tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post1865529763113084549..comments2024-03-22T08:07:47.253+00:00Comments on Alan Winfield's Web Log: Relax, we're not living in a computer simulationAlan Winfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08263812573346115168noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-65231786117491545442016-12-26T19:52:36.195+00:002016-12-26T19:52:36.195+00:00For every question there is an answer, doh.For every question there is an answer, doh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-48129091213782260862016-09-10T13:52:15.166+01:002016-09-10T13:52:15.166+01:00Agree. From inside the simulation you can't ac...Agree. From inside the simulation you can't actually know anything about the hardware or physical laws under which it operates. This becomes an essentially unanswerable question, at which point, I apply Occam.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-32242146819582167592016-09-10T08:46:43.302+01:002016-09-10T08:46:43.302+01:00Did you have anything useful to add?Did you have anything useful to add?Paul Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-84239480520750011152016-09-10T08:22:20.758+01:002016-09-10T08:22:20.758+01:00The simulation hypothesis is very much reminiscent...The simulation hypothesis is very much reminiscent of the discourse around extraterrestrial life, discussions on what is intelligence within cognitive science, as well as social sciences and history (although the historians and anthropologists are better than the rest of us at avoiding this pitfall).<br /><br />Intellectuals see our current paradigms as constant when we have trouble even understanding how educated thinkers thought 500 years ago. In fact academia has trouble fathoming just how alien the thought processes of people who have not have had access to modern education are. This is one of the times when a bit of Karl Popper would have helped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-84144687656052732902016-07-14T01:08:45.193+01:002016-07-14T01:08:45.193+01:00It's a matter of perspective. If you are insi...It's a matter of perspective. If you are inside, clothed in the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, you can ask for and receive anything, a state from which all things can be experienced as simulation as one grows spiritually able to change reality, yet following Jesus' example most things are left alone since complete chaos is irrational. Unclothed, naked from the Spirit, one experiences hard cold reality that is unbending relative to the individual's level in the simulation. So secular theories tend to be descriptions of the darkness atheists personally experience.Kirk W. Fraserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00038625755218275792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-31755288285539420912016-07-08T20:28:04.769+01:002016-07-08T20:28:04.769+01:00While I have my own reason for opposing Musk's...While I have my own reason for opposing Musk's simulation argument I'm not at all convinced by your reasoning Alan! Breifly:<br /><br />1. Using Occam's razor is unconvincing. It is a tool to help one find the most elegant possibilities, not a reason to believe (or disbelieve) any particular possibility.<br />2. The reality gap would (or at least could) be invisible to those within the simulation. I don't see how it is an argument against being part of a simulation.<br />3 & 4. Here you (and you hypothetical opponents) seem to assume that the universe within which the simulation exists has essentially the same limitations and properties, and indeed physical laws, as the simulation which is preposterous. I'm very familiar with technical development (including coding simulations) and am a physicist so I understand your lines of reasoning here - I just think it is very hard to reason about something we know nothing about (what contains our -possibly- simulated universe and how such a simulation might come about) from inside a simulation which is likely to differ immensely from it ways that we can't even conceive.<br /><br />My own counter-reasoning is no more conclusive than Musk's but did fit into a tweet ;-) and is as follows (as far as I can recall it): a simulation is a human concept, and it seems implausible that something so limited and temporary could capture the essence of a universe we are far from comprehending.<br /><br />Not conclusive, but I think trying to reason about something beyond our own universe is akin to ants trying to reason about the nature of planet earth. They lack the cognitive functions, and I think we find it hard to accept that we are also limited in that respect, which limits what we can imagine and the ways in which we can relate to our circumstances. I think Douglas Adams' Deep Thought hinted strongly at the problems in this area (with the answer is 42, but now you need to go and discover "the question"). As humans, we are predisposed to see the universe as a problem to understand and explain. Perhaps that is one of the biggest limitations in how we relate to it. So by wondering if this is a simulation or not, we're already limiting ourselves. Perhaps it is legitimate to realise that there is no context to be understood.<br /><br />The human mind is a meaning making machine - because that property has enabled us to evolve. That doesn't mean that we have to look for meaning everywhere, or that looking for meaning and explanation is worthwhile in any other context than survival and evolution. <br /><br />So when we try to open up to the universe as a whole, asking what it is just might not be "the question". Perhaps there is no question.Mark Hugheshttps://twitter.com/markhughesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20402273.post-79263824684718689992016-07-08T19:34:16.771+01:002016-07-08T19:34:16.771+01:00The idea of living in a simulated world is just a ...The idea of living in a simulated world is just a silly thought that has earned way to much validity because of "pop stars" like Musk. One interesting aspect though is the idea of Fidelity being an illusion. Everything we can reach out and touch, even something as solid as a rock, is a collection of non-touchable sort-of-there elements of electrical charges. SO, in a way, the fidelity that you say is to costly to simulated might well exist on a distributed level. That is, my cat might as well be a lump of matter simulating fur and breathing and begging for food, while my hand is the blank end of a stick simulating what a hand is like. sd marlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047897500941324780noreply@blogger.com