Simulation Theory
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,182
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
16 Jun 2021, 8:43 am
Fnord wrote:
Characteristically, this "Simulation Theory" is one of those ideas -- another way to present the concept that we are all pawns in some Great Plan in the mind of the High Programmer (e.g., "God").[/color]
And if it doesn't grant 'God', Neo-like Matrix story, or big imaginary friend to glom onto then it's BS without a purpose.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
16 Jun 2021, 8:45 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Characteristically, this "Simulation Theory" is one of those ideas -- another way to present the concept that we are all pawns in some Great Plan in the mind of the High Programmer (e.g., "God").
And if it doesn't grant 'God', Neo-like Matrix story, or big imaginary friend to glom onto then it's BS without a purpose._________________
16 Jun 2021, 9:00 am
A final blow to the claim that we live in a computer simulation...
Christian Philosopher James Anderson wrote:
The simulation hypothesis itself is based on scientific theories and concepts derived from our experiences of the world. It is predicated, at least in part, on what we take to be empirical scientific knowledge (what brains are and do, what computers are and do, etc.). But if we accept the simulation hypothesis then we acquire a defeater for all of our empirical beliefs and thus for all of our scientific beliefs. Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can’t trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it.
Source: Simulation Theory Debunked
Dr. James Anderson is an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Dr. Anderson came to RTS from Edinburgh, Scotland, and specializes in philosophical theology, religious epistemology, and Christian apologetics. His doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh explored the paradoxical nature of certain Christian doctrines and the implications for the rationality of Christian faith. His research and writing has also focused on the presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, particularly his advocacy of the transcendental argument. Before studying philosophy, Dr. Anderson also earned a Ph.D. in Computer Simulation from the University of Edinburgh. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion, and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
_________________
Last edited by Fnord on 16 Jun 2021, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Jun 2021, 9:06 am
Fnord wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Characteristically, this "Simulation Theory" is one of those ideas -- another way to present the concept that we are all pawns in some Great Plan in the mind of the High Programmer (e.g., "God").
And if it doesn't grant 'God', Neo-like Matrix story, or big imaginary friend to glom onto then it's BS without a purpose.Do we often get questions by our Sims Character? Or our Fallout Character? Why is God/Matrix/or Imaginary Sky Friend required to make something purposeful? Do all those philosophers worry about purposeful thinking?
Fnord wrote:
And if it does grant "God", then it is just another religious belief, of which we already have way more than enough.
Religion is based on faith. This is based on observation, experiments, and some intuition. Of course, we as simulated people might not be ABLE to see the hard facts that prove the Simulation Theory, it would be programmed out of us.
Many physicists/philosophers believe this theory has some merit, people like: Nick Bostrom, Rizwan Virk, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, (ok some of those aren't scientists.)
16 Jun 2021, 9:14 am
As I quoted above: "Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can't trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it."
Why believe in a self-defeating religion, especially one in which none of its tenets can be irrefutably proven?
_________________
Last edited by Fnord on 16 Jun 2021, 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Jun 2021, 9:15 am
Fnord wrote:
A final blow to the claim that we live in a computer simulation...
Source: Simulation Theory Debunked
Christian Philosopher James Anderson wrote:
The simulation hypothesis itself is based on scientific theories and concepts derived from our experiences of the world. It is predicated, at least in part, on what we take to be empirical scientific knowledge (what brains are and do, what computers are and do, etc.). But if we accept the simulation hypothesis then we acquire a defeater for all of our empirical beliefs and thus for all of our scientific beliefs. Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can’t trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it.
Source: Simulation Theory Debunked
Have you heard of Unity? It's a game programming library. In it is a "Physics Engine". Simulations would have rules just like reality has rules. But, it might cause us to re-think some science, sure.
I don't think this line is based on anything other than this person's opinion:
"But if we accept the simulation hypothesis then we acquire a defeater for all of our empirical beliefs and thus for all of our scientific beliefs."
Why? Our beliefs are based on our experiments in our reality, either real or simulated. That fact that they work so well, in what we see and experience, makes me think that we don't have a defeater of science. Our science is based on the rules of our reality.
16 Jun 2021, 9:18 am
You are basing your beliefs on computer games and ... your own beliefs!
Where are the practical demonstrations of your beliefs?
_________________
Last edited by Fnord on 16 Jun 2021, 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Jun 2021, 9:18 am
Fnord wrote:
[/color=black]As I quoted above: "Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can't trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it."
Why believe in a self-defeating religion, especially one in which none of its tenets can be irrefutably proven?[/color]
Why believe in a self-defeating religion, especially one in which none of its tenets can be irrefutably proven?[/color]
It's not a religion. A religion is based on faith. Simulation Theory is based on our experiments, observations and intuition. Am I repeating myself? Why do you keep repeating the same argument?
I looked at your "source" It's a religious nut. (that might be harsh) Not a scientist or philosopher. Here is his "about" from his blog website:
"Parker’s Penseés is a blog by me (Parker Settecase) dedicated to my thoughts. God woke me up in 2013 and gave me a deep hunger for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. As I read I found I had lots of thoughts to share; so I started this blog in 2016. Currently I’m working on a masters in theological studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. As I continue to read and learn, I’ll continue to share my thoughts with you. I have another blog called What Then Shall I Read where you can see my thoughts on various books I’ve read. Enjoy your stay!"
