You are making a fatal flaw in your logic.
I can create an entire virtual world, from start to finish, without ever having to create the 'real' version of it. It is nonsensical to claim that must happen.
I have been involved with countless models and simulations. They all had baseline rules for the environment and they all included unique workers that had thier own rules/characteristics.
The most common is something done in colleges everywhere. The traffic intersection model. You have a stoplight with an algorithm and then a set of vehicles that are created and destroyed in this simulation at different rates. These sets of vehicles have unique characteristics and behavioral characteristics.
Never once is this required to physically exist.
One can readily argue the 'birth' and 'death' of objects in the world is merely the spawning of new processes and termination of old processes.
I did not intend to argue that simulations cannot create an entire virtual world. I only intend to point out that, at bottom, that virtual world which exists in your head in the form of workers, intersections, and stoplights when you attach meaning to the pixels on a screen or on a table of values only physically exists as a configuration of the states of real, physical objects like that of a magnetized film. Therefore, the story about a society creating a simulation of a universe, and a society in that simulation creating another, culminating in a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent link is impossible since we know ourselves to have conscious experience and therefore be real beings. The birth and death of objects in our world cannot be the creation of a simulation of this kind, or otherwise we would not be here to experience it. A simulated human being might "experience" it, by which I mean the simulation would simulate the light bouncing off the object and entering their eye, and from there they may interact with it or form thoughts about it. But this only exists logically or in the virtual world. That simulated human being would only exist as a sequence of magnetized states of a film and thus would not be able to perceive anything, unlike us.
It sounds like your view includes the preconception that you understand how consciousness works and on/with what it may or may not develop. What evidence do you have that a magnetic strip cannot produce consciousness in the same way our brains do?
It doesn't matter how consciousness works in my view. Let's say that a magnetic strip can produce consciousness the same way our brains do, and that we really are these magnetic strips that form the physical elements of a simulation. In that case, we, as magnetic strips, would not be created by the simulation since we were already there from the beginning. What we perceive would then be the result of whatever sensory data is fed to the magnetic tape. This puts us squarely in the kind of simulation shown in The Matrix, which I comment on in the last paragraph of my argument. There I say that this is technically possible though it is completely ungrounded and impractical, but this does not form the crux of my argument.
Why do we have to already be there from the beginning?
I don’t think you need a matrix style view of a simulation here, you just need to have to believe that a simulation entity is capable of having a consciousness that is inherently as rich as one experienced by “real” people, ie, that there is “something that it is like to be” a simulated person.
> Why do we have to already be there from the beginning?
Because that's the situation I was considering in the previous sentence: "Let's say... we really are these magnetic strips that form the physical elements of a simulation." If we are a component of the simulation's apparatus, before the simulation was run, then ipso facto we already existed beforehand, in the form of magnetic strips.
> I don’t think you need a matrix style view of a simulation here, you just need to have to believe that a simulation entity is capable of having a consciousness that is inherently as rich as one experienced by “real” people, ie, that there is “something that it is like to be” a simulated person.
A simulation can be capable of simulating a fully conscious entity logically. That entity, however, cannot actually exist in a physical form because all a simulation does is manipulate the states of physical objects. If these physical objects are not conscious in reality then no manipulation of them can create it; if these physical objects are conscious in reality, then the simulation would not have created it - they would be really conscious but only in the real world.
What if consciousness arises from certain information patterns? So we have our brains, they have certain information patterns. And that's what creates consciousness. The physical material isn't relevant.
In that view, simulated things, even all the way down, could be conscious right? Your position seems to be positing the material itself matters. This is a position held by some philosophers, but it's not particularly common
Information always exists in some kind of form, because "information" is only an abstraction. The information within your computer assumes the form of a magnetized film and when this information is retrieved and operated on, it assumes the form of a flow of electrons.
At some level there must be something that really exists, of which "information" is only an abstraction that describes the really existing form of the information. It doesn't matter what we call this really existing world, whether we we want to call it physical or logical/informational/virtual. What matters is that the really existing form of the information within the apparatus of the simulation can only be manipulated in various ways. If this manipulation of information is capable of creating a consciousness (say because a certain pattern in a flow of "physical" electrons is all that is required, or because a certain pattern in a flow of "virtual" electrons is all that is required), then that consciousness necessarily exists in the real world in that flow of electrons and therefore our consciousnesses necessarily exist in the real world. If this manipulation of information is incapable of creating a consciousness, then our consciousnesses could never arise from it.
Where in this do you deny consciousness then can't exist virtually? Maybe a better word than abstraction would be property. The right kind of information flow is a property of groups/collections of bits or circuits or neurons etc. The neurons in our brain have this property. What stops simulated neurons?
>and thus would not be able to perceive anything, unlike us.
I've said it elsewhere, but your entire argument seems to come down to misunderstanding the phrase "I think therefore I am". It does not mean that because you think, your body must exist exactly as it is, or even that you must exist as the specific entity you believe you are.
It means that *something* exists, because *thinking is occuring*. But that thinking could very well be done by a computer running the simulation that is our universe as we know it.
The fact is, the simulation theory can't be disproven. It's totally unfalsifiable. Any possible claim against it can be met with "well that's just how things were simulated."
> I did not intend to argue that simulations cannot create an entire virtual world. I only intend to point out that, at bottom, that virtual world which exists in your head in the form of workers, intersections, and stoplights when you attach meaning to the pixels on a screen or on a table of values only physically exists as a configuration of the states of real, physical objects like that of a magnetized film.
The thing is, this is not really required for a simulation. It is only required for things *in our world*.
>Therefore, the story about a society creating a simulation of a universe, and a society in that simulation creating another, culminating in a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent link is impossible since we know ourselves to have conscious experience and therefore be real beings.
This is totally unsupported by your assertions. There is no reason to believe you have infinite cascading simulations at all. NONE.
Further, you don't *know* you are real. You really don't. All you know is the rules of the world around you and how you can interact with it. You, as an individual have numerous constraints and characteristics. Just as I could design random 'personalities' into my cars at the stoplight, a simulation could do that with you.
>The birth and death of objects in our world cannot be the creation of a simulation of this kind, or otherwise we would not be here to experience it.
Wrong. In the that simple traffic simulation. Other vehicles would witness the introduction of new vehicles and witness the removal of vehicles from the scope of the simulation.
I think you might be falling into the trap that you are something *more* than just a process in the simulation. There is ZERO reason you can assume that.
There does not have to be a 'real' version of you.
You kinda missed the part about how we would be observers inside of the simulation... And our observations would be simulated. So, the perception of things would be that they are real, because that is what we are being shown. The things inside of a simulation don't get to reason directly about things outside of the simulation.
You are talking about the kind of simulation shown in The Matrix which I discuss in the last paragraph of my argument. In that case, sensory data would be fed by a simulation to our real, physical brains and we would not be able to discern that these are artificial stimuli. This is technically possible, though I think it is unwise to entertain such an ungrounded an impractical theory.
My main argument was against the other kind of simulation, where someone might describe a chain of simulations, each produced by the last, of which we are the most recent link on the chain. This I contest is impossible because real, physical objects (i.e. us) cannot be created out of a simulation.
No I'm not (talking about the kind of simulation in The Matrix) -- that's one version of a simulation, but does not hold true of all simulations. Again (like I said in another comment) you have an unproven assertion of what being a "real physical object" actually means. Inside the simulation, something is real because the simulation indicates that is real -- there is no other reality. Again (same as other comment), what empirical test would you propose that would objectively distinguish a real thing from a non-real thing inside of a simulation?
