Argument from possible simulation

[connick]

If there is no causality in the outside world I think there is no "before" or "cause" for the simulation... this possibility sounds a bit like the Christian God - having no time at all then somehow creating our universe.... (though you'd say that the thing that created the universe might not have any intelligence)

I would say, again, that we can't know anything about an outside world or what it contains.

That quote was about watching a "screen".... i.e. a simulation. It says "the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen". Do you think that we don't have awareness?

Please note that this is not a question of what I believe, but rather, of what your argument entails logically. To be clear, I believe that at least I am experiencing something because I axiomatically reject the possibility of being in a simulation. However, if we accept the first premise of your argument as true, then we cannot be sure of anything at all.

BTW if PacMan was conscious I thought that he might assume that something outside of the simulation is also conscious (and in our case this is true). Though you'd insist that that doesn't need to be the case....

Pac Man might make any number of assumptions about our world, but none of them would be justifiable because he can't know anything about the outside world from inside of his simulation.

All of the simulations/games in our world were started by an intelligent force. In the future this would probably also be the case. There would probably be billions or trillions of simulations in the coming years. So it seems likely that the simulation we might be in could have been created by an intelligent force. Perhaps the alternative is a simulation created by a non-intelligent force... chance...? Intelligence is a lot more efficient than unguided chance at creating meaningful complex structures. e.g. chance creating Boltzmann brains vs evolution or technology...
Intelligence being more efficient than chance means intelligence could create more simulations than chance with a given amount of resources - so it would imply that it is more likely we'd be in a simulation created by intelligence than by chance.

This is still a fundamentally flawed position. We can know absolutely nothing about an outer world. Even if every man, woman and child was running simulated universes on their cell phones, it would tell us nothing about the likelihood that we are in a simulation ourselves.

As I've said many times now, if we accept your first premise, "it's possible we're in a simulation," as true, then every subsequent premise can be justifiably dismissed. Everything after that could be a delusion resulting from a simulation.

 

[excreationist]

.....Even if every man, woman and child was running simulated universes on their cell phones, it would tell us nothing about the likelihood that we are in a simulation ourselves.

If there are trillions of simulations and we appear in a reality by chance then it would be likely that we're in a simulation....

As I've said many times now, if we accept your first premise, "it's possible we're in a simulation," as true, then every subsequent premise can be justifiably dismissed. Everything after that could be a delusion resulting from a simulation.

In post #95 it says that we are "pure awareness".... do you think it is possible that we aren't aware?

 

[excreationist]

...Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete. We can generate an artificial intelligence with CGoL. We can mess with the "physics" of the CGoL where that AI lives. We can play god creating and destroying at our whim.....

It can take a long time though and bigger structures (like computers or CGoL within CGoL) take even longer to work... Which means optimization can be important.

 

[George S]

...Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete. We can generate an artificial intelligence with CGoL. We can mess with the "physics" of the CGoL where that AI lives. We can play god creating and destroying at our whim.....

It can take a long time though and bigger structures (like computers or CGoL within CGoL) take even longer to work... Which means optimization can be important.

A long time compared to what?

If the universe were to freeze in place for a million years of real, non-simulated time between each moment in the simulation any denizens of the simulation could not tell.

 

[excreationist]

...Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete. We can generate an artificial intelligence with CGoL. We can mess with the "physics" of the CGoL where that AI lives. We can play god creating and destroying at our whim.....

It can take a long time though and bigger structures (like computers or CGoL within CGoL) take even longer to work... Which means optimization can be important.

A long time compared to what?

If the universe were to freeze in place for a million years of real, non-simulated time between each moment in the simulation any denizens of the simulation could not tell.

A long time compared to the regular speed of CGoL. I think there is a limit to how short the period of time can be between each step in CGoL.
This shows CGoL running on CGoL:


At some point when having many nested levels of CGoL the time and space requirements would become problematic... or it probably would be in most universes....

 

[Jarhyn]

A long time compared to what?

If the universe were to freeze in place for a million years of real, non-simulated time between each moment in the simulation any denizens of the simulation could not tell.

A long time compared to the regular speed of CGoL. I think there is a limit to how short the period of time can be between each step in CGoL.
This shows CGoL running on CGoL:


At some point when having many nested levels of CGoL the time and space requirements would become problematic... or it probably would be in most universes....

But we have already discovered smallest time and smallest distance units that have any impact on outcome.

In most universes I have encountered, and this seems no exception, there is a minimal frame, but there is nothing stoping anything from being stopped on frame boundaries anyway.

That said, an interesting experiment to conduct on these lines would be to investigate whether such a "clean frame boundary state" can be found within the planck limits or whether confounding factors exist to the framing of time.

I don't know that they do.

 

[connick]

If there are trillions of simulations and we appear in a reality by chance then it would be likely that we're in a simulation....

Again, I will reiterate that we cannot make any judgements about the probability of us being in a simulation.

Imagine two scenarios. In the first, we are in a simulation, and within our simulation we have a huge number of simulations running. In the second scenario, we are in a simulation, but within our simulation, simulations are forbidden or otherwise do not exist.

