On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random > (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions > lead to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even > approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions. > > > But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the > universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our > minds is intentional or "we" are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are > real and the ride is the simulation. I go for that interpretation - that's > comp. > Who set up this setup job? And why? So you gave two simulation scenarios: (1) The universe is a simulation, and we are a part of that simulation. (2) The universe is a simulation, but we are not part of that simulation. *In the first case* - if you are being simulated, then all of your thoughts and beliefs are part of the simulation. You can not think or believe anything except what is entailed by the rules of the simulation. If a simulated entity correctly deduces that they are inside a simulation - then their deductive process must necessarily be explainable purely in terms of the rules of simulation - because these rules determine the state changes that underlie the entity’s thought processes. So in this case - it really is a setup job. Frame by frame, the movie plays out. The main character in the movie says, “I’m a character in a movie.” Just as the script requires. But the simulation could make you think or believe anything - anything at all. Do you think there is any limit to the possible craziness of simulated thoughts and beliefs? Of all the possible simulated thoughts and beliefs, how likely is it that a simulation would cause you to have the true belief that you are in fact in a simulation? *In the second case *- it seems like there would be a detectable “seam” in reality. Our behavior and abilities would not be explainable in terms of the observed universe - because we are not part of the simulation. Our behaviors and abilities would be “supernatural” - coming from outside the simulation’s “nature”. Here, the simulated part of reality can’t force thoughts and beliefs on you. Your ability to reason comes from outside the simulation. So in this scenario, my questions would be: which of our behavior and abilities do you think can’t be explained in terms of GR+QFT+IC? -- 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/d/optout.
