Is everything a simulation?

[osgart]

The measure that propels events forward as we live and move and have being is not something measurable. We can only measure time in reference to motion off of atomic clocks.

As for measuring space I'm very skeptical about how that's measured and considered to be actual space.

I'm skeptical of this universe being base reality. It's a consistent illusion in the sense that we are all experiencing the same thing. It is a reality but I don't think it's based off minds at all. We all have a perception of the reality we experience, and it's objectively true, but it's all dials on the dashboard of a deeper reality. No glitches forthcoming.

I don't think science has the fundamental intrinsic nature of reality measured. I think it has useful reference points

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

Just another god hypothesis.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The added assumption is that of real correspondence for the referents in effect.

Philosophers and scientists distinguish between subjective properties and objective properties.

Rather than being a passive registration of an external objective reality, perception emerges as a process of active construction — a controlled hallucination, as it has come to be known /... / What we call hallucination, then, is just a form of uncontrolled perception, just as normal perception is a controlled form of hallucination.​

​

This view of perception does not mean that nothing is real. Writing in the 17th century, English philosopher John Locke made an influential distinction between “primary” and “secondary” qualities. Primary qualities of an object, such as solidity and occupancy of space, exist independently of a perceiver. Secondary qualities, in contrast, exist only in relation to a perceiver—color is a good example. This distinction explains why conceiving of perception as controlled hallucination does not mean it is okay to jump in front of a bus. The bus has primary qualities of solidity and space occupancy that exist independently of our perceptual machinery and that can do us injury. It is the way in which the bus appears to us that is a controlled hallucination, not the bus itself.​

​

The Neuroscience of Reality

Reality is constructed by the brain, and no two brains are exactly alike

www.scientificamerican.com

​

I think primary qualities are also an illusion. For example if we look closer to a solid object it's mostly empty space.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

His "Simulation Trilemma" is flawed. Sometimes people say "False dichotomy." It is a false dichotomy with 3 parts.

He first assumes that its possible to live in a simulation. Out of this he says one of these must be true: A. We destroy ourselves before we are able to create a simulation. B. We are able but choose not to. C. We are in one.

I see that there are other possible answers. Then it is a false dichotomy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophers and scientists distinguish between subjective properties and objective properties.

Rather than being a passive registration of an external objective reality, perception emerges as a process of active construction — a controlled hallucination, as it has come to be known /... / What we call hallucination, then, is just a form of uncontrolled perception, just as normal perception is a controlled form of hallucination.​

​

This view of perception does not mean that nothing is real. Writing in the 17th century, English philosopher John Locke made an influential distinction between “primary” and “secondary” qualities. Primary qualities of an object, such as solidity and occupancy of space, exist independently of a perceiver. Secondary qualities, in contrast, exist only in relation to a perceiver—color is a good example. This distinction explains why conceiving of perception as controlled hallucination does not mean it is okay to jump in front of a bus. The bus has primary qualities of solidity and space occupancy that exist independently of our perceptual machinery and that can do us injury. It is the way in which the bus appears to us that is a controlled hallucination, not the bus itself.​

​

The Neuroscience of Reality

Reality is constructed by the brain, and no two brains are exactly alike

www.scientificamerican.com

​

I think primary qualities are also an illusion. For example if we look closer to a solid object it's mostly empty space.

For the bold then contrast that with the evil demon of Descartes and the thing in itself by Kant.
I am in the end of the school of strong skepticism, that in effect objective knowledge is the strong sense as existing independently of the mind is not possible other than in the abstract sense. Objective reality is real, but all that can be known about it as it, is that it exists independently of the mind.
Now I believe objective reality is epistemologically real, fair, orderly and knowable, but that is a belief without evidence, truth or proof.

 

[Tomef]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

The simulation isn’t a simulation.

 

[Heyo]

His "Simulation Trilemma" is flawed. Sometimes people say "False dichotomy." It is a false dichotomy with 3 parts.

He first assumes that its possible to live in a simulation. Out of this he says one of these must be true: A. We destroy ourselves before we are able to create a simulation. B. We are able but choose not to. C. We are in one.

I see that there are other possible answers. Then it is a false dichotomy.

What are the other possibilities?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What are the other possibilities?

One possibility is that we are not driven to pursue simulation to the point where we either succeed, become disinterested or destroy ourselves. The assumption is that we have an internal drive to make simulations. In fact the person who constructs this trilemma believes that there are nested simulations, based upon this assumption. It is an unlisted assumption, and therefore the dichotomy is forced.

