Edgar, The Matrix style simulation is a very special case and it's description in which a biological being has its sensory data shunted by a virtual interface is beside the point.
Probably a better example is the "uploading" scenario, where the doctor doesn't restore your mind in a physical body, but scans your brain/body into a simulation. at which point you wake up in the simulation. If the simulation is rich enough you might not know the difference. I noticed you did not answer my question, which tells me you do not have an answer. T The point On Jan 13, 2014 7:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Terren, > > No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to > consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or > simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if > a simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST > exist in the actual reality, and if it is not in accordance with the actual > logic of that actual reality it will quickly or eventually fail. The real > being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients etc. in a real > actual reality with which it is in logical synch with. > > Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running or the > simulated being will quickly die in the real actual reality in which it > MUST have an actual existence. So there will always be a way to tell if the > reality you live in is simulated or not. If you actually exist then at > least the basics must be in accord with actual reality. > > Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a simulation > can be wrong and the subject still function, but no essential ones. No > matter how simulated an internal reality is it still must exist in a real > actual reality and this will always eventually give a false simulation away > when it is tested against actual reality by the test of whether it is > consistent with the continued existence and functioning of the subject. > > Edgar > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:48:25 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Edgar, >> >> A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish from >> sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by your own theory >> it is possible to simulate the logic of external reality precisely, as that >> is what you are positing happens at a fundamental level. >> >> I am asking why does a single computational reality need to be >> fundamental? How could you tell in principle if the universe was being >> computed through Ontological Energy (whatever that means in a formal >> sense), vs being a simulation run by an alien in a different universe? >> >> The Church Turing thesis proves that you cannot tell the difference. And >> because there are provably infinite different simulations that could >> emulate your consciousness, assuming comp (yes, doctor), by the UDA all of >> them must contribute to your experience of reality, making it uncomputable. >> >> You can stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't apply, but that is >> not an argument. Until you start addressing questions head on, rather than >> ignoring them or dismissing them insultingly (e.g. adolescent sci-fi), >> nobody here is going to take you all that seriously. And if you don't care >> about being taken seriously, then why are you here? >> >> Answer this question head-on and you won't lose me: >> >> How do you justify the move of using the phenomenal experience of the >> present moment as "obvious" direct evidence of P-time, when you also state >> that our phenomenal experience is an illusory construction of "external >> reality", whatever that is? >> >> If you can answer that question without mere hand waving, then you >> probably also have a valid rebuttal to those who are arguing against your >> dismissal of block time. So it would be worth your while to answer it... >> two birds, one stone. I await your answer. >> >> Hoping for the best... >> Terren >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Terren, >>> >>> I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular >>> simulation is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it >>> didn't accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. >>> The 'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible >>> simulations is adolescent irrational sci fi BS. And if you recall, even in >>> the Matrix they COULD tell which was real and which wasn't. >>> >>> If your simulation was seriously inaccurate you wouldn't be here to tell >>> me I couldn't tell.... >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:58:13 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Terren, >>>>> >>>>> Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical >>>>> realities being computed. There is no Platonia.... >>>>> >>>> >>>> If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then >>>> there's nothing in principle that can select a single computational reality >>>> over any other. All you appear to be doing is making that an assumption of >>>> your theory, but it doesn't really buy you anything and it contradicts >>>> computer science. Sounds exactly like the argument over P-Time and Block >>>> time... what a coincidence! >>>> >>>> >>>>> You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my >>>>> theory. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and because Platonia is logically implied given (what appear to >>>> be) your assumptions, it signifies that your theory is inconsistent. >>>> >>>> >>>>> There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present >>>>> moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our >>>>> existence. Just pull your head out of your books and look around for >>>>> goodness sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present >>>>> moment... >>>>> >>>> >>>> But you have pointed out that every observation we can make is based on >>>> a constructed illusion. How do you go from the time we experience in the >>>> constructed illusion of our experience, to the actual time of the universe? >>>> You have yet to justify that move. >>>> >>>> >>>>> No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation >>>>> of reality is different. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. But there are an infinity of possible programs that compute >>>> your retinal sky in this moment such that it would be impossible for you to >>>> distinguish between them, from the inside. That fact has nothing to do with >>>> my retinal sky, or anyone else's. >>>> >>>> >>>>> There is absolute certain evidence for "real, actual reality". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Evidence for reality only makes sense within a given theory. All we >>>> have are models. What we are all doing here is a search for "the best" >>>> model. Even if we think we have it, we can still never know what reality >>>> really is. IOW there is no such thing as "absolute certain evidence" for >>>> anything. You're engaging in dogma, as if there is only one possible model. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Something has to be real because we exist, and what we exist in is >>>>> reality. Whatever that is is the "real, actual reality". Anyone who >>>>> doesn't >>>>> think reality actually exists is brain dead.... >>>>> >>>> >>>> You seem to be saying that our existence is a fact that refutes the >>>> possibility that we are, as Bruno describes it, "the numbers' dreams". And >>>> while that *is* counter-intuitive, it's not a logical impossibility - on >>>> the contrary, if you say yes to the doctor, it must be the case, unless >>>> there is a flaw with the UDA. >>>> >>>> Terren >>>> >>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Edgar, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Terren, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual >>>>>>> reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your own >>>>>> mental simulation of it, it's not clear how you can be so sure about what >>>>>> "actual reality" is. I understand you have a theory, but that's all any >>>>>> of >>>>>> us have. We can rule theories out when contradicted by evidence, but you >>>>>> haven't provided that, unless you count various hand-waving statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental >>>>>>> simulation of its external reality environment. This whole system, >>>>>>> external >>>>>>> world simulated by the minds of multiple biological observers, actually >>>>>>> consists only of computational information flows in the presence and >>>>>>> logical space of reality. Everything, including ourselves, is analogous >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> running, interacting software programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with that. However in the logical, computational space you >>>>>> anchor your theory in (something referred to on this list sometimes as >>>>>> Platonia), there are an infinity of such "logical realities" that go >>>>>> through your current computational state. From your first-person >>>>>> perspective you cannot predict which of the infinite continuations you >>>>>> will >>>>>> inhabit in the next moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The apparent physicality of reality in the minds of biological >>>>>>> organisms is an evolutionary adaptation to make reality seem more >>>>>>> meaningful and easier to function within. This physicality is not real, >>>>>>> it's an internal mental illusion. I devote the entire Part IV of my book >>>>>>> dissecting this illusion and explaining how it works. