I can simulate what will happen to an apple if I drop it using equations, then actually drop the apple. If the simulation is accurate, the apple will drop within a small margin of error of the simulation. That doesn't mean the world is simulated, it just means that simulation of the actual world is accurate. This same point applies to point 3.

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

All that we can conclude from this is that our simulations of the world accurately reflect how our minds function. I suppose it really depends on your definition of mind. Are minds part of a non-simulated world, or are minds simulated themselves?

5. Restating (1) in terms of (4), our world is either scientifically indistinguishable from the result of information processing in a mind, or it is the result of information processing in a mind. — Hallucinogen

I'll repeat what I noted earlier. The only way you can validly claim 4 is based on one is to state, "A simulated world is either..." Because that's what you stated in 1. An accurate simulation of a world will accurately portray how the non-simulated world functions. There has to be something non-simulated to simulate right? Otherwise there isn't a non-simulated world, and thus the simulation cannot be accurate or inaccurate, it just is. But if it is an accurate simulation, it is not indistinguishible because it lacks the key property that you defined a non-simulated world as being: A set of objects in space. If a simulated world is a set of objects in space, then it is not a simulated world.

I hope this better reflects what you were trying to state. Please correct me where I've misinterpreted the issue.

A non-simulated world is a set of objects in space. But if that's the case, then a simulated world is not a set of objects in space. — Philosophim

What I said to you above, was:

A world is a set of objects in a space. The decision of whether something is simulated versus non-simulated would rest on whether something emerges from information processing. — Hallucinogen

A set of objects in a space that is not emergent from information processing is a non-simulated world.
A set of objects in a space that is emergent from information processing is a simulated world.

These really aren't separate issues though. — Philosophim

If we have no information then we can begin from the premise that they are. "Space is either mental or physical" assuming that the physical = non-mental, and the mental = non-physical.

A mind is not itself a simulation right? Meaning that it is a non-simulated bit of reality that simulations can run in. — Philosophim

Correct.

An accurate simulation of a non-simulated world can be applied to a non-simulated world without difficulty. — Philosophim

Why is it of importance to point out what we can simulate about a non-simulated world?

That doesn't mean the world is simulated, it just means that simulation of the actual world is accurate. — Philosophim

I'm not sure what you're rebutting here. The world is emergent from information processing, exactly because our models that treat it as such have more explanatory power than those that don't.

All that we can conclude from this is that our simulations of the world accurately reflect how our minds function. — Philosophim

Are you using "our simulations of the world" to mean what theoretical physicists do? What we can conclude is that the information processing space emerges from and the kind that minds produce are the same thing.

The only way you can validly claim 4 is based on one is to state, "A simulated world is either..." Because that's what you stated in 1. — Philosophim

I'm not following this. Claim 4 isn't subject to exceptions about simulations existing in mechanical space because of claim 2. There doesn't need to be an "either" because of 2.

There has to be something non-simulated to simulate right? — Philosophim

There has to be something non-simulated to do the simulating. Those are minds.

Otherwise there isn't a non-simulated world — Philosophim

Yes, there isn't.

and thus the simulation cannot be accurate or inaccurate, it just is. — Philosophim

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "accurate". There isn't a non-simulated world, so the fact that space is emergent from information processing isn't "accurate" to anything other than the information processing in God's mind.

But if it is an accurate simulation, it is not indistinguishible — Philosophim

It isn't indistinguishable from what? Information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind.

because it lacks the key property that you defined a non-simulated world as being: A set of objects in space — Philosophim

I defined a world as a set of objects in a space.

If a simulated world is a set of objects in space, then it is not a simulated world. — Philosophim

Why have you decided this? Every simulated world is a set of objects in a space.

Yes, there isn't. — Hallucinogen

I do not argue about God.

The only thing I say is that Creation has a Creator, and I do not pretend to prove it, but I would like to see someone try to disprove it.

What for? If a proposition is neither proved nor disproved, it's nothing more than a supposition. It doesn't matter.