A God without compelling evidence?

[Jarhyn]

But if it is impossible to know if the universe is a simulation or not, I don't understand how the third answer [re: the universe MAY BE a simulation] is not just as dishonest.

So you don't understand how a statement that it is impossible to know whether it is or not without further evidence is honest given the fact that it is impossible to know without further evidence?

 

[skepticalbip]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation? Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god, gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?" Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Saying something is a simulation is just being clever, it doesn't answer anything. Why does the moon go through phases? Obviously because it's in the simulation of the moon to go through phases.

Like you said, believing in simulations is the same as believing in gods and woo generally. But if it brings comfort, that's fine. Let's just not invent a new reason to harm one another that has to do with beliefs in the odd.

The proposal of reality being a simulation strikes me as a repackaging of 'Last Thursdayism' or a 'butterfly's dream'. There is no way to PROVE that it's not a simulation, that the universe wasn't created last Thursday exactly as it is, or that I am not a butterfly dreaming that I am a human in a dreamed universe. Proposals that are untestable are only useful as an exercise of mental masturbation... sometimes enjoyable but never productive.

 

[Jarhyn]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation? Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god, gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?" Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Saying something is a simulation is just being clever, it doesn't answer anything. Why does the moon go through phases? Obviously because it's in the simulation of the moon to go through phases.

Like you said, believing in simulations is the same as believing in gods and woo generally. But if it brings comfort, that's fine. Let's just not invent a new reason to harm one another that has to do with beliefs in the odd.

The proposal of reality being a simulation strikes me as a repackaging of 'Last Thursdayism' or a 'butterfly's dream'. There is no way to PROVE that it's not a simulation, that the universe wasn't created last Thursday exactly as it is, or that I am not a butterfly dreaming that I am a human in a dreamed universe. Proposals that are untestable are only useful as an exercise of mental masturbation... sometimes enjoyable but never productive.

I disagree.

This is because I personally would like to be prepared for all manner of situations that would absolutely arise should evidence at some point appear of the "outside environment" -- if we ever manage to pierce the veil.

That said, it absolutely does not do anything to inform us of the ways to meaningfully relate to each other within the context of the universe. As I am (too?) fond of pointing out, the things we must do to have more of this life are the same regardless of whether those strategies were intended to be there or not. That doesn't change. But considering the integral set definitely allows us to be more prepared in the case we get that far.

I mean shit, I have considered contingencies of how to handle being cloned, or ending up a "brain in a jar", or being thrown through time. I don't ever expect any of that to happen. I don't expect us to pierce the veil. I don't think Asimov expected androids to exist in his lifetime either. That said, the consideration of the possibility does prepare us to deal with it in the future, whatever it may contain.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

That said, the consideration of the possibility does prepare us to deal with it in the future, whatever it may contain.

How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed? There are an infinite number of possible alternative universes that could be imagined. If it turns out that we have been fooled and are living in one of them then what are the odds that we imagined the correct one so that we would be prepared for that universe? The chance of being in any of the alternatives are slim considering what is known of this one.

As I said, such ideas can be enjoyable mental masturbation but not productive. OTOH, if we wake in the morning and find that the universe is still what it has always seemed to be then our musings haven't helped us understand and 'deal with the future'.

 

[Jarhyn]

... snip ...

That said, the consideration of the possibility does prepare us to deal with it in the future, whatever it may contain.

How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed? There are an infinite number of possible alternative universes that could be imagined. If it turns out that we have been fooled and are living in one of them then what are the odds that we imagined the correct one so that we would be prepared for that universe? The chance of being in any of the alternatives are slim considering what is known of this one.

As I said, such ideas can be enjoyable mental masturbation but not productive. OTOH, if we wake in the morning and find that the universe is still what it has always seemed to be then our musings haven't help us understand and 'deal with the future'.

I would think that obvious: if I were to wake up a "butterfly" tomorrow in a universe nothing like this one, I would at the very least be prepared, via this consideration, for the existential shift through the acceptance of its possibility. I would be ready to land on my feet wherever I found myself through this consideration and acceptance.