There are other problems. The study of Information Theory shows that there is a cost to simulation. Simply transferring information has a cost, which suggests that a full simulated universe might not be able to contain another. This, in turn, means that the universe is unlikely to be "Simulations all the way down." It means that somewhere on the outside is a terminal, outer universe. This leads us back to the original question of "What is real, what is the universe and what makes it real?" which the Simulation Trilemma cannot answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One possibility is that we are not driven to pursue simulation to the point where we either succeed, become disinterested or destroy ourselves. The assumption is that we have an internal drive to make simulations. In fact the person who constructs this trilemma believes that there are nested simulations, based upon this assumption. It is an unlisted assumption, and therefore the dichotomy is forced.

There are other problems. The study of Information Theory shows that there is a cost to simulation. Simply transferring information has a cost, which suggests that a full simulated universe might not be able to contain another. This, in turn, means that the universe is unlikely to be "Simulations all the way down." It means that somewhere on the outside is a terminal, outer universe. This leads us back to the original question of "What is real, what is the universe and what makes it real?" which the Simulation Trilemma cannot answer.

That is an assumption that rests on that we have information about The Real Universe. But that is what is in question as such as per: "What is real, what is the universe and what makes it real?"

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is an assumption that rests on that we have information about The Real Universe. But that is what is in question as such as per: "What is real, what is the universe and what makes it real?"

Its only a suggestion based upon our own universe exemplifying a problem we ourselves face if we wish to create a simulated universe. We cannot make one nearly as rich as our own. We could only simulate something less complex and less detailed. We could not simulate our own universe in full detail and complexity or even come close, since information transfer has a cost in our universe. Therefore our universe is not a trunk in an infinite chain of simulations, even if there were such an infinite chain outside of it. If one does exist we are a leaf on a vine since any simulation we make must contain less information than our own universe. We could simulate a solar system perhaps or larger, but then that could not do any better as our own restrictions would fall upon it. If it simulated something then there would be even less detail and even less complexity inside that simulation. It means that the cost of information suggests our universe is not capable of hosting infinite simulations but finite ones and of lesser detail.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its only a suggestion based upon our own universe exemplifying a problem we ourselves face if we wish to create a simulated universe. We cannot make one nearly as rich as our own. We could only simulate something less complex and less detailed. We could not simulate our own universe in full detail and complexity or even come close, since information transfer has a cost in our universe. Therefore our universe is not a trunk in an infinite chain of simulations, even if there were such an infinite chain outside of it. If one does exist we are a leaf on a vine since any simulation we make must contain less information than our own universe. We could simulate a solar system perhaps or larger, but then that could not do any better as our own restrictions would fall upon it. If it simulated something then there would be even less detail and even less complexity inside that simulation. It means that the cost of information suggests our universe is not capable of hosting infinite simulations but finite ones and of lesser detail.

You are right. I should have tought it through,

 

[Heyo]

One possibility is that we are not driven to pursue simulation to the point where we either succeed, become disinterested or destroy ourselves. The assumption is that we have an internal drive to make simulations. In fact the person who constructs this trilemma believes that there are nested simulations, based upon this assumption. It is an unlisted assumption, and therefore the dichotomy is forced.

Isn't that the same as becoming disinterested? Fact is that we do run simulations, and fact is that with more powerful computers, the simulations have become more sophisticated. So we seem to have that internal drive. And with "we" I mean at least one entity in our universe that is capable. One entity per universe is enough to establish a chain, more than one, and we have a tree of universes.
To break that obvious trend of ever more sophisticated simulations, you have to assume that every single entity capable of running a simulation will inevitably destroy itself, or somehow become disinterested in simulations - there are no further options.

There are other problems. The study of Information Theory shows that there is a cost to simulation. Simply transferring information has a cost, which suggests that a full simulated universe might not be able to contain another. This, in turn, means that the universe is unlikely to be "Simulations all the way down." It means that somewhere on the outside is a terminal, outer universe. This leads us back to the original question of "What is real, what is the universe and what makes it real?" which the Simulation Trilemma cannot answer.

What makes you think that the outer universes are limited in size?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Isn't that the same as becoming disinterested? Fact is that we do run simulations, and fact is that with more powerful computers, the simulations have become more sophisticated. So we seem to have that internal drive. And with "we" I mean at least one entity in our universe that is capable. One entity per universe is enough to establish a chain, more than one, and we have a tree of universes.
To break that obvious trend of ever more sophisticated simulations, you have to assume that every single entity capable of running a simulation will inevitably destroy itself, or somehow become disinterested in simulations - there are no further options.