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I agree, and this is an important insight. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The book also explains in detail how once we identify and subtract >>>>>>> everything mind adds to reality we arrive at what reality actually is, >>>>>>> pure >>>>>>> information computationally evolving in the logical space of reality I >>>>>>> call >>>>>>> ontological energy. When we peel back all the various layers of >>>>>>> physicality >>>>>>> that mind adds to external reality its remaining purely abstract >>>>>>> information structure is clearly revealed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I think your theory fails because it insists on a single, >>>>>> fundamental computational universe, running in "P-time", for which there >>>>>> is >>>>>> no evidence or theoretical justification (none that you have provided, >>>>>> anyway). I know you point relentlessly to our everyday experience of >>>>>> present-moments, but using introspection as evidence is problematic >>>>>> precisely because as you have pointed out, our subjective reality is >>>>>> based >>>>>> on an illusion constructed in the mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Going from Ontological Energy to Platonia is the same move as going >>>>>> from P-Time to Block Time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> We all live in a world that is actually almost entirely a construct >>>>>>> of our mental simulations of an external information reality. Thus when >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> look out into the world we are mostly looking into the structures of our >>>>>>> own minds. We live inside our minds under what I call the 'retinal sky'. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Retinal sky is a good term. Imagine how many different kinds of >>>>>> programs could compute the same retinal sky for any given moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as robots function within environments they simulate internally >>>>>>> with computations, so do all biological organisms including ourselves. >>>>>>> We >>>>>>> do no 'see' the real actual world, we compute internal models of it and >>>>>>> live within those. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and this is why it is so unclear as to how you can be so >>>>>> certain about what constitutes the "real actual world". Do you have >>>>>> access >>>>>> to some kind of oracle? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any >>>>>>> evidence for. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, if you could only turn such statements inward on your own >>>>>> theories, I think it would be much easier for your ideas to gain >>>>>> traction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations. That's just >>>>>>> adolescent sci fi unless there is some actual evidence. Again I went >>>>>>> through that sci fi phase back in the 1960's in a short story i wrote on >>>>>>> the same theme titled "The Livies". Let's stick to evidence based >>>>>>> reality >>>>>>> rather than sci fi... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> By your own admission above there is no evidence for the "real, >>>>>> actual reality" you've articulated either. It all looks like sci-fi to >>>>>> the >>>>>> naive realist. If we dismissed theories on the basis of weirdness, we >>>>>> would >>>>>> have tossed QM out the window a century ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Terren >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edgar, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed, >>>>>>>> and then conclude that because reality exists, reality must be >>>>>>>> computed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your >>>>>>>> ideas and Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of course >>>>>>>> being that the UDA entails that there are an infinity of computed >>>>>>>> realities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me approach this from a different direction. Given that you >>>>>>>> agree that you could be digitally replaced and not notice the >>>>>>>> difference, >>>>>>>> this also entails that you could be placed into a simulation, where >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> simulated brain is functionally identical to your real brain or the >>>>>>>> prosthetic brain that could replace it with you noticing. So a >>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>> of you embedded in a simulated world is also conscious - this is more >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> less what your theory of consciousness says. The next step is to see >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> there are an infinity of possible simulations that contain your current >>>>>>>> brain state, and thus your consciousness, in this moment (or any given >>>>>>>> moment). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you're still with me we can go back to the UDA, which in so many >>>>>>>> words says that all of these infinite simulations exist in Platonia, >>>>>>>> traced >>>>>>>> by the Universal Dovetailer (a rather simple program) - and your >>>>>>>> moment by >>>>>>>> moment reality is a view from the inside of the infinity of simulations >>>>>>>> that contain you. Indeed, physics and the physical world in general >>>>>>>> represent a stable measure on the kinds of worlds that could support >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> consciousness. But because the infinity of simulations is necessarily >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> renders the physical world, it is not computable. That is the >>>>>>>> contradiction >>>>>>>> entailed by a computational universe such as you elaborate in your >>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is an >>>>>>>> attempt to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most >>>>>>>> problematic >>>>>>>> step for people who don't agree with the UDA. It would be very >>>>>>>> interesting >>>>>>>> if you could identify a flaw in the UDA, supported by arguments rather >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> simple assertion, as you have done to this point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Terren >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to >>>>>>>>> show it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> assume a computational universe in the first place you have to assume >>>>>>>>> (you >>>>>>>>> are assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality exists >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> conclusive proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of >>>>>>>>>>> occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What >>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>> convincing proof could there be? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of >>>>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain >>>>>>>>>> conclusions. If the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then the >>>>>>>>>> correct response is to throw out the original assumptions as >>>>>>>>>> invalid. Bruno >>>>>>>>>> starts from the assumption that consciousness is a form of >>>>>>>>>> computation and >>>>>>>>>> draws certain inferences. This isn't what comp "claims" it's what the >>>>>>>>>> argument shows, given the assumptions. The only way to falsify it is >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> show that one of the assumptions is wrong, or that there is a flaw >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> reasoning that leads to the conclusions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