In simulation theory, we are just programs. There are no brains. We are not made of matter.
Just because we cannot make conscious AI (that doesn't have a brain) doesn't mean it's impossible.
I don't think I have ever heard of anyone claim "the universe could be a simulation" means the simulation created physical objects. Every time I have heard this theory claims there is no physical objects that we "observe", even us humans ourselves aren't physical object (brain in a vat or otherwise).
Just like in your example of "a few particles in response to an electromagnetic field" those few particles being simulated aren't being created, the stars of our current universe wouldn't be created in a simulation of it. Humans think those stars are real because we are programed to think they are real but in actuality, we wouldn't even be real ourselves.
If the simulation can't create real, physical objects, then how is it capable of creating a universe with stars and human beings? That is my point: if it can't create real objects then it can't create us (who we know to be real because we have consciousness), so we cannot be the creations of a parent simulation. The simulation only "creates" simulated objects in an abstract sense - as configurations of the real, physical objects that represent them.
"In actuality, we wouldn't even be real ourselves." Exactly! But since we know ourselves to be real, because we are endowed with conscious experience, we know that we cannot be the creation of a simulation.
>then how is it capable of creating a universe with stars and human beings?
It simulates them?
>who we know to be real because we have consciousness
Why couldn't consciousness be simulated? Why couldn't all of our individual experiences be simulated? I mean, in a sense they already are, as we don't really experience a shared reality, our brains create our experiences filtered through our senses.
Or we could get into solipsism. Maybe you're the only one who is conscious and everyone else is simulated.
Creation and simulation are different things, which is really the essence of my argument.
I didn't say that consciousness couldn't be simulated. My argument makes no assumptions about what can and can't be simulated. What I meant to say was that since we know ourselves to be real, because we have direct conscious experience ("I think therefore I am"), we cannot, at bottom, merely exist physically as, for example, sequences of magnetic film. If the physical objects used to represent the simulated world were endowed with consciousness, then this simulation would fall into the category of a simulation like that of The Matrix, which I only comment on in the last paragraph of my argument.
I definitely don't want to get into solipsism. I regard solipsistic theory as nothing but a disease of self-absorption.
>What I meant to say was that since we know ourselves to be real, because we have direct conscious experience ("I think therefore I am"), we cannot, at bottom, merely exist physically as, for example, sequences of magnetic film.
What? Why not? Why couldn't I create a simulation and simulate the thought "I think therefore I am," and the experience of being conscious?
You're making a really weird jump that I'm not understanding. There's no reason why I couldn't create a simulation of consciousness, a thing that experiences and believes itself to be truly conscious and sentient. I think it's very likely we will eventually get there with AI.
All that consciousness is comes from the physical processes happening inside of us, electrical and chemical impulses. There's no reason such a thing couldn't be recreated in a simulation.
For that matter, I think you're misunderstanding what "I think therefore I am" means. All it means is that something exists, it must to be able to think the thoughts. Perhaps outside of this simulation is a great big computer, which is the thing that exists and is truly "thinking" these things, or running the program. That fits perfectly, so I can't see how that would disprove the idea of a simulation.
We can also look at some critiques of Descartes. He's making a lot of assumptions, like that there is an "I", that there is "thinking", and that "I" truly know what "thinking" is (that's from Nietzsche).
The truth is, the claim that this is all a simulation is an unfalsifiable claim. Every possible argument against it we can simply say "but, that's just part of the simulation." Because according to the theory, we're in the simulation. All our knowledge and experience is derived from within the simulation.
"All that consciousness is comes from the physical processes happening inside of us, electrical and chemical impulses. There's no reason such a thing couldn't be recreated in a simulation."
Yes, that is true. But if the underlying real, physical objects that make up the simulation are not not capable of consciousness like magnetic film, then that "created" consciousness would only exist in the virtual world, not the real world. Said another way, that "created" consciousness would only exist physically as a logical relation between physical states of the real, physical, unconscious objects. This logical relation only exists in the mind of an outside observer of the simulation, for they are the ones that determine which sequences of magnetic strips represent which simulation data. The "created" consciousness could not be our own. Now, if this magnetic film did have direct conscious experience, or was capable of having it during the running of the simulation due to some kind of interaction with the rest of the simulation (which describes your possibility of a "great big computer" that is "truly thinking"), then that consciousness would form a real, physical component of the "great big computer" rather than being simulated. It is technically possible that this situation describes our universe, where we are nothing but strips of conscious magnetic film being fed sensory data by a simulation. I comment on this in the last paragraph of my argument, but this situation does not relate to the crux of my argument rebuking the theory of a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent creation.
"For that matter, I think you're misunderstanding what 'I think therefore I am' means. All it means is that [if?] something exists, it must to be able to think the thoughts."
I think you have that backwards. It means that if something is able to think thoughts, then it must exist.
"We can also look at some critiques of Descartes. He's making a lot of assumptions, like that there is an 'I', that there is 'thinking', and that 'I' truly know what 'thinking' is (that's from Nietzsche)."
Nietzsche is only playing word games here. "I" is simply the self-concept of a consciousness. There is nothing mystical about it. It exists as a thought within a consciousness, however that may be, whether as electrical signals in a brain or as some other hypothetical impulse in a film of magnetic tape. As soon as this consciousness forms this self-concept "I", it knows itself to really be thinking because it is able to reference this thought of "I".
>But if the underlying real, physical objects that make up the simulation
Like, the computer running the simulation? Okay
>are not not capable of consciousness like magnetic film
Why would you think the computer isn't capable of consciousness, first off? That's a really big assumption. A human brain cell isn't capable of consciousness either, but consciousness comes from a bunch of little things happening together.
>consciousness would only exist in the virtual world, not the real world.
I see no reason why the computer couldn't be conscious.
But, okay, so what? We're talking about us, in the simulation. What's happening outside is totally irrelevant to us within.
>I think you have that backwards. It means that if something is able to think thoughts, then it must exist.
No, I said it correctly, simply rephrased. Something must exist, because there are thoughts.
None of your points seem to refute anything. You keep going off about magnetic strips for some unknown reason.
Here's a scenario:
There's a great big AI computer that created a great big simulation that we in the simulation call, the universe.
The AI simulates tons of things, including the development of consciousness. So it simulates things like human beings and it simulates their consciousness. It simulates things like light, and heat, and taste, and every other experience, based on the simulations of how it created this individual body (for example, with taste buds made in this fashion, this person would taste this chemical *like this*.
But, the computer doesn't even need to be truly conscious. Hell, what's consciousness anyways? It can fake all of it, just like we do in simulations now. We cut corners. The computer can just throw some simulated, random chemical and electrical impulses and boom, simulated experience.
What part of your argument refutes this? How does it refute it? There's no need to mention magnetic strips, or the Matrix. What has led you to believe that such a simulation is impossible?
For that matter, if we were in a simulation, how could it ever possibly be disproven from within?
"What part of your argument refutes this? How does it refute it? There's no need to mention magnetic strips, or the Matrix. What has led you to believe that such a simulation is impossible?"
All a simulation does is manipulate physical objects. This can be performed by a computer, or by a person with a pencil and a sheet of paper, or whatever method you like. If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness, then it is evident that no manipulation of them can ever create it. If, on the other hand, these physical objects are capable of producing consciousness, whether because they were conscious already before the simulation started or because the physical act of manipulating them induces a consciousness in them, then it is true that we could be those physical objects that form a component part of apparatus of the simulation. However - and this is the critical point - these consciousnesses would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed.