There are some things that can absolutely be said about the container, namely that the container must be one which, at the very least, is consistent with what it containerizes.

As an example, in all of the "created as a simulation" alternatives, the creator must be of a character of some thing that would create a system of the form that we see. Or in more mathematical terms, the function must at least generate the point to be applicable.

The goal is not to be "right", but rather to be ready for anything. You will definitely be less ready for anything if you have planned to be ready for nothing.

In fact, by considering metaphysics to that end, you are going to find yourself more adaptable for tomorrow regardless.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

That said, the consideration of the possibility does prepare us to deal with it in the future, whatever it may contain.

How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed? There are an infinite number of possible alternative universes that could be imagined. If it turns out that we have been fooled and are living in one of them then what are the odds that we imagined the correct one so that we would be prepared for that universe? The chance of being in any of the alternatives are slim considering what is known of this one.

As I said, such ideas can be enjoyable mental masturbation but not productive. OTOH, if we wake in the morning and find that the universe is still what it has always seemed to be then our musings haven't help us understand and 'deal with the future'.

I would think that obvious: if I were to wake up a "butterfly" tomorrow in a universe nothing like this one, I would at the very least be prepared, via this consideration, for the existential shift through the acceptance of its possibility. I would be ready to land on my feet wherever I found myself through this consideration and acceptance.

That is a blatant evasion of the question. The question was, "How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed?". The point being, and elaborated in the rest of the post, if what we see as reality is nowhere close to reality then of the infinite 'alternative realities' we can imagine the chance of hitting the right one so we will be prepared is negligible.

There are some things that can absolutely be said about the container, namely that the container must be one which, at the very least, is consistent with what it containerizes.

Lousy assumption. I can imagine 'alternative universes' where the very concept of containers is nonsensical.

 

[excreationist]

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation?

Like Jarhyn was saying in post #239, they can't know (unless their simulation is made obvious). A simulation within a simulation is not a big problem. e.g.

Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god,

But simulations have a beginning.... God is usually said to have existed forever....

gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?"

I think each simulation needs to be simulated in a universe that is more complex.... a universe can only contain a simulation if they have very advanced technology - so simulations of 2021 can't create their own simulations that are indistinguishable from reality....

Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Well I think there could be AI that responds to voice commands like that in a God sim....

 

[excreationist]

....The proposal of reality being a simulation strikes me as a repackaging of 'Last Thursdayism'

Yes simulations would usually begin in the recent past... or possibly the extremely recent past... Black Mirror has examples...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone remember the Star Trek episode where a person on the holodeck, a holograph, was able to learn how to operate the holodeck so that it could leave the holodeck? At first the crew thought the figure had somehow become alive but then discovered it's ploy. The crew decided, however, owing to the person's ingenuity, to allow it to continue, not simply shut it off.

The plot had the person leaving the holodeck and entering the rest of the ship, discovering that its world was only a simulation. But we, the viewers didn't find out until later that the person was only being clever and had learned to operate the simulation machinery.

So even if we were that person, and learned that our reality was a simulation, that I was a simulation, how would we test the next reality to know that it too was not merely another simulation? If it's simulations all the way down then it doesn't make any difference.

In a sense the simulator becomes another rendition of quintessence or spirituality or supernaturalism. Conceiving and discussing such ideas no doubt is good mental exercise but I don't know if we could ever experience that Wizard of OZ moment and find the man behind the curtain in any meaningful way. The matrix would just go on forever.

ETA: I think the episode was "Elementary, Dear Data"

 

[Jarhyn]

I would think that obvious: if I were to wake up a "butterfly" tomorrow in a universe nothing like this one, I would at the very least be prepared, via this consideration, for the existential shift through the acceptance of its possibility. I would be ready to land on my feet wherever I found myself through this consideration and acceptance.

That is a blatant evasion of the question. The question was, "How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed?". The point being, and elaborated in the rest of the post, if what we see as reality is nowhere close to reality then of the infinite 'alternative realities' we can imagine the chance of hitting the right one so we will be prepared is negligible.

