> On 25 Jan 2015, at 8:39 am, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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?
Wait a moment till I ask the wife....
> And why?
She said God got bored and lonely one day so invented the universe so he could
sit back and be entertained by this vast thing running itself down to thermal
equilibrium. Probably would be a hoot, if you had God's view of it.
>
> 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.
That prima facie appears to be the case, yes. But what if the simulators were
conducting an experiment wherein they themselves had no idea of the outcome,
given a certain set of rules applied? The iteration of the rule set might
entail emergent properties that could not have been foreseen.
>
> 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.
Yes, but I still hold to wildcard possibilities as I mentioned above. Evolution
itself is one such wildcard because it may be that this simply happens,
independently of the simulation and is a result of something else. Evolution is
creativity; it's a result of things not working correctly according to the
rules.
>
> 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.
OK
>
> 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?
Absolutely none whatsoever! At least none that a human would recognise. There
has been no limit to human stupidity, crazy thoughts and beliefs up to here, so
I think we should spare time and energy to try to suss out what the programmers
are up to...maybe using the logic tools of comp.
>
> 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?
But does that matter? Point is, it's not really a belief but a proposal with
mappable features and consequences that follow IF true. The realisation of that
could happen in any universe where universal machines were sufficiently able to
introspect and examine carefully the border of their ignorance (what Bruno
calls Löbianity, or 2nd tier consciousness.) The 'true belief' that I am living
in a physically real universe is not on any firmer ground than this. The
Holographic universe concept is the physicalist's way of perhaps getting a bit
closer to what goes on at "the border of our ignorance".
>
>
> In the second case - it seems like there would be a detectable “seam” in
> reality.
I look for it every day. It's a bloody excellent simulation, to be sure.
> Our behavior and abilities would not be explainable in terms of the observed
> universe - because we are not part of the simulation.
Our behaviour and abilities ARE things in the observed universe because they
impact the observed universe. That doesn't say anything about the nature of the
observed universe other than we can interact with it. We now undergo the comp
'reversal' and say that physics arises as the plural shared belief that there
is something we all perceive in roughly the same way so we might as well grant
it real status to be able to share it and deal with it. We are immortals but we
are plugged into a time-based dynamically evolving system which, presumably, is
the fun part of the ride we are having. We have very little idea whether what
will happen next is what we predict will happen. I imagine God, bored with
being such a knowitall finds it fun to 'not know' for a while, so yeah, maybe
the wife is right...
>
> Our behaviors and abilities would be “supernatural” - coming from outside the
> simulation’s “nature”.
That's how it seems to consistent, honest universal machines, yes. The
perception of something being 'supernatural' is another fun part of this Disney
experience God (ie us) is having. Allows for Harry Potter franchises and the
belief that consciousness disappears at death - which allows for colourful and
operatic funerals and all the gnashing of teeth and wailing over death.
Well, you have already died a myriad times in a myriad ways, so best toget used
to it!
> Here, the simulated part of reality can’t force thoughts and beliefs on you.
> Your ability to reason comes from outside the simulation.
We are using this term 'simulation' a bit too precisely, perhaps. I see it more
as a fractal experience with something arising from simple iteration
(dovetailing) of algorithmic complexity. All you need is to start the thing off
(IC), then 'you' can hop into the ride, sit back and 'believe it's real'. The
reason you believe it's real is because it looks for all the world like you
have local free will and that everything appears to make sense. You 'believe
it's real for the sake of getting the most from the ride! Your ability to
reason comes from outside the VR experience but is determined by the contents
of that experience in some way.
>
> 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?
Well, assuming a physical universe, it can all be seen to be consistent with
those parameters but emergent properties arise along the way which perhaps
cannot be best accounted for using these physicalist's tools. The 'behaviour'
we want to explain above all is consciousness, but consciousness almost
certainly is not behaviour.
K
--
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.