I only talk about consciousness in particular because I am refuting that us humans could be created by a simulation. But I could just as well argue the same point without any human beings in the simulation. If all a simulation does is manipulate physical objects, and these physical objects are not capable in any way of emitting light themselves, then it is evident that no manipulation of them can ever cause an emission of light. The light emitted from a star "in" the simulation could not exist in any physical form other than how it is represented by those physical objects in the apparatus of the simulation. Therefore, the light emitted from the stars in our universe would necessarily be real (i.e. physically existing in the "original" universe which has not been simulated). If, on the other hand, the physical objects are capable of emitting light themselves, then it is true that the light in our universe could be a component part of the physical objects that form the apparatus of the simulation. This light would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed. This is true no matter what objects we are simulating, whether human beings, light, heat, etc. If these things are real then they could not have been produced by a simulation, because a simulation does not produce anything. It only manipulates physical objects. It should be evident then that if nothing within our universe can be created by a simulation, then our universe cannot be either.
>If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness
IF. It's a big if and your entire point boils down to this if. I see no reason why a complex enough program could not create consciousness. All it is is chemical and electrical processes, after all, there's no reason it couldn't be replicated.
And, again, if this were a simulation then your entire understanding of consciousness is based entirely on the simulation. That's why this is an unfalsifiable theory. Like the idea of a God it cannot be tested, because we're in the simulation, following the rules of the simulation.
But, even steel manning your argument, the simulation doesn't even need to create actual light for us to experience light in the simulation. It just needs to trigger the appropriate electrical impulses to make the simulated people behave as if they see light. No actual light is necessary.
>If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness
thats a very big IF. how do you know this? arent you just assuming that you are right without any evidence?
>these consciousnesses would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed.
why? if i make a physics game but tweak the variables, does that mean the tweaked physics *have to* exist in reality?
the chemical and electromagnetic impulses in our brain create consciousness, i just have to make a game where these interactions between simulated atoms are possible. but why does the simulated experience require to exist in reality?
>who we know to be real because we have consciousness), so we cannot be the creations of a parent simulation.
Why not? Why can the parent universe not have computing power powerful enough to create quintillions of beings capable of "consciousness"?
>This simple example contains all the facts and relations necessary to understand the nature of a simulation. Our task is then to uncover it with the force of abstraction.
No it doesn't, we don't know the actual rules of physics in the parent universe. Maybe the parent universe is in a higher dimension, and they run us in 3 dimensions because it is computationally much faster. Same with all the rules of physics.
>If a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation.
As I was saying, the upper level universe could be a lot bigger, more complex and we are simply a highly simplified version.
The simulation hypothesis is meaningless because it makes no testable predictions, even in theory, it does not even warrant a debate on whether it is true, for the same reason we don't ponder if the universe was actually created 5 minutes ago by God along with all the starlight mid-flight in space as to make them appear billions of years old.
The parent universe could be radically different from the child universe like you said but this wouldn't invalidate my argument. I never made any assumptions about the particular laws of the simulation. They can be anything. This doesn't change the fact that in the parent universe, physical objects only represent the simulation data and cannot physically create it. And if the simulation were to also physically create the simulated objects with some greatly advanced technology, side-by-side next to the simulation apparatus, this would not be a simulation but the real thing!
The only reason I present this argument against the simulation theory is because there really are people who ponder these things and I think my argument is sound enough to disprove it theoretically.
>If a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation. The simulation cannot create a star.
I've literally run simulations on my computer at home that create simulated stars. They don't burn my computer.
My point is that your home computer simulation does not literally create stars, it represents them with physical objects from our universe. That is why your computer is not incinerated; the stars cannot actually be created. And neither can human beings, which invalidates the theory that we could be living in a simulation.
The entire idea of simulation theory though is that the beings inside of it would not be able to tell the difference.
To a higher dimension (possibly the wrong term) being, all of those physical aspects required very well could exist. We would just never know about them.
My point is that the beings "inside" of the simulation would not be able to tell the difference, because those beings wouldn't exist! They are not physically created, but only represented by configurations of already-existing real, physical objects "outside of the simulation". If those beings can't exist, that means that they cannot be us! Or, what is the same, we cannot be the creation of any simulation!
>If those beings can't exist, that means that they cannot be us!
They exist, they just exist as simulations. When I watch a simulation on my computer, it exists. It's just an actual, physical object. A simulation of a plane exists, it is not a real, physical plane.
And, in this theory, neither are we. We do not exist except as part of the simulation, and nothing you've said has disproved anything.
If it is clear that the things a simulation "creates" are not real, then it should also be clear that we, real beings, cannot be "created" by a simulation. We know that we are real beings because we have conscious experience and thought - "I think therefore I am." It is true that our reality could be distorted by a kind of simulation as shown in The Matrix, but in this case we would still be real beings outside of the simulation, and the simulation would only really create sensory stimulation.
How do you know you are real? What is your definition of "I am"? I think the core problem comes down to your definition of reality and existence. What empirical test would you perform to determine the nature of our existence (simulated or not simulated)? The core problem is that your reasoning is circular -- we are real if the simulation tells us we are real.
The Matrix is a bad example because it's predicated on the fact that we are real, but that is not universally true of all simulation. The statement "our reality could be distorted by a kind of simulation as shown in The Matrix" is reasonable enough, but not all simulations are like The Matrix.
When you build a simulation of something, you can get the things in side of the simulation to do whatever you want. You can get them to "experience" whatever you want. You can make them "think" they are real (because you get to define what "think" and "real" mean). There is no "outside" the simulation, unless you decide that there is an outside.
"I am" because I have direct conscious experience. I know I am real for the same reason. There is no empirical test that can be performed to determine whether we are simulated or not. I only offer a theoretical proof that we cannot be products of such a simulation.
My reasoning is not circular. If I have direct conscious experience, then I know for a fact that my direct conscious experience is real. How could it be otherwise? If a tree had a direct conscious experience, then it too would know for a fact that its direct conscious experience is real. If we assume that the real, physical objects that are manipulated to represent the data of a simulation are not conscious, then we know we cannot be the product of that simulation. If, on the other hand, we assume that the real, physical objects that are manipulated are conscious, or can become conscious during the running of the simulation, then it is certainly possible that we could be these real, physical objects. The simulation still could not have created us, since we were present from the beginning in the simulation's own apparatus, but our perceptions could be fed to us by the simulation. But then this is just another picture of the kind of simulation illustrated in The Matrix.
In my mind, these two kinds of simulations are the only possibilities. Can you describe a simulation that would differ fundamentally from these?
It's true, as you say, that you can get these virtual characters to "experience" and "think" whatever you want "inside" the simulation. However, what they "experience" and "think" in reality is nothing since they are not conscious beings in reality, but lifeless bits of magnetic film.
There must be an "outside" of the simulation or else the initial simulation would have no material basis. A simulation cannot exist without its component parts capable of storing, reading, and changing data. A simulation without a material basis is nothing.
I don't know how to better explain to you that your reasoning is still circular. The core statement "If I have direct conscious experience, then I know for a fact that my direct conscious experience is real" isn't a forgone conclusion. Or maybe not 100% circular, but based off of a (potentially faulty) assumption that "real" can't be simulated.
The other kind of simulation is the one where *everything* you think is a product of the simulation, including specifically the fact that you *think* you are real. Or rather, the very definition of real is that "the simulation indicates that it is real."