There are some things that can absolutely be said about the container, namely that the container must be one which, at the very least, is consistent with what it containerizes.

Lousy assumption. I can imagine 'alternative universes' where the very concept of containers is nonsensical.

If you think that, there's nothing I can do to reason you out of this position you clearly did not reason you into.

The value, to me, of having an open mind and at least attempting to approach the future with the desire to learn and adapt and handle generalized problems is self-apparent: the person who is adaptable to any situationin particular is going to be more capable of adapting to whatever situation they find themselves in.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is a blatant evasion of the question. The question was, "How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed?". The point being, and elaborated in the rest of the post, if what we see as reality is nowhere close to reality then of the infinite 'alternative realities' we can imagine the chance of hitting the right one so we will be prepared is negligible.

Lousy assumption. I can imagine 'alternative universes' where the very concept of containers is nonsensical.

If you think that, there's nothing I can do to reason you out of this position you clearly did not reason you into.

The value, to me, of having an open mind and at least attempting to approach the future with the desire to learn and adapt and handle generalized problems is self-apparent: the person who is adaptable to any situationin particular is going to be more capable of adapting to whatever situation they find themselves in.

You are offering a strawman. Being capable of adapting to future situations requires understanding "our reality" and projecting where that could take us in the future. Ignoring what is currently understood of "our reality" to postulate alternative universes doesn't do that.

It's sorta like the difference between good hard science fiction and science fantasy.

 

[excreationist]

Does anyone remember the Star Trek episode where a person on the holodeck, a holograph, was able to learn how to operate the holodeck so that it could leave the holodeck?

I didn't rewatch the whole episode but I thought he could just summon the arch not leave. If he were to leave he'd need to be given a physical body.

So even if we were that person, and learned that our reality was a simulation, that I was a simulation, how would we test the next reality to know that it too was not merely another simulation? If it's simulations all the way down then it doesn't make any difference.

Note that you can only have a simulation inside a simulation if it involves extremely advanced technology - so that 1890s simulation in Star Trek can't contain its own simulation (unless the holodeck intervened)...
I think most simulations would only simulate time periods that aren't very advanced - that way things would be much less CPU intensive and if simulations inside are possible it would be less immersive because people would be more sure we could be in a simulation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does anyone remember the Star Trek episode where a person on the holodeck, a holograph, was able to learn how to operate the holodeck so that it could leave the holodeck? At first the crew thought the figure had somehow become alive but then discovered it's ploy. The crew decided, however, owing to the person's ingenuity, to allow it to continue, not simply shut it off.

The plot had the person leaving the holodeck and entering the rest of the ship, discovering that its world was only a simulation. But we, the viewers didn't find out until later that the person was only being clever and had learned to operate the simulation machinery.

So even if we were that person, and learned that our reality was a simulation, that I was a simulation, how would we test the next reality to know that it too was not merely another simulation? If it's simulations all the way down then it doesn't make any difference.

In a sense the simulator becomes another rendition of quintessence or spirituality or supernaturalism. Conceiving and discussing such ideas no doubt is good mental exercise but I don't know if we could ever experience that Wizard of OZ moment and find the man behind the curtain in any meaningful way. The matrix would just go on forever.

ETA: I think the episode was "Elementary, Dear Data"

At the end of that episode, a real crewman (for a given value of 'real') looked around the starship and c ommanded, "Computer, end simulation," which i thought a remarkable lesson learned from that episode.
But whatever the case, whether his reality was really reality, or simulation, or sim w/in sim, or sim cubed, he went on about his duties and it never came up again.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is a blatant evasion of the question. The question was, "How does entertaining the idea of us being humans living in a simulated high tech universe prepare us to deal with 'reality' if we wake and find that we are a butterfly in a universe nothing like the universe we dreamed?". The point being, and elaborated in the rest of the post, if what we see as reality is nowhere close to reality then of the infinite 'alternative realities' we can imagine the chance of hitting the right one so we will be prepared is negligible.

Lousy assumption. I can imagine 'alternative universes' where the very concept of containers is nonsensical.

If you think that, there's nothing I can do to reason you out of this position you clearly did not reason you into.

