Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Lion IRC]

Have you ever noticed that people who are irrational assume that others have the same impediment?

There's nothing irrational about claiming God causes things to happen.

 

[Swammerdami]

Gibberish @bilby
You now write "So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?"

Replace "the" with "a" and your grammar still assumes the two simulations are the same simulation.

 

[pood]

Have you ever noticed that people who are irrational assume that others have the same impediment?

There's nothing irrational about claiming God causes things to happen.

Which does not meet the point. You deliberately took Eric’s first quote out of context to make it seem as if he agreed that God existed and caused cancer to happen, and juxtaposed it against a second quote in which he denied God caused cancer to happen. But as I explained above, the first quote was cherry-picked because it omitted to mention that in it, Eric was saying IF God existed, then, he would be blamed for cancer. Please apologize for this clumsy attempt at making Eric look bad, when it only makes YOU look bad.

And, as to the above, you therefore agree that it’s not irrational to blame God (again, supposing he exists) for causing cancer, right?

 

[bilby]

Gibberish @bilby
You now write "So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?"

Replace "the" with "a" and your grammar still assumes the two simulations are the same simulation.

Er... Yes. That's the point. It's a contradiction.

If you are allowed contradictions, you can prove anything (as you did).

 

[Jarhyn]

Gibberish @bilby
You now write "So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?"

Replace "the" with "a" and your grammar still assumes the two simulations are the same simulation.

So, uh, are you going to answer my more cogent objection to your position, namely that you have failed to provide any examples of observation of a system without implementing the system?

 

[bilby]

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

Yes.

Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."

Sure. But imaginary beings who, we imagine, would imagine their imaginary universe to be real, are not evidence the the universe we are imaging is real.

How did Al Gore become president? It didn't really happen - you just imagined it. Then you told me, and I imagined it. But it's still not a reality.

If you followed this so far, and agree with it, it's only a small step further to conclude that every describable universe is just as real as ours!

Only if we agree that imagining things makes them real. I do NOT agree with that premise; Imagining things does NOT make them real, no matter how similar to reality we might imagine them to be.

You cannot obtain information about reality via a thought experiment.

It might be interesting, perhaps even useful, to speculate about counterfactual alternate histories. But it's not evidence of their actual real existence. It remains only a thought experiment.

 

[Swammerdami]

You now write "So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?"

Replace "the" with "a" and your grammar still assumes the two simulations are the same simulation.

So, uh, are you going to answer my more cogent objection to your position, namely that you have failed to provide any examples of observation of a system without implementing the system?

So, uh, will you first do the courtesy of taking a stance on the bilby-Swammi sub-debate which you excerpted above? Will you comment on the "LESS cogent objection to my position"?

As for your more cogent objection, note first that Tegmark's "Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse" is NOT an obviously true easy-to-accept position! (If it were the philosophy texts would already have been rewritten and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) I conceived of it several decades ago, and was pleased eventually to see that Max Tegmark also liked the idea but -- though I've not searched for it -- Tegmark and I are AFAIK the only two supporters of this weird hypothesis. If you expect me or Tegmark to write a brief essay that's totally convincing . . . that ain't gonna happen.

Tegmark's Level IV relates to the "reality of mathematics" and THAT is itself controversial: Consider the debates between adherents of Hilbert and of Kronecker 130 years ago.

To defend the weird hypothesis, I posted a series of increasing claims above, beginning with

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

One step at a time! Do you answer Yes or No to this question, the first link in the chain?

 

[Jarhyn]

You now write "So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?"

Replace "the" with "a" and your grammar still assumes the two simulations are the same simulation.

So, uh, are you going to answer my more cogent objection to your position, namely that you have failed to provide any examples of observation of a system without implementing the system?

So, uh, will you first do the courtesy of taking a stance on the bilby-Swammi sub-debate which you excerpted above? Will you comment on the "LESS cogent objection to my position"?

As for your more cogent objection, note first that Tegmark's "Level IV: Mathematical Multiverse" is NOT an obviously true easy-to-accept position! (If it were the philosophy texts would already have been rewritten and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) I conceived of it several decades ago, and was pleased eventually to see that Max Tegmark also liked the idea but -- though I've not searched for it -- Tegmark and I are AFAIK the only two supporters of this weird hypothesis. If you expect me or Tegmark to write a brief essay that's totally convincing . . . that ain't gonna happen.