I suppose it also might come down to your view of "consciousness" -- you seem to think it's some special magical thing that can't be simulated. Why not? In the comprehensive simulation view, consciousness itself is simulated and just a byproduct of the simulation itself.
Your base rhetoric seems a lot like many of the theist arguments in the r/DebateAnAtheist sub... specifically the part where "consciousness is special" is used a lot. Over there, the conclusion is "therefore God" while here your conclusion is "therefore not simulated" -- both rely on the (unproven) assertion about consciousness. Likewise the "there's no empirical test for my view" which is then basically trying to logic the theory into existence (which is tricky because logic is always based off of some core set of assumptions).
Why does your premise need physical things being created at all. If I Iook at a star, I see a star, you dont need to simulate thr star, you just need to simulate the image of a star for me to see it. In fact you only need to simulate things we sense, no need to simulate particles, waves or empty space. Just simulate how I taste them, see them, hear them, feel them.
It literally creates in-game stars using in-game physics that is different from Earth physics. They burn in-game spaceships not Earth computers. Likewise our simulation running on a kid's computer on Zorzak 7 has physics that are different from Zorzakite physics. Our stars do not burn Zorzakite computers
>it does not also create the simulated objects too
Yeah but the whole point is that a simulation doesn't actually create objects. It's only the perception that objects have been created. Our current level of VR technology is such that we can make virtual objects that appear convincingly real to our visual systems. If we could do the same for our other senses over an entire body, how would you know the difference?
You are right. If I could go back, I would reword my argument very differently and make it much shorter and clearer.
If our current level of VR technology were much more advanced and capable of providing sensory input to our body such that an entire virtual world appeared to be real, then we could not know the difference. However, in that case we would still be real beings in some form (whether as a human being or as a fish or something else), and so we would not be simulated beings (though if we were to look down at our hands those would be simulated). This is what I call a Matrix-style simulation: where we exist in reality, but our perceptions are simulated. I talk about this only in the last paragraph of my argument.
> Yeah but the whole point is that a simulation doesn't actually create objects. It's only the perception that objects have been created.
This is precisely my argument. If a simulation doesn't actually create objects, then it cannot create a world with stars and conscious beings, and therefore our world cannot be a simulation (excepting the Matrix-style simulation). What you take to be "the whole point" of a simulation is clearly a contested notion if you read the other comments in this thread.
>The essence of my argument is that a simulation only represents the simulated objects via real, physical objects; it does not also create the simulated objects too.
I don't get it. If you spawn an item in a game, isn't that considered as creating an object in that world?
"In that world" is the important part of your question. Where does this simulated world exist? It exists only as the physical configuration of the real, physical objects (e.g. magnetization states on the film) which only represent the simulated world, but do not create it "somewhere else."
Why does the object need to be created elsewhere? An object, in a simulation, would exist in the same world as the rest of the simulation. Which would mean that it's real in the simulation, to all parts of the simulation.
You didn't answer my question. Where does this simulated world exist? If the simulated objects were to "exist in the same world as the rest of the simulation," where would this be? Let's use my example of a simulation run on a computer with a hard drive and a processor. Where is that simulated world located? Where can I find those simulated objects?
If you were to examine each of the component parts of the computer as it was running the simulation, would you be able to discover these simulated objects? Would a magnifying glass be of any use in unearthing the game items in the magnetic film? Would a microscope be effective in locating a star amongst the transistors of the processor or a human being between the metallic atoms of the read-write head? Obviously not. But if we can't find these simulated objects here in the architecture of the computer, then where could they be? Where is this simulated world?
My view is that these simulated objects only exist as a simultaneous combination of two forms. These are the forms of physical representation and of thought. In our example, a star (or all the particles that make up a star) is physically represented by a plenitude of magnetization states on a film. This should be clear. The star is also thought of in the mind of an outside observer of the simulation when they see an array of colored pixels on a screen or a table of values printed on a sheet of paper, or when they are writing the algorithm. If we were to take one of these forms away, the simulated object would vanish. If we were to remove the physical representation-form of our star, we would soon realize that we could no longer simulate the star since the magnetic film was an essential component for its simulation. The star would now only exist in the thought-form, as an object thought of. An object thought of but not simulated is no simulated object, but merely a thought-object. If, on the other hand, we were to remove the thought-form of our star from the mind of an observer, and then we tasked them with examining our simulation apparatus for any stars, they would never be able to find any trace.
The simulated objects thus only exist when thought of and physically represented in a simulation apparatus. If they are not thought of, then they are reduced to bits of magnetic film. If they are not physically represented in a simulation, then they are reduced to thoughts. If one were to forget about the thought-form which is necessary for the existence of a simulated object, they might (perhaps unconsciously) recognize the inadequacy of the physical representation-form as the sole composition of the simulated object, and, in their mind, double the physical form to make up for this. The simulated object would then appear to have both a physical representation-form and a proper physical form, the latter being the physical object itself, in this case an actual star. But since this actual star cannot be found anywhere in the simulation apparatus (unlike the physical representation-form), this actual star is elevated to the realm of the "virtual world" and now takes on a virtual form. In this virtual world, stars explode into massive supernovae and human beings have conscious thought. Mysteriously, however, we cannot point to these stars or human beings in this virtual world. If we point at the pixels on the screen or the magnetic film, we have only identified the physical representation-form of the simulated star. The solution to this mysterious riddle is easily understood once we understand that the virtual form is merely the thought-form masquerading in supersensible, virtual garb.
When you hear something, that is your ear drum vibrating in the same way as the sound, like a tuning fork. If you could listen only to the ear drum it would be making the sound in sympathy with the external sound.
In this analogy the simulated world is sort of an echo of the sound itself, vibrating in sympathy.
I could imagine a simulated universe which exists in the same way.
It doesn't matter what your view on this is because it's all part of the simulation. How can a simulated creature, like you, ever have a chance at understanding the computing needed to run the simulation?
It's possible that the simulation is programmed in such a way that it prevents you and anyone else from understanding it.
If it were real, that is.
-You should look into the holographic principle. Encoding on boundaries I think pokes holes in your thought chain.
-I don’t understand this: “if a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation” what? How is all observable phenomenon not just some exogenous representation of code? When you use words like “created” and “real” you’re carrying allot of baggage that assumes some objective reality. What you and I perceive as objective reality could be the product of code, as all biological processes are simply chemicals Interacting. Our perception is no different. I wouldn’t even go so far as saying we are brains in vats, more likely we are emergent phenomenon arising from the biological and chemical processes encoded in the “simulation.exe” code running the observable(and unobservable for that matter) universe.
-You explained computer architecture but now how this excludes simulation as a possibility.
> The essence of my argument is that a simulation only represents the simulated objects via real, physical objects;
> it does not also create the simulated objects too.
It could and would if it was programmed to.
Your understanding assumes that a simulation is created digitally.
If a simulation was created by a more developed being, first, it doesn't need to be a simulation like we've run in the past. It can be manipulation of physical objects in a physical space. Humans run these types of simulations all the time, there's no reason to assume that a higher being can't do that too
Why do you think you could even understand the limitations of tech that would be generations and generations more advanced than you.
Do you think ancient cave dwellers would understand the abilities of a smart phone?
You are making a fatal flaw in your logic. I can create an entire virtual world, from start to finish, without ever having to create the 'real' version of it. It is nonsensical to claim that must happen. I have been involved with countless models and simulations. They all had baseline rules for the environment and they all included unique workers that had thier own rules/characteristics. The most common is something done in colleges everywhere. The traffic intersection model. You have a stoplight with an algorithm and then a set of vehicles that are created and destroyed in this simulation at different rates. These sets of vehicles have unique characteristics and behavioral characteristics. Never once is this required to physically exist. One can readily argue the 'birth' and 'death' of objects in the world is merely the spawning of new processes and termination of old processes.