Last edited by sitko on 16 Jun 2021, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,182
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
16 Jun 2021, 9:20 am
sitko wrote:
Fnord wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Characteristically, this "Simulation Theory" is one of those ideas -- another way to present the concept that we are all pawns in some Great Plan in the mind of the High Programmer (e.g., "God").
And if it doesn't grant 'God', Neo-like Matrix story, or big imaginary friend to glom onto then it's BS without a purpose.Do we often get questions by our Sims Character? Or our Fallout Character? Why is God/Matrix/or Imaginary Sky Friend required to make something purposeful? Do all those philosophers worry about purposeful thinking?
I think you might have taken my purpose for saying that too literally.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
16 Jun 2021, 9:26 am
sitko wrote:
Fnord wrote:
As I quoted above: "Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can't trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it."Why believe in a self-defeating religion, especially one in which none of its tenets can be irrefutably proven?"
It's not a religion. A religion is based on faith. Simulation Theory is based on our experiments, observations and intuition.Without proof, your hypothesis is based on faith -- it is a religion.
sitko wrote:
I looked at your "source" It's a religious nut. (that might be harsh) Not a scientist or philosopher...
He has a PhD. What is YOUR claim to fame?
_________________
16 Jun 2021, 9:49 am
Fnord wrote:
Mere belief proves nothing.
Let me Do my Best to Put This In Terms You May Not Understand;
Yet, I'll Give it A Try in "Plain English"; Best i Can And Will
As Existential Intelligence Is More the Purview
of Poetry Than Science...
THE ESSENCE OF BELIEF
IS WHAT THE FORM OF 'SUGAR PILL' HOUSES...
This is no Simulation Theory, it is Real For those
Who Reap The Cause and Effect, Real Benefits too....
A Clue is MaKinG All of Life A 'Sugar Pill' At Essence of Belief...
Perhaps it might even Open Your Mind A Bit Ascending Transcending
A Bit Past Your 'Neo Cortical Part of Conscious Existence' to Not Live
In Such A Left Brain Metaphor Restricted Measure of Existence; True,
iMaGiNE
A Place
With No
Distance, Space,
Time or Matter;
Better
Yet
BREaTHE Free Eternally
Now; Make it All A Sugar Pill At
Essence; Sow Every Word A Song;
Sow Every Step A Dance; And Perhaps
You'll Reap All the SMiLes You Meet And
Greet in Life Same And Different as We All Are Now...
Anyway As Far As Simulation Theory Goes; Minds Much Greater
Than Ours in Science Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson Entertain the Possibility
That That is Part of Reality too; In Other Words, He has iMaGiNaTioN Too...
Hey,
i Didn't
Always Have
It Either; Just like
You, At one Point i Scored
A 195 on the Aspie Quiz too...
And 45 on the AQ Scan As Opposed
to Relatively Speaking, 92 and 11 Now;
What this Means, Whether You Have the ability
to See it or not, is i Expand my Human Potential
Exponentially As i Still Have All the Knowledge Crystalized
Before to Go Along With The Fluid Intelligence in Flow that Comes So Easily Now...
Bottom Lines
Baby is
i Make
The MaGiC of
SMiLes Come to
Those Who Exercise
More of their Human Intelligence,
Existentially SPeaKinG So; i've Been
Observing You Long As Well As All the
Others Here; Not Much Has Changed it Seems
With You; Yet Others Continue to Evolve; Ask Your Self Why,
Or Not;
That's Up to
You as Far as i Feel
And Sense, it's Never too
Late to Make The Concrete A River of Heavenow;
Remember (or not) i have Close to A Photographic Memory
For Text; i remember Your Views of Jesus Actually Being Real
According to Story As Written; However, it Seems You Don't Have
What it takes to Defend The 'Magic Sugar Pills' You BeLiEVE iN Life...
i Personally See that As 'Weak'; You May Look At it Whatever Way You So Wilt...
Other than That According
to What You've Stated
You Believed in, in the
Past, The Dude Yeshua for
Real Never Had a Pen, or A Blog,
So We Will Never Know What He Actually Said or Did...
Like You Profess, Mere Belief Proves Nothing; Yet Only
Relatively Failing, When It's Just Empty Shells of Words With No Essence...
And to Be Clear, The Essence of Belief is the Synergy of All Our Mind; The Vibrations, Frequencies The
Energy; Yes the Feelings, The Senses, That Combine to Make Our Existence Real Now And Improving At Best...