Tegmark's Level IV relates to the "reality of mathematics" and THAT is itself controversial: Consider the debates between adherents of Hilbert and of Kronecker 130 years ago.

To defend the weird hypothesis, I posted a series of increasing claims above, beginning with

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

One step at a time! Do you answer Yes or No to this question, the first link in the chain?

More, I think MMV is a useless hypothesis: there's no way to locate oneself in finite but large pools.

We know our universe has a signature of "1/~137" as really the only fixed relationship, and we could well discover 1/~137 hiding as some calculable quantity and then we have no evidence for any sort of "next door", and that would pretty much sink it for me, but the fact is, there is no way even in the universe we see to locate where we are in an infinite universe lacking preferred frames and thus lacking any sort of non-relative zero property.

It would be like finding oneself on an infinite sheet of "Hat" or "Turtle" shapes and trying to answer "where is the start of the sequence", or indeed, which hat space you are in in the first place (assuming there's more than just one normal infinite hatspace). No matter how long something with a limited rate of change observes the pattern, there will always be an observation past the horizon that could indicate "we are not at the same place as the map we have documents".

In fact for me this stretches close to the Axiom of Choice.

The end result is that even a mathematical multiverse would suffer the same questions we ask of this "branch" of that hypothetical infinitude. We may discover this is a truth though and something of its nature and be able to identify neighborhoods around us, different loci of implementation. At best we will learn what "may be", not what "is", unless some hyper-event happens.

Because we can observe the active implementation of systems locally, though, without needing to extend observations to a hyper-plane, we should be able to surmise that such hyper-events cannot be ruled out, but that a universe being created by someone no better than us is also entirely possible, too.

Something-something "as below so above, as above so below".

 

[Jarhyn]

Interestingly, this does indicate that in the mathematical multiverse, the true portal between worlds is not a gateway, but a printer.

 

[Elixir]

a universe being created by someone no better than us is also entirely possible, too.

Trying to think of any quality metric that would let us say “yeah, that god guy is no better than you”.
However my gut says “creations” aren’t really creative unless they equal or surpass their creator in some way. So maybe “God” is just some schmuck who forgot to unplug his mom’s “printer” before going to bed.

 

[Jarhyn]

a universe being created by someone no better than us is also entirely possible, too.

Trying to think of any quality metric that would let us say “yeah, that god guy is no better than you”.
However my gut says “creations” aren’t really creative unless they equal or surpass their creator in some way. So maybe “God” is just some schmuck who forgot to unplug his mom’s “printer” before going to bed.

I mean, maybe God spends most of his time watching us and masturbating. Who knows. Plenty of people who play Dwarf Fortress go by the "let's smash kids under drawbridges" route, not because it's necessary but because they enjoy it.

Or he could be blackmailing an intern.

Or he could be selling all the fruits of our creativity as media in a commercialized 4-d space as much as this space is commercial.

If there is a god, the range of possibilities that describe that God is as infinite as anything.

Once you get past whatever translation is necessary, though, I think things would appear almost disappointingly mundane.

 

[Swammerdami]

Interestingly, this does indicate that in the mathematical multiverse, the true portal between worlds is not a gateway, but a printer.

To be clear, Tegmark supposes that any mathematical universe IS REAL. There is no need to actually describe or simulate it.

I suspect this is one of those "far-fetched" ideas which EITHER immediately resonates with someone, OR seems irredeemably ridiculous. Discussion between people from OPPOSITE camps may be futile.

 

[pood]

Interestingly, this does indicate that in the mathematical multiverse, the true portal between worlds is not a gateway, but a printer.

To be clear, Tegmark supposes that any mathematical universe IS REAL. There is no need to actually describe or simulate it.

I suspect this is one of those "far-fetched" ideas which EITHER immediately resonates with someone, OR seems irredeemably ridiculous. Discussion between people from OPPOSITE camps may be futile.

I’m perfectly prepared to entertain the possibility that this is true, but I’m trying to figure out a reason why we should believe it is true.

 

[Jarhyn]

Interestingly, this does indicate that in the mathematical multiverse, the true portal between worlds is not a gateway, but a printer.