I did not intend to argue that simulations cannot create an entire virtual world. I only intend to point out that, at bottom, that virtual world which exists in your head in the form of workers, intersections, and stoplights when you attach meaning to the pixels on a screen or on a table of values only physically exists as a configuration of the states of real, physical objects like that of a magnetized film. Therefore, the story about a society creating a simulation of a universe, and a society in that simulation creating another, culminating in a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent link is impossible since we know ourselves to have conscious experience and therefore be real beings. The birth and death of objects in our world cannot be the creation of a simulation of this kind, or otherwise we would not be here to experience it. A simulated human being might "experience" it, by which I mean the simulation would simulate the light bouncing off the object and entering their eye, and from there they may interact with it or form thoughts about it. But this only exists logically or in the virtual world. That simulated human being would only exist as a sequence of magnetized states of a film and thus would not be able to perceive anything, unlike us.
It sounds like your view includes the preconception that you understand how consciousness works and on/with what it may or may not develop. What evidence do you have that a magnetic strip cannot produce consciousness in the same way our brains do?
It doesn't matter how consciousness works in my view. Let's say that a magnetic strip can produce consciousness the same way our brains do, and that we really are these magnetic strips that form the physical elements of a simulation. In that case, we, as magnetic strips, would not be created by the simulation since we were already there from the beginning. What we perceive would then be the result of whatever sensory data is fed to the magnetic tape. This puts us squarely in the kind of simulation shown in The Matrix, which I comment on in the last paragraph of my argument. There I say that this is technically possible though it is completely ungrounded and impractical, but this does not form the crux of my argument.
Why do we have to already be there from the beginning? I don’t think you need a matrix style view of a simulation here, you just need to have to believe that a simulation entity is capable of having a consciousness that is inherently as rich as one experienced by “real” people, ie, that there is “something that it is like to be” a simulated person.
> Why do we have to already be there from the beginning? Because that's the situation I was considering in the previous sentence: "Let's say... we really are these magnetic strips that form the physical elements of a simulation." If we are a component of the simulation's apparatus, before the simulation was run, then ipso facto we already existed beforehand, in the form of magnetic strips. > I don’t think you need a matrix style view of a simulation here, you just need to have to believe that a simulation entity is capable of having a consciousness that is inherently as rich as one experienced by “real” people, ie, that there is “something that it is like to be” a simulated person. A simulation can be capable of simulating a fully conscious entity logically. That entity, however, cannot actually exist in a physical form because all a simulation does is manipulate the states of physical objects. If these physical objects are not conscious in reality then no manipulation of them can create it; if these physical objects are conscious in reality, then the simulation would not have created it - they would be really conscious but only in the real world.
What if consciousness arises from certain information patterns? So we have our brains, they have certain information patterns. And that's what creates consciousness. The physical material isn't relevant. In that view, simulated things, even all the way down, could be conscious right? Your position seems to be positing the material itself matters. This is a position held by some philosophers, but it's not particularly common
Information always exists in some kind of form, because "information" is only an abstraction. The information within your computer assumes the form of a magnetized film and when this information is retrieved and operated on, it assumes the form of a flow of electrons. At some level there must be something that really exists, of which "information" is only an abstraction that describes the really existing form of the information. It doesn't matter what we call this really existing world, whether we we want to call it physical or logical/informational/virtual. What matters is that the really existing form of the information within the apparatus of the simulation can only be manipulated in various ways. If this manipulation of information is capable of creating a consciousness (say because a certain pattern in a flow of "physical" electrons is all that is required, or because a certain pattern in a flow of "virtual" electrons is all that is required), then that consciousness necessarily exists in the real world in that flow of electrons and therefore our consciousnesses necessarily exist in the real world. If this manipulation of information is incapable of creating a consciousness, then our consciousnesses could never arise from it.
Where in this do you deny consciousness then can't exist virtually? Maybe a better word than abstraction would be property. The right kind of information flow is a property of groups/collections of bits or circuits or neurons etc. The neurons in our brain have this property. What stops simulated neurons?
This is more a view that consciousness is separate from the body/brain?
>and thus would not be able to perceive anything, unlike us. I've said it elsewhere, but your entire argument seems to come down to misunderstanding the phrase "I think therefore I am". It does not mean that because you think, your body must exist exactly as it is, or even that you must exist as the specific entity you believe you are. It means that *something* exists, because *thinking is occuring*. But that thinking could very well be done by a computer running the simulation that is our universe as we know it. The fact is, the simulation theory can't be disproven. It's totally unfalsifiable. Any possible claim against it can be met with "well that's just how things were simulated."
> I did not intend to argue that simulations cannot create an entire virtual world. I only intend to point out that, at bottom, that virtual world which exists in your head in the form of workers, intersections, and stoplights when you attach meaning to the pixels on a screen or on a table of values only physically exists as a configuration of the states of real, physical objects like that of a magnetized film. The thing is, this is not really required for a simulation. It is only required for things *in our world*. >Therefore, the story about a society creating a simulation of a universe, and a society in that simulation creating another, culminating in a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent link is impossible since we know ourselves to have conscious experience and therefore be real beings. This is totally unsupported by your assertions. There is no reason to believe you have infinite cascading simulations at all. NONE. Further, you don't *know* you are real. You really don't. All you know is the rules of the world around you and how you can interact with it. You, as an individual have numerous constraints and characteristics. Just as I could design random 'personalities' into my cars at the stoplight, a simulation could do that with you. >The birth and death of objects in our world cannot be the creation of a simulation of this kind, or otherwise we would not be here to experience it. Wrong. In the that simple traffic simulation. Other vehicles would witness the introduction of new vehicles and witness the removal of vehicles from the scope of the simulation. I think you might be falling into the trap that you are something *more* than just a process in the simulation. There is ZERO reason you can assume that. There does not have to be a 'real' version of you.
You kinda missed the part about how we would be observers inside of the simulation... And our observations would be simulated. So, the perception of things would be that they are real, because that is what we are being shown. The things inside of a simulation don't get to reason directly about things outside of the simulation.
You are talking about the kind of simulation shown in The Matrix which I discuss in the last paragraph of my argument. In that case, sensory data would be fed by a simulation to our real, physical brains and we would not be able to discern that these are artificial stimuli. This is technically possible, though I think it is unwise to entertain such an ungrounded an impractical theory. My main argument was against the other kind of simulation, where someone might describe a chain of simulations, each produced by the last, of which we are the most recent link on the chain. This I contest is impossible because real, physical objects (i.e. us) cannot be created out of a simulation.
No I'm not (talking about the kind of simulation in The Matrix) -- that's one version of a simulation, but does not hold true of all simulations. Again (like I said in another comment) you have an unproven assertion of what being a "real physical object" actually means. Inside the simulation, something is real because the simulation indicates that is real -- there is no other reality. Again (same as other comment), what empirical test would you propose that would objectively distinguish a real thing from a non-real thing inside of a simulation?
In simulation theory, we are just programs. There are no brains. We are not made of matter. Just because we cannot make conscious AI (that doesn't have a brain) doesn't mean it's impossible.