If Ya Wanna
Materially
Reduce it
to Terms like
Serotonin, Dopamine,
Oxytocin, And Epinephrine
You May Do That As Well;
Yet It's Not Necessary at All
When One Employs Intuition
From Evolved Innate Instincts
More Like An ENFP Than
An INTJ As True
The Second
Was my Personality
Before too; True, Those Personality
Tests Are Antiquated too; yet still i move
Around them All With Ease As Need Be with Relative Free
Will In Zen of Ego too As Art; Oh Lord Horatio And Ripley Believe
It or not; You Are Not Seeing Bigger Pictures of Existential Intelligences Now
From What i Observe at least, As An All Volunteer Participant, Anthropology Observer;
And Don't Get Me Wrong, If You Can And Will; Your Rational Intellect is of Great Value When it comes to Keeping
the Measures of Science in The Discussions Here; it's Just that You Are Not Bringing A Balance into A Larger Picture
of Art in smART
And Art
in
HeART Now
It Seems to me;
iMaGiNE SMiLinG
Ecstatically With
1000's of Beautiful
Women Just Bringing
(Reaching 60 Years-Old)
Smiles to them From An
Act of Art With No Words,
Just Dance; You See It's Not Always
The Intellect of Words That Makes Heaven Real Now...
The Essence is Within; Otherwise, Just Empty Shells of Words And Human Beings Same And Different...
Perhaps, It's Difficult For You to Understand; Yet A Song And A Dance From Soul is the Essence of BELieVE NoW...
And To Be Clear, Soul is What We Feel and Sense Beyond the Form of Empty Shells of Words And Human Beings Same...
Science Does Not Adequately
Measure Our Inner
UNiVERSE
As It's Always
Changing Now;
Impossible to
Do Through that
Old Tool That Measures
Buildings of Human Yet
Not Synergy of Soul All Flesh and Blood Energy Now...
i For one Am Very Satisfied With The Programmer of This Simulation For Real; Hint: me.
And Other than That Our Philosophies At Core Are Most Often Ruled With How We FeeL and
Sense Within; My Cup Is OverFLoWinG Through DarK And LiGHT; i Co-Create my Reality With Relative Free Will
As i Keep the Boot Camp Up Here; And the Other Place More Like Heaven Down With the Souls in India More;
Whatever Works...
(For You too)
-All
Thumbs Up!
-me
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
16 Jun 2021, 10:05 am
Fnord wrote:
A final blow to the claim that we live in a computer simulation...
Source: Simulation Theory Debunked
Dr. James Anderson is an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Dr. Anderson came to RTS from Edinburgh, Scotland, and specializes in philosophical theology, religious epistemology, and Christian apologetics. His doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh explored the paradoxical nature of certain Christian doctrines and the implications for the rationality of Christian faith. His research and writing has also focused on the presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, particularly his advocacy of the transcendental argument. Before studying philosophy, Dr. Anderson also earned a Ph.D. in Computer Simulation from the University of Edinburgh. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion, and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
Christian Philosopher James Anderson wrote:
The simulation hypothesis itself is based on scientific theories and concepts derived from our experiences of the world. It is predicated, at least in part, on what we take to be empirical scientific knowledge (what brains are and do, what computers are and do, etc.). But if we accept the simulation hypothesis then we acquire a defeater for all of our empirical beliefs and thus for all of our scientific beliefs. Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can’t trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it.
Source: Simulation Theory Debunked
Dr. James Anderson is an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Dr. Anderson came to RTS from Edinburgh, Scotland, and specializes in philosophical theology, religious epistemology, and Christian apologetics. His doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh explored the paradoxical nature of certain Christian doctrines and the implications for the rationality of Christian faith. His research and writing has also focused on the presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til, particularly his advocacy of the transcendental argument. Before studying philosophy, Dr. Anderson also earned a Ph.D. in Computer Simulation from the University of Edinburgh. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion, and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
This is a worse argument than the ones in favor of a simulation. If we live in a simulation with consistent rules, our experiences could be a reliable source of knowledge about the contents of said simulation. Science doesn't need to presuppose that what we observe is the base reality, only that it behaves in predictable ways.
16 Jun 2021, 10:13 am
Fnord wrote:
Ordinary English, please?
It's Worth Noting, to Others At
Least That i am 'Extraordinary';
That Seems to Be The Issue At Core Here...
Sorry, my FRiEnD;
Can Not
Will
Not
Bring
Myself
Down to 'Your
Level' And Explain this;
How Will Someone View
A Reality They Have No Way to 'See' for Now;
Like i said, i Gave it a Shot; Others May Reap A Greater Benefit...
You Just
Provided
A Bit of
'Dark' Muse
Sadly For What
You Seem Not to Be Able to 'See'...
Yet It's True; i Earned This, It Was
Not Given to me by anyone else either...
If 'This' Is a Simulation Theory; It IS A Rather 'Poor Attempt', Overall, now;
It Appears to me at Least, THeRE is Room For Improvement For Whatever 'God(S)' Exists now...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
16 Jun 2021, 10:21 am
Udinaas wrote:
... If we live in a simulation with consistent rules, our experiences could be a reliable source of knowledge about the contents of said simulation...
No, if we "live" in a simulation, our experiences and our knowledge -- heck, our entire history -- could just as easily be implanted into our memories, and be only as reliable for us as the programmers want them to be.Informing the participants that they are part of a simulation -- even by accident -- influences the outcome of the simulation.
_________________