To be clear, Tegmark supposes that any mathematical universe IS REAL. There is no need to actually describe or simulate it.

I suspect this is one of those "far-fetched" ideas which EITHER immediately resonates with someone, OR seems irredeemably ridiculous. Discussion between people from OPPOSITE camps may be futile.

I’m perfectly prepared to entertain the possibility that this is true, but I’m trying to figure out a reason why we should believe it is true.

I am of the opinion that for it to be "meaningfully true" this would require physical traversal and bidirectional interaction with structure. It would require "pathway portals" not merely "printer portals". It would imply the ability to deform math itself, something not apparently present.

 

[Swammerdami]

Key idea is that in a PERFECT simulation of our universe, beings are just as conscious as us in the "real" universe. And no "simulation" is necessary.

WHY believe this? It's of no prescriptive use. BUT it is the SIMPLEST explanation of . . . EVERYTHING!

 

[pood]

Why is every possible mathematical structure being instantiated in some version of reality simple, or even an explanation of anything at all? To me, maths are just descriptions. Some of those descriptions match reality, others do not, like Ptolemy’s mathematical description of a geocentric system. If we believe, as Tegmark holds, that every mathematical structure is isomorphic with some actual version of events, we have to believe that somewhere in the mathematical Platonist multiverse there really is such a geocentric system. But such a system would, among other things, have to have a radically different laws of physics, so that the sun, though much larger than the earth, would have to have an orbital barycenter with the earth that lies much closer to the earth than it does to the sun. Gravity would have to work totally differently in such a universe and it’s not at all clear that any such physics can be consistently made to work.

 

[Jarhyn]

Key idea is that in a PERFECT simulation of our universe, beings are just as conscious as us in the "real" universe. And no "simulation" is necessary.

WHY believe this? It's of no prescriptive use. BUT it is the SIMPLEST explanation of . . . EVERYTHING!

Well, there is no reason to believe it, but there is reason to think about it.

I would reference Pascal's Wager for those inclined towards the enjoyment of continued experiences in ways that feature awareness of rich and nuanced facts rather than chaotic awareness of chaos, that the observation of relationships at the simulation boundary, the sorts of events that create "simulation horizons" are observed, and the nature of those relationships may thus be understood clearly rather than mysteriously...

But the result of such considerations taken years beyond the consideration most give it is "it's really just better to be an atheist, and live with love in your heart for others, forgiving others and acting with contrition over harms".

 

[Swammerdami]

Why is every possible mathematical structure being instantiated in some version of reality simple,

The traditional question is "Why does OUR universe exist rather than some other universe?"
But that question disappears if ALL universes exist! Simplicity!

. . . Gravity would have to work totally differently in such a universe and it’s not at all clear that any such physics can be consistently made to work.

Tegmark imposes some restrictions on the mathematical structures which "exist." (I think it may be SIMPLER to minimize such restrictions.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is every possible mathematical structure being instantiated in some version of reality simple,

The traditional question is "Why does OUR universe exist rather than some other universe?"
But that question disappears if ALL universes exist! Simplicity!

. . . Gravity would have to work totally differently in such a universe and it’s not at all clear that any such physics can be consistently made to work.

Tegmark imposes some restrictions on the mathematical structures which "exist." (I think it may be SIMPLER to minimize such restrictions.)

I think the problem here is that we see "existence" as some binary for some reason.

In most people's minds something is either "existent" or "nonexistent" rather than some three-state system of "exists, 'is logical but unobservable', and 'doesn't exist'".

The MMV that Tegmark considers real is that 'is logical but unobservable' class.

Isn't that just Kalam all over again, though?

Ultimately the logically sound responses to Kalam respond to that position as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that? As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.

Not to mention that until the system hits a meaningful differentiation, especially given the mechanics of simulation/host divisions, that there are infinite settings wherein this universe is being simulated, in addition to one where it is as "base" as possible.

If every equation, if every relationship of math is somehow real, then there are infinite copies of any finite structure splayed across it.

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."

If you followed this so far, and agree with it, it's only a small step further to conclude that every describable universe is just as real as ours!

More, every "described" universe, not merely "describable".

For those things to actually be "real" they have to actually be instantiated, not merely implied as to instantiability.

And note that perfect simulations are incredibly compute intensive.