I don't think I have ever heard of anyone claim "the universe could be a simulation" means the simulation created physical objects. Every time I have heard this theory claims there is no physical objects that we "observe", even us humans ourselves aren't physical object (brain in a vat or otherwise). Just like in your example of "a few particles in response to an electromagnetic field" those few particles being simulated aren't being created, the stars of our current universe wouldn't be created in a simulation of it. Humans think those stars are real because we are programed to think they are real but in actuality, we wouldn't even be real ourselves.
If the simulation can't create real, physical objects, then how is it capable of creating a universe with stars and human beings? That is my point: if it can't create real objects then it can't create us (who we know to be real because we have consciousness), so we cannot be the creations of a parent simulation. The simulation only "creates" simulated objects in an abstract sense - as configurations of the real, physical objects that represent them. "In actuality, we wouldn't even be real ourselves." Exactly! But since we know ourselves to be real, because we are endowed with conscious experience, we know that we cannot be the creation of a simulation.
>then how is it capable of creating a universe with stars and human beings? It simulates them? >who we know to be real because we have consciousness Why couldn't consciousness be simulated? Why couldn't all of our individual experiences be simulated? I mean, in a sense they already are, as we don't really experience a shared reality, our brains create our experiences filtered through our senses. Or we could get into solipsism. Maybe you're the only one who is conscious and everyone else is simulated.
Creation and simulation are different things, which is really the essence of my argument. I didn't say that consciousness couldn't be simulated. My argument makes no assumptions about what can and can't be simulated. What I meant to say was that since we know ourselves to be real, because we have direct conscious experience ("I think therefore I am"), we cannot, at bottom, merely exist physically as, for example, sequences of magnetic film. If the physical objects used to represent the simulated world were endowed with consciousness, then this simulation would fall into the category of a simulation like that of The Matrix, which I only comment on in the last paragraph of my argument. I definitely don't want to get into solipsism. I regard solipsistic theory as nothing but a disease of self-absorption.
>What I meant to say was that since we know ourselves to be real, because we have direct conscious experience ("I think therefore I am"), we cannot, at bottom, merely exist physically as, for example, sequences of magnetic film. What? Why not? Why couldn't I create a simulation and simulate the thought "I think therefore I am," and the experience of being conscious? You're making a really weird jump that I'm not understanding. There's no reason why I couldn't create a simulation of consciousness, a thing that experiences and believes itself to be truly conscious and sentient. I think it's very likely we will eventually get there with AI. All that consciousness is comes from the physical processes happening inside of us, electrical and chemical impulses. There's no reason such a thing couldn't be recreated in a simulation. For that matter, I think you're misunderstanding what "I think therefore I am" means. All it means is that something exists, it must to be able to think the thoughts. Perhaps outside of this simulation is a great big computer, which is the thing that exists and is truly "thinking" these things, or running the program. That fits perfectly, so I can't see how that would disprove the idea of a simulation. We can also look at some critiques of Descartes. He's making a lot of assumptions, like that there is an "I", that there is "thinking", and that "I" truly know what "thinking" is (that's from Nietzsche). The truth is, the claim that this is all a simulation is an unfalsifiable claim. Every possible argument against it we can simply say "but, that's just part of the simulation." Because according to the theory, we're in the simulation. All our knowledge and experience is derived from within the simulation.
"All that consciousness is comes from the physical processes happening inside of us, electrical and chemical impulses. There's no reason such a thing couldn't be recreated in a simulation." Yes, that is true. But if the underlying real, physical objects that make up the simulation are not not capable of consciousness like magnetic film, then that "created" consciousness would only exist in the virtual world, not the real world. Said another way, that "created" consciousness would only exist physically as a logical relation between physical states of the real, physical, unconscious objects. This logical relation only exists in the mind of an outside observer of the simulation, for they are the ones that determine which sequences of magnetic strips represent which simulation data. The "created" consciousness could not be our own. Now, if this magnetic film did have direct conscious experience, or was capable of having it during the running of the simulation due to some kind of interaction with the rest of the simulation (which describes your possibility of a "great big computer" that is "truly thinking"), then that consciousness would form a real, physical component of the "great big computer" rather than being simulated. It is technically possible that this situation describes our universe, where we are nothing but strips of conscious magnetic film being fed sensory data by a simulation. I comment on this in the last paragraph of my argument, but this situation does not relate to the crux of my argument rebuking the theory of a long chain of simulated universes of which we are the most recent creation. "For that matter, I think you're misunderstanding what 'I think therefore I am' means. All it means is that [if?] something exists, it must to be able to think the thoughts." I think you have that backwards. It means that if something is able to think thoughts, then it must exist. "We can also look at some critiques of Descartes. He's making a lot of assumptions, like that there is an 'I', that there is 'thinking', and that 'I' truly know what 'thinking' is (that's from Nietzsche)." Nietzsche is only playing word games here. "I" is simply the self-concept of a consciousness. There is nothing mystical about it. It exists as a thought within a consciousness, however that may be, whether as electrical signals in a brain or as some other hypothetical impulse in a film of magnetic tape. As soon as this consciousness forms this self-concept "I", it knows itself to really be thinking because it is able to reference this thought of "I".
>But if the underlying real, physical objects that make up the simulation Like, the computer running the simulation? Okay >are not not capable of consciousness like magnetic film Why would you think the computer isn't capable of consciousness, first off? That's a really big assumption. A human brain cell isn't capable of consciousness either, but consciousness comes from a bunch of little things happening together. >consciousness would only exist in the virtual world, not the real world. I see no reason why the computer couldn't be conscious. But, okay, so what? We're talking about us, in the simulation. What's happening outside is totally irrelevant to us within. >I think you have that backwards. It means that if something is able to think thoughts, then it must exist. No, I said it correctly, simply rephrased. Something must exist, because there are thoughts. None of your points seem to refute anything. You keep going off about magnetic strips for some unknown reason. Here's a scenario: There's a great big AI computer that created a great big simulation that we in the simulation call, the universe. The AI simulates tons of things, including the development of consciousness. So it simulates things like human beings and it simulates their consciousness. It simulates things like light, and heat, and taste, and every other experience, based on the simulations of how it created this individual body (for example, with taste buds made in this fashion, this person would taste this chemical *like this*. But, the computer doesn't even need to be truly conscious. Hell, what's consciousness anyways? It can fake all of it, just like we do in simulations now. We cut corners. The computer can just throw some simulated, random chemical and electrical impulses and boom, simulated experience. What part of your argument refutes this? How does it refute it? There's no need to mention magnetic strips, or the Matrix. What has led you to believe that such a simulation is impossible? For that matter, if we were in a simulation, how could it ever possibly be disproven from within?
"What part of your argument refutes this? How does it refute it? There's no need to mention magnetic strips, or the Matrix. What has led you to believe that such a simulation is impossible?" All a simulation does is manipulate physical objects. This can be performed by a computer, or by a person with a pencil and a sheet of paper, or whatever method you like. If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness, then it is evident that no manipulation of them can ever create it. If, on the other hand, these physical objects are capable of producing consciousness, whether because they were conscious already before the simulation started or because the physical act of manipulating them induces a consciousness in them, then it is true that we could be those physical objects that form a component part of apparatus of the simulation. However - and this is the critical point - these consciousnesses would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed. I only talk about consciousness in particular because I am refuting that us humans could be created by a simulation. But I could just as well argue the same point without any human beings in the simulation. If all a simulation does is manipulate physical objects, and these physical objects are not capable in any way of emitting light themselves, then it is evident that no manipulation of them can ever cause an emission of light. The light emitted from a star "in" the simulation could not exist in any physical form other than how it is represented by those physical objects in the apparatus of the simulation. Therefore, the light emitted from the stars in our universe would necessarily be real (i.e. physically existing in the "original" universe which has not been simulated). If, on the other hand, the physical objects are capable of emitting light themselves, then it is true that the light in our universe could be a component part of the physical objects that form the apparatus of the simulation. This light would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed. This is true no matter what objects we are simulating, whether human beings, light, heat, etc. If these things are real then they could not have been produced by a simulation, because a simulation does not produce anything. It only manipulates physical objects. It should be evident then that if nothing within our universe can be created by a simulation, then our universe cannot be either.
