Is everything a simulation?

[mikkel_the_dane]

A simulation of what?

You are looking at some sort of screen right now, right. Is the screen there inself as a screen and you are having an experience of it or is it really not there? And you are having a simulated experince of it?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

You are looking at some sort of screen right now, right. Is the screen there inself as a screen and you are having an experience of it or is it really not there? And you are having a simulated experience of it?

We don't know and the question is fruitless because we can't know any more than my Sims can know that I have been gleefully torturing them for years. Do we live in a simulation? If we are, what can we do about it? Complain to the manager?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't know and the question is fruitless because we can't know any more than my Sims can know that I have been gleefully torturing them for years. Do we live in a simulation? If we are, what can we do about it? Complain to the manager?

It is not even certain there is a we.
It is in effect the reason how science is based on methodological naturalism and not the philosophical one.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

It is not even certain there is a we.
It is in effect the reason how science is based on methodological naturalism and not the philosophical one.

Science is correct in that it sets aside that question and focuses on what can be observed and measured in the natural world. It's not an answerable question and should be set aside. It's like asking whether God exists when God by definition is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is correct in that it sets aside that question and focuses on what can be observed and measured in the natural world. It's not an answerable question and should be set aside. It's like asking whether God exists when God by definition is subjective.

Well, the defintion, that the world is natural, is subjective and should be set aside as you don't have to do science assuming that the world is natural.
You are in philosophy now as per forum and you can't just claim that science is in effect correct, because it subjectively makes sense to you.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Our brain creates a simulation which we experience as reality.
Brains in a jar scenario as that is what we are. Whether it's a glass jar or a physical meat suit. What we consciously experience is a creation of the brain which simulates the universe as a sufficiently accurate representation that allows us to navigate and survive in it.

Yes, we certainly live in a VR as neuroscience shows. Brains are also part of VR. We don't know what we really are outside our mind.

 

[PearlSeeker]

A simulation of what?

Of reality.

 

[Heyo]

Our brain creates a simulation which we experience as reality.
Brains in a jar scenario as that is what we are. Whether it's a glass jar or a physical meat suit. What we consciously experience is a creation of the brain which simulates the universe as a sufficiently accurate representation that allows us to navigate and survive in it.

Simulation.

What you are talking about is a model, that's not the same as a simulation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Nope we live in a reality. Even if the premise of a simulation is correct , there is still the reality of being in a simulation.

Reality isn't something a person can escape from.

 

[Regiomontanus]

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.

Not a new idea, and one that is silly on many levels.

IMHO

 

[PearlSeeker]

Simulation.

What you are talking about is a model, that's not the same as a simulation.

True. We don't know if this illusion of reality is simulation (a created model) or just an intrinsic limitation of human mind.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Even if the premise of a simulation is correct , there is still the reality of being in a simulation.

But a person can see the illusion of reality or one can see the things as they are - see the reality of illusion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But a person can see the illusion of reality or one can see the things as they are - see the reality of illusion.

Well Illusions are usually without substance hence cause without effect.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well Illusions are usually without substance hence cause without effect.

The effect is experience.

 

[Whateverist]

Okay, the problem is what objective reality is independent of your experience of it in your mind. In philosophy it is considered unknown as per "Das Ding an sich" as a problem of knowledge and reason.

So my answer is, it is unknown what everything else that you are, other than not you.

Sure but then what does it mean to suggest everything is a simulation? If you believe simulations exist you necessarily believe there is something else that is real in its own right that is being simulated. No?

 

[The Hammer]

"Is everything a simulation?"

Nope

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure but then what does it mean to suggest everything is a simulation? If you believe simulations exist you necessarily believe there is something else that is real in its own right that is being simulated. No?

It means it is unknown what objective reality is independent of your mind. If you want an example you can ask for one and I will provide it.

 

[Whateverist]

It means it is unknown what objective reality is independent of your mind. If you want an example you can ask for one and I will provide it.

I have no problem with that objective reality is not something we can understand completely and so remains elusively outside our ability to adequately describe in language or natural law. The fact that what we can know of it is limited to what our brains and sense organs can make available to us doesn't change the fact that I still believe there is an objective reality out there that we are apprehending no matter how imperfectly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no problem with that objective reality is not something we can understand completely and so remains elusively outside our ability to adequately describe in language or natural law. The fact that what we can know of it is limited to what our brains and sense organs can make available to us doesn't change the fact that I still believe there is an objective reality out there that we are apprehending no matter how imperfectly.

Yes, I believe that too. But I have no evidence, proof or truth for it.

 

[Nimos]

We are not living in a computer simulation. However, our simulation in natural. It is implied by the Big Bang.

If it is natural why is it then considered a simulation, why isn't it just natural?

I have never heard of this idea before, only that it could be a computer simulation.