Can it be inferred in the first scenario that, because we run many simulations that we are likely to be within a simulation ourselves? Can it be inferred in the second scenario that, because we do not run any simulations that we are not likely to be within a simulation ourselves?

The answer to both questions is no. Nothing within a simulation necessarily tells you anything about the outside world.

In post #95 it says that we are "pure awareness".... do you think it is possible that we aren't aware?

If it is possible that we are in a simulation then it is also possible that we are not aware. "Awareness" may be as fictitious as the points in Pac Man.

As I mentioned before, an outer world, if one exists, might be absolutely incomprehensible and unintuitive to us, but there's no way to know.

Would you, as a matter of courtesy, kindly acknowledge, question, or dispute on some grounds, the statements that I've made about the unknowable nature of an outside world from within a simulation? I've repeated it a number of times but you seem to be ignoring it.

Is there something unclear about what I am saying or do you have a reason to disagree? I think if you could either concede this point (in which case the discussion can conclude) or argue against it (in which case we can debate its merits) we might have a more productive exchange.

Thanks!

 

[excreationist]

....Would you, as a matter of courtesy, kindly acknowledge, question, or dispute on some grounds, the statements that I've made about the unknowable nature of an outside world from within a simulation? I've repeated it a number of times but you seem to be ignoring it.

So the world outside of a simulation is unknowable but there are still possibilities about it...

If it is possible that we are in a simulation then it is also possible that we are not aware. "Awareness" may be as fictitious as the points in Pac Man.

How can I have the sensation of awareness if I have no awareness? I think simulated awareness is still awareness.

Can it be inferred in the first scenario that, because we run many simulations that we are likely to be within a simulation ourselves? Can it be inferred in the second scenario that, because we do not run any simulations that we are not likely to be within a simulation ourselves?

The answer to both questions is no. Nothing within a simulation necessarily tells you anything about the outside world.

What if we assume that there are other universes besides our own and in those there are trillions of simulations? If we assume that I think it follows that it is likely we are in a simulation. Or at least that's the opinion of Nick Bostrom, etc. I guess you disagree.

 

[connick]

So the world outside of a simulation is unknowable but there are still possibilities about it...

That sounds like a concession to me. It appears that we now agree that the world outside of a simulation is unknowable.

You're right that there are possibilities about it, but they are all equally likely or unlikely. In other words, we could speculate about it but your guess is as good (or bad) as mine. Maybe it's cosmic hyper-turtles, maybe it's in a snow globe a la Saint Elsewhere, maybe it's something completely bonkers that we couldn't even begin to comprehend. So we'll have to be content with not knowing (or at least containing our frustration with this fact).

How can I have the sensation of awareness if I have no awareness? I think simulated awareness is still awareness.

That's a hard question to grok but maybe I can help you approach an understanding of it, despite there being no way to truly understand it.

If our world is simulated, made up, like Pac Man's, then there's no telling what the real world is like. Beyond the possibilities that we can conceive of, there are limitless possibilities that we couldn't even comprehend or articulate. How, for instance, could you describe a third spatial dimension to Pac Man? It would be impossible for him to even conceptualize. He lives in a two dimensional world, so how could he even begin to imagine a third dimension?

It could very well be the same for us if we were in a simulation. Maybe things like space and time and logic and, yes, even awareness are different, meaningless or even non-existent in an external world. To understand the outer world might be more difficult than trying to explain sight to a totally blind person. At least in the case of a blind person you might be able to explain that you can know things at a distance using some sense that they don't possess. But how would you even begin to explain a world where, for instance, time or logic do not exist or do not operate as we understand them to? It might be impossible to do.

What if we assume that there are other universes besides our own and in those there are trillions of simulations? If we assume that I think it follows that it is likely we are in a simulation. Or at least that's the opinion of Nick Bostrom, etc. I guess you disagree.

I do disagree and for the same reason I've stated many times now. Nothing within a simulation can necessarily tell you anything about what is outside it. If one of your assumptions or premises is that we could be in a simulation, then you cut yourself off from saying anything else because anything and everything could just be an illusion. Any statement, observation, assumption, anything could be an illusion, so you can't use them to make any further conclusions.

 

[excreationist]

....Maybe things like space and time and logic and, yes, even awareness are different, meaningless or even non-existent in an external world.

I was saying that my sensation of awareness involves awareness whether or not I'm in a simulation. I think it is related to Descartes point that we have the sensation of thinking (even if the thinking is controlled by something else). I might create a thread about that topic...

 

[skepticalbip]

....Maybe things like space and time and logic and, yes, even awareness are different, meaningless or even non-existent in an external world.

I was saying that my sensation of awareness involves awareness whether or not I'm in a simulation. I think it is related to Descartes point that we have the sensation of thinking (even if the thinking is controlled by something else). I might create a thread about that topic...

If the 'thinking' is controlled by something else then are you really 'thinking' or just being controlled by the program?