The value, to me, of having an open mind and at least attempting to approach the future with the desire to learn and adapt and handle generalized problems is self-apparent: the person who is adaptable to any situationin particular is going to be more capable of adapting to whatever situation they find themselves in.

You are offering a strawman. Being capable of adapting to future situations requires understanding "our reality" and projecting where that could take us in the future. Ignoring what is currently understood of "our reality" to postulate alternative universes doesn't do that.

It's sorta like the difference between good hard science fiction and science fantasy.

A lot depends on whether the metaphysics are the same.

At any rate, your Incredulity at the very idea makes it apparent that you would have a harder time coping with whatever of.the infinite possibilities are true, if any.

Personally, if I find myself standing in front of a god, I won't find myself at a loss for words, or the reasons and convictions to actually say them. Nor would I be particularly unable to adapt to whatever logic is necessary to live as an alien butterfly, assuming I survive as an alien butterfly for long enough.

It is the difference between being caught flat-footed, and being able to adapt. Because if I AM the dream of an alien butterfly, that butterfly has some serious computing power available to it.

You might as well be a bronze age dude asking how the hell we can have less than nothing of something and thus why do we need negative numbers. Your inability to expand metaphysics and logic to other contexts would suck for you. Not so much for me.

Perhaps it comes down to the practical value of actually having, and exercising, the imagination.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are offering a strawman. Being capable of adapting to future situations requires understanding "our reality" and projecting where that could take us in the future. Ignoring what is currently understood of "our reality" to postulate alternative universes doesn't do that.

It's sorta like the difference between good hard science fiction and science fantasy.

A lot depends on whether the metaphysics are the same.

At any rate, your Incredulity at the very idea makes it apparent that you would have a harder time coping with whatever of.the infinite possibilities are true, if any.

Personally, if I find myself standing in front of a god, I won't find myself at a loss for words, or the reasons and convictions to actually say them. Nor would I be particularly unable to adapt to whatever logic is necessary to live as an alien butterfly, assuming I survive as an alien butterfly for long enough.

It is the difference between being caught flat-footed, and being able to adapt. Because if I AM the dream of an alien butterfly, that butterfly has some serious computing power available to it.

You might as well be a bronze age dude asking how the hell we can have less than nothing of something and thus why do we need negative numbers. Your inability to expand metaphysics and logic to other contexts would suck for you. Not so much for me.

Perhaps it comes down to the practical value of actually having, and exercising, the imagination.

Amazing how you jumped from how to be prepared for future situations to a personal attack.

You know absolutely nothing about me, my experiences, my world view, sudden drastic changes I have taken in stride, etc. but feel qualified to claim that I would be incapable of handling something new.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey, you're the one discounting the value of exercising the imagination here. You're setting your own pins up.

Me, I'm going to keep exercising even the kinds of thoughts and scenarios you find ridiculous.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hey, you're the one discounting the value of exercising the imagination here. You're setting your own pins up.

Me, I'm going to keep exercising even the kinds of thoughts and scenarios you find ridiculous.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I clearly said that mental masturbation (wild imagination) can be an enjoyable exercise, at least I find it so. It just isn't very productive, except maybe for writing fantasy novels. You are the one that brought up being able to prepare for and adapt to future situations and that is best done by understanding 'our reality' and projecting forward to what that could bring about in the future.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whereas I think it is incredibly productive. I will, obviously, reject Pascal's wager. I will not, however, reject the ideas that surround it. I'll certainly be better prepared to accept the absurdity of existence by considering all the ways existence in whatever context may find itself being absurd. Because while I can't possibly be prepared for a situation which does not follow the metaphysical constraints of our universe (logic, axioms, knowledge, non-contradiction), I can absolutely be prepared for anything within those bounds, even if the context is not, in fact, this universe.

 

[DBT]

The probability of some things may be so low that they can be safely dismissed rather than prepared for.....

 

[Jarhyn]

The probability of some things may be so low that they can be safely dismissed rather than prepared for.....

The probability of dying, and seeing what dreams may come (if any) is exactly 1.