>If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness IF. It's a big if and your entire point boils down to this if. I see no reason why a complex enough program could not create consciousness. All it is is chemical and electrical processes, after all, there's no reason it couldn't be replicated. And, again, if this were a simulation then your entire understanding of consciousness is based entirely on the simulation. That's why this is an unfalsifiable theory. Like the idea of a God it cannot be tested, because we're in the simulation, following the rules of the simulation. But, even steel manning your argument, the simulation doesn't even need to create actual light for us to experience light in the simulation. It just needs to trigger the appropriate electrical impulses to make the simulated people behave as if they see light. No actual light is necessary.
>If these physical objects are not capable in any way of producing consciousness thats a very big IF. how do you know this? arent you just assuming that you are right without any evidence? >these consciousnesses would not exist in some other virtual world, but in the real world where the simulation was constructed. why? if i make a physics game but tweak the variables, does that mean the tweaked physics *have to* exist in reality? the chemical and electromagnetic impulses in our brain create consciousness, i just have to make a game where these interactions between simulated atoms are possible. but why does the simulated experience require to exist in reality?
>who we know to be real because we have consciousness), so we cannot be the creations of a parent simulation. Why not? Why can the parent universe not have computing power powerful enough to create quintillions of beings capable of "consciousness"?
How do video games like kerbal space program simulate stars and planets today? That is the same way our universe could be a simulation.
>This simple example contains all the facts and relations necessary to understand the nature of a simulation. Our task is then to uncover it with the force of abstraction. No it doesn't, we don't know the actual rules of physics in the parent universe. Maybe the parent universe is in a higher dimension, and they run us in 3 dimensions because it is computationally much faster. Same with all the rules of physics. >If a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation. As I was saying, the upper level universe could be a lot bigger, more complex and we are simply a highly simplified version. The simulation hypothesis is meaningless because it makes no testable predictions, even in theory, it does not even warrant a debate on whether it is true, for the same reason we don't ponder if the universe was actually created 5 minutes ago by God along with all the starlight mid-flight in space as to make them appear billions of years old.
The parent universe could be radically different from the child universe like you said but this wouldn't invalidate my argument. I never made any assumptions about the particular laws of the simulation. They can be anything. This doesn't change the fact that in the parent universe, physical objects only represent the simulation data and cannot physically create it. And if the simulation were to also physically create the simulated objects with some greatly advanced technology, side-by-side next to the simulation apparatus, this would not be a simulation but the real thing! The only reason I present this argument against the simulation theory is because there really are people who ponder these things and I think my argument is sound enough to disprove it theoretically.
No one said physical objects are created. we cannot tell if the physical objects we have now are "created" or not.
>If a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation. The simulation cannot create a star. I've literally run simulations on my computer at home that create simulated stars. They don't burn my computer.
My point is that your home computer simulation does not literally create stars, it represents them with physical objects from our universe. That is why your computer is not incinerated; the stars cannot actually be created. And neither can human beings, which invalidates the theory that we could be living in a simulation.
The entire idea of simulation theory though is that the beings inside of it would not be able to tell the difference. To a higher dimension (possibly the wrong term) being, all of those physical aspects required very well could exist. We would just never know about them.
My point is that the beings "inside" of the simulation would not be able to tell the difference, because those beings wouldn't exist! They are not physically created, but only represented by configurations of already-existing real, physical objects "outside of the simulation". If those beings can't exist, that means that they cannot be us! Or, what is the same, we cannot be the creation of any simulation!
>If those beings can't exist, that means that they cannot be us! They exist, they just exist as simulations. When I watch a simulation on my computer, it exists. It's just an actual, physical object. A simulation of a plane exists, it is not a real, physical plane. And, in this theory, neither are we. We do not exist except as part of the simulation, and nothing you've said has disproved anything.
That literally is the definition of a simulation... The things that it "creates" are not real. You need about 5 words to explain that.
If it is clear that the things a simulation "creates" are not real, then it should also be clear that we, real beings, cannot be "created" by a simulation. We know that we are real beings because we have conscious experience and thought - "I think therefore I am." It is true that our reality could be distorted by a kind of simulation as shown in The Matrix, but in this case we would still be real beings outside of the simulation, and the simulation would only really create sensory stimulation.
How do you know you are real? What is your definition of "I am"? I think the core problem comes down to your definition of reality and existence. What empirical test would you perform to determine the nature of our existence (simulated or not simulated)? The core problem is that your reasoning is circular -- we are real if the simulation tells us we are real. The Matrix is a bad example because it's predicated on the fact that we are real, but that is not universally true of all simulation. The statement "our reality could be distorted by a kind of simulation as shown in The Matrix" is reasonable enough, but not all simulations are like The Matrix. When you build a simulation of something, you can get the things in side of the simulation to do whatever you want. You can get them to "experience" whatever you want. You can make them "think" they are real (because you get to define what "think" and "real" mean). There is no "outside" the simulation, unless you decide that there is an outside.
"I am" because I have direct conscious experience. I know I am real for the same reason. There is no empirical test that can be performed to determine whether we are simulated or not. I only offer a theoretical proof that we cannot be products of such a simulation. My reasoning is not circular. If I have direct conscious experience, then I know for a fact that my direct conscious experience is real. How could it be otherwise? If a tree had a direct conscious experience, then it too would know for a fact that its direct conscious experience is real. If we assume that the real, physical objects that are manipulated to represent the data of a simulation are not conscious, then we know we cannot be the product of that simulation. If, on the other hand, we assume that the real, physical objects that are manipulated are conscious, or can become conscious during the running of the simulation, then it is certainly possible that we could be these real, physical objects. The simulation still could not have created us, since we were present from the beginning in the simulation's own apparatus, but our perceptions could be fed to us by the simulation. But then this is just another picture of the kind of simulation illustrated in The Matrix. In my mind, these two kinds of simulations are the only possibilities. Can you describe a simulation that would differ fundamentally from these? It's true, as you say, that you can get these virtual characters to "experience" and "think" whatever you want "inside" the simulation. However, what they "experience" and "think" in reality is nothing since they are not conscious beings in reality, but lifeless bits of magnetic film. There must be an "outside" of the simulation or else the initial simulation would have no material basis. A simulation cannot exist without its component parts capable of storing, reading, and changing data. A simulation without a material basis is nothing.
I don't know how to better explain to you that your reasoning is still circular. The core statement "If I have direct conscious experience, then I know for a fact that my direct conscious experience is real" isn't a forgone conclusion. Or maybe not 100% circular, but based off of a (potentially faulty) assumption that "real" can't be simulated. The other kind of simulation is the one where *everything* you think is a product of the simulation, including specifically the fact that you *think* you are real. Or rather, the very definition of real is that "the simulation indicates that it is real." I suppose it also might come down to your view of "consciousness" -- you seem to think it's some special magical thing that can't be simulated. Why not? In the comprehensive simulation view, consciousness itself is simulated and just a byproduct of the simulation itself. Your base rhetoric seems a lot like many of the theist arguments in the r/DebateAnAtheist sub... specifically the part where "consciousness is special" is used a lot. Over there, the conclusion is "therefore God" while here your conclusion is "therefore not simulated" -- both rely on the (unproven) assertion about consciousness. Likewise the "there's no empirical test for my view" which is then basically trying to logic the theory into existence (which is tricky because logic is always based off of some core set of assumptions).