 

[excreationist]

....Maybe things like space and time and logic and, yes, even awareness are different, meaningless or even non-existent in an external world.

I was saying that my sensation of awareness involves awareness whether or not I'm in a simulation. I think it is related to Descartes point that we have the sensation of thinking (even if the thinking is controlled by something else). I might create a thread about that topic...

If the 'thinking' is controlled by something else then are you really 'thinking' or just being controlled by the program?

Then it isn't "you" who is responsible for the thinking but my point is that I think I am aware since I have the sensation of being aware. I think having the sensation of anything at all also involves awareness.

 

[skepticalbip]

If the 'thinking' is controlled by something else then are you really 'thinking' or just being controlled by the program?

Then it isn't "you" who is responsible for the thinking but my point is that I think I am aware since I have the sensation of being aware. I think having the sensation of anything at all also involves awareness.

That only indicates good programming. "You" actually 'think' that you are aware. It only seems reasonable if, as you seem to assume, everything that you can sense is only a simulation, then your 'awareness' could also be a simulation. Maybe Pac-Man could 'think' he is aware if programmed to.

 

[excreationist]

That only indicates good programming. "You" actually 'think' that you are aware. It only seems reasonable if, as you seem to assume, everything that you can sense is only a simulation, then your 'awareness' could also be a simulation. Maybe Pac-Man could 'think' he is aware if programmed to.

Even if every aspect of my awareness is simulated I am still aware. The alternative is that I'm a philosophical zombie. From my point of view I think it is clear that I'm not a philosophical zombie. Though from your point of view I could be. And from my point of view you could be a philosophical zombie.

 

[abaddon]

Even if every aspect of my awareness is simulated I am still aware. The alternative is that I'm a philosophical zombie. From my point of view I think it is clear that I'm not a philosophical zombie. Though from your point of view I could be. And from my point of view you could be a philosophical zombie.

How's that - the "thusness" of your awareness - not more trustworthy knowledge than a tricky demon or an alluring delusion or a simulation maker?

 

[skepticalbip]

That only indicates good programming. "You" actually 'think' that you are aware. It only seems reasonable if, as you seem to assume, everything that you can sense is only a simulation, then your 'awareness' could also be a simulation. Maybe Pac-Man could 'think' he is aware if programmed to.

Even if every aspect of my awareness is simulated I am still aware. The alternative is that I'm a philosophical zombie. From my point of view I think it is clear that I'm not a philosophical zombie. Though from your point of view I could be. And from my point of view you could be a philosophical zombie.

If everything you sense is only a simulation, then where did you and your 'awareness' come from and where are you if not merely part of the simulation?

 

[excreationist]

If everything you sense is only a simulation, then where did you and your 'awareness' come from and where are you if not merely part of the simulation?

If materialism/physicalism is true then a simulation of a physical world should allow awareness. Do you agree that the alternative to me being aware is that I am a philosophical zombie? If so, do you think it is possible you are a philosophical zombie?

 

[excreationist]

Even if every aspect of my awareness is simulated I am still aware. The alternative is that I'm a philosophical zombie. From my point of view I think it is clear that I'm not a philosophical zombie. Though from your point of view I could be. And from my point of view you could be a philosophical zombie.

How's that - the "thusness" of your awareness - not more trustworthy knowledge than a tricky demon or an alluring delusion or a simulation maker?

Either you're aware or you're a philosophical zombie. It "does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience". Otherwise you have the sensation of these things. Whether or not you're in a simulation you still have these sensations and that is known as "awareness".

 

[skepticalbip]

If everything you sense is only a simulation, then where did you and your 'awareness' come from and where are you if not merely part of the simulation?

If materialism/physicalism is true then a simulation of a physical world should allow awareness. Do you agree that the alternative to me being aware is that I am a philosophical zombie? If so, do you think it is possible you are a philosophical zombie?

It is your fantasy that makes no sense to me. But you didn't answer the question of where did you and your 'awareness' come from (and where are you) if everything you sense is a simulation.... why are you and your 'awareness' not just part of the simulation. If you could explain such gaping holes in your idea then maybe I could give you an answer. As of now I don't see how 'philosophical zombie' has any meaning if you are only a computer algorithm (like a 15th generation version of a Mario Brother) and part of the simulation.

 

[excreationist]

It is your fantasy that makes no sense to me. But you didn't answer the question of where did you and your 'awareness' come from (and where are you) if everything you sense is a simulation.... why are you and your 'awareness' not just part of the simulation.

Yes it is part of the simulation but it is still awareness. It is simulating the physical world and in physicalism consciousness only has a physical basis. Awareness emerges by copying the processes in brains.

If you could explain such gaping holes in your idea then maybe I could give you an answer. As of now I don't see how 'philosophical zombie' has any meaning if you are only a computer algorithm (like a 15th generation version of a Mario Brother) and part of the simulation.

If a character in a simulation doesn't have a conscious experience then they are a philosophical zombie - otherwise they are conscious. Do you understand what a philosophical zombie is? All characters in current games are philosophical zombies.