Where is the entity that desires this? People seek to make things easier for ourselves (or for others) not harder for ourselves.

What makes you think that the outer universes are limited in size?

I cannot say that it has a size, but what I am thinking is that because a simulation is simpler then there cannot be an infinite nesting in our downline, and anyone upline would know that. There cannot be simulations "All the way down" past us, so then nobody further up would think there could be either. They would know that it was impossible for at least our universe to create a very good simulated universe and then that one do the same and so forth. Where is the powerful drive presumed in the trilemma? Instead of simulating universes we simulate whatever is convenient.

To correct some language I used: if there is an encapsulation of our spacetime, than we and that encapsulation whatever that is should be called our universe. If our spacetime is simulated then what we once thought the entire universe is actually just part of the larger universe.

 

[Heyo]

Where is the entity that desires this? People seek to make things easier for ourselves (or for others) not harder for ourselves.

I cannot say that it has a size, but what I am thinking is that because a simulation is simpler then there cannot be an infinite nesting in our downline, and anyone upline would know that. There cannot be simulations "All the way down" past us, so then nobody further up would think there could be either. They would know that it was impossible for at least our universe to create a very good simulated universe and then that one do the same and so forth. Where is the powerful drive presumed in the trilemma? Instead of simulating universes we simulate whatever is convenient.

There is a limit downwards (i.e. a simulation we can create may not be able to create a simulation), but there is no such limit "upwards". So it could be "simulations all the way up".

To correct some language I used: if there is an encapsulation of our spacetime, than we and that encapsulation whatever that is should be called our universe. If our spacetime is simulated then what we once thought the entire universe is actually just part of the larger universe.

The word you are looking for is "cosmos".

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is a limit downwards (i.e. a simulation we can create may not be able to create a simulation), but there is no such limit "upwards". So it could be "simulations all the way up".

Certainly could be, although the trilemma presumes a powerful compulsion downward. Contrary to that compulsion is the knowledge of the decreased complexity in our universe. They (above us) know looking down at us that the simulators downline from us will always be simpler less detailed slower. Why would they make us want to create simulations? Instead they can make more simulations better than any we could or can just make ours much larger.

 

[Heyo]

Certainly could be, although the trilemma presumes a powerful compulsion downward. Contrary to that compulsion is the knowledge of the decreased complexity in our universe. They (above us) know looking down at us that the simulators downline from us will always be simpler less detailed slower. Why would they make us want to create simulations?

Why would they need to? That we are making simulations (without being told to) is simply an indicator that the simulation is sophisticated enough to emulate their world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why would they need to? That we are making simulations (without being told to) is simply an indicator that the simulation is sophisticated enough to emulate their world.

If we had such a thing then that might be an indicator. Its in movies only.

 

[Heyo]

If we had such a thing then that might be an indicator. Its in movies only.

We are moving in that direction. We have run simulation ever since computers were invented, and the simulations have become more sophisticated over time. If that trend holds, we will build a simulation that is going to run simulations. Or we destroy us, or we lose interest in simulations. I see no reason for the latter.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are moving in that direction. We have run simulation ever since computers were invented, and the simulations have become more sophisticated over time. If that trend holds, we will build a simulation that is going to run simulations. Or we destroy us, or we lose interest in simulations. I see no reason for the latter.

Our computing power was doubling there for a while, but it stopped doubling as we (very quickly) came close to the limitations of computing. Anyone creating the known universe as part of a simulation would predict this. They'd know that we could never do what they had done. Therefore this undermines the idea that they would want to create a simulation that could create a simulation. Rather they would not bother trying. Its just like we don't bother making games that can think and make their own simulations. This undermines the trilemma idea, because it presumes perfect simulations. We don't want perfect simulations. We want partial simulations.

 

[Heyo]

Our computing power was doubling there for a while, but it stopped doubling as we (very quickly) came close to the limitations of computing. Anyone creating the known universe as part of a simulation would predict this. They'd know that we could never do what they had done. Therefore this undermines the idea that they would want to create a simulation that could create a simulation. Rather they would not bother trying. Its just like we don't bother making games that can think and make their own simulations. This undermines the trilemma idea, because it presumes perfect simulations. We don't want perfect simulations. We want partial simulations.

We could still be a partial simulation of a (much) bigger, enclosing reality. In fact, we have to be, as a simulation has to be necessarily less complex than "the real thing".
But given that we do simulations, and that we might one day be able to run a highly sophisticated simulation, when the simulation starts running simulations, it would be a good sign of high fidelity.