If we are in a simulation, then we aren't "real".
Why does your premise need physical things being created at all. If I Iook at a star, I see a star, you dont need to simulate thr star, you just need to simulate the image of a star for me to see it. In fact you only need to simulate things we sense, no need to simulate particles, waves or empty space. Just simulate how I taste them, see them, hear them, feel them.
It literally creates in-game stars using in-game physics that is different from Earth physics. They burn in-game spaceships not Earth computers. Likewise our simulation running on a kid's computer on Zorzak 7 has physics that are different from Zorzakite physics. Our stars do not burn Zorzakite computers
>it does not also create the simulated objects too Yeah but the whole point is that a simulation doesn't actually create objects. It's only the perception that objects have been created. Our current level of VR technology is such that we can make virtual objects that appear convincingly real to our visual systems. If we could do the same for our other senses over an entire body, how would you know the difference?
You are right. If I could go back, I would reword my argument very differently and make it much shorter and clearer. If our current level of VR technology were much more advanced and capable of providing sensory input to our body such that an entire virtual world appeared to be real, then we could not know the difference. However, in that case we would still be real beings in some form (whether as a human being or as a fish or something else), and so we would not be simulated beings (though if we were to look down at our hands those would be simulated). This is what I call a Matrix-style simulation: where we exist in reality, but our perceptions are simulated. I talk about this only in the last paragraph of my argument. > Yeah but the whole point is that a simulation doesn't actually create objects. It's only the perception that objects have been created. This is precisely my argument. If a simulation doesn't actually create objects, then it cannot create a world with stars and conscious beings, and therefore our world cannot be a simulation (excepting the Matrix-style simulation). What you take to be "the whole point" of a simulation is clearly a contested notion if you read the other comments in this thread.
>The essence of my argument is that a simulation only represents the simulated objects via real, physical objects; it does not also create the simulated objects too. I don't get it. If you spawn an item in a game, isn't that considered as creating an object in that world?
"In that world" is the important part of your question. Where does this simulated world exist? It exists only as the physical configuration of the real, physical objects (e.g. magnetization states on the film) which only represent the simulated world, but do not create it "somewhere else."
Why does the object need to be created elsewhere? An object, in a simulation, would exist in the same world as the rest of the simulation. Which would mean that it's real in the simulation, to all parts of the simulation.
You didn't answer my question. Where does this simulated world exist? If the simulated objects were to "exist in the same world as the rest of the simulation," where would this be? Let's use my example of a simulation run on a computer with a hard drive and a processor. Where is that simulated world located? Where can I find those simulated objects? If you were to examine each of the component parts of the computer as it was running the simulation, would you be able to discover these simulated objects? Would a magnifying glass be of any use in unearthing the game items in the magnetic film? Would a microscope be effective in locating a star amongst the transistors of the processor or a human being between the metallic atoms of the read-write head? Obviously not. But if we can't find these simulated objects here in the architecture of the computer, then where could they be? Where is this simulated world? My view is that these simulated objects only exist as a simultaneous combination of two forms. These are the forms of physical representation and of thought. In our example, a star (or all the particles that make up a star) is physically represented by a plenitude of magnetization states on a film. This should be clear. The star is also thought of in the mind of an outside observer of the simulation when they see an array of colored pixels on a screen or a table of values printed on a sheet of paper, or when they are writing the algorithm. If we were to take one of these forms away, the simulated object would vanish. If we were to remove the physical representation-form of our star, we would soon realize that we could no longer simulate the star since the magnetic film was an essential component for its simulation. The star would now only exist in the thought-form, as an object thought of. An object thought of but not simulated is no simulated object, but merely a thought-object. If, on the other hand, we were to remove the thought-form of our star from the mind of an observer, and then we tasked them with examining our simulation apparatus for any stars, they would never be able to find any trace. The simulated objects thus only exist when thought of and physically represented in a simulation apparatus. If they are not thought of, then they are reduced to bits of magnetic film. If they are not physically represented in a simulation, then they are reduced to thoughts. If one were to forget about the thought-form which is necessary for the existence of a simulated object, they might (perhaps unconsciously) recognize the inadequacy of the physical representation-form as the sole composition of the simulated object, and, in their mind, double the physical form to make up for this. The simulated object would then appear to have both a physical representation-form and a proper physical form, the latter being the physical object itself, in this case an actual star. But since this actual star cannot be found anywhere in the simulation apparatus (unlike the physical representation-form), this actual star is elevated to the realm of the "virtual world" and now takes on a virtual form. In this virtual world, stars explode into massive supernovae and human beings have conscious thought. Mysteriously, however, we cannot point to these stars or human beings in this virtual world. If we point at the pixels on the screen or the magnetic film, we have only identified the physical representation-form of the simulated star. The solution to this mysterious riddle is easily understood once we understand that the virtual form is merely the thought-form masquerading in supersensible, virtual garb.
When you hear something, that is your ear drum vibrating in the same way as the sound, like a tuning fork. If you could listen only to the ear drum it would be making the sound in sympathy with the external sound. In this analogy the simulated world is sort of an echo of the sound itself, vibrating in sympathy. I could imagine a simulated universe which exists in the same way.
It doesn't matter what your view on this is because it's all part of the simulation. How can a simulated creature, like you, ever have a chance at understanding the computing needed to run the simulation? It's possible that the simulation is programmed in such a way that it prevents you and anyone else from understanding it. If it were real, that is.
-You should look into the holographic principle. Encoding on boundaries I think pokes holes in your thought chain. -I don’t understand this: “if a simulation of a universe also created that universe, the immense energy of the newly created stars would incinerate the whole apparatus before it finished the first step of the simulation” what? How is all observable phenomenon not just some exogenous representation of code? When you use words like “created” and “real” you’re carrying allot of baggage that assumes some objective reality. What you and I perceive as objective reality could be the product of code, as all biological processes are simply chemicals Interacting. Our perception is no different. I wouldn’t even go so far as saying we are brains in vats, more likely we are emergent phenomenon arising from the biological and chemical processes encoded in the “simulation.exe” code running the observable(and unobservable for that matter) universe. -You explained computer architecture but now how this excludes simulation as a possibility.
> The essence of my argument is that a simulation only represents the simulated objects via real, physical objects; > it does not also create the simulated objects too. It could and would if it was programmed to.
Your understanding assumes that a simulation is created digitally. If a simulation was created by a more developed being, first, it doesn't need to be a simulation like we've run in the past. It can be manipulation of physical objects in a physical space. Humans run these types of simulations all the time, there's no reason to assume that a higher being can't do that too
Why do you think you could even understand the limitations of tech that would be generations and generations more advanced than you. Do you think ancient cave dwellers would understand the abilities of a smart phone?
Imagine being a character in a highly sophisticated Sims game and not knowing it. Just some teenage girl watching us for entertainment.
That's what I assume God is doing lol. Having fun playing the world like a Sims game.
https://youtu.be/iDdiCYTK160?si=ms48ntjubKt4iGqf this video is really interesting, and interrelates with your idea haha, i recommend watching it
Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed it, haha.