The implications of reality being a simulation

[Eddi]

Well, transferring an objective moral fact and/or belief system to a computer simulation seems like a rather magical accomplishment. I definitely don't know how one would accomplish such a feat. I know of no gate or on/off switch by which to accomplish such a transference.

It could be achieved by the over-seers interfering in the affairs of the inhabitants of The Simulation, in such a way that certain belief systems that arose there naturally would be favoured by The Simulation by it "playing God" to the inhabitants.

Why didn't he or she create a simulation where creatures don't endure such suffering as found among creatures on earth?

That sounds a lot like The Problem of Evil and could probably be answered in a similar way

Not to mention the fact that humans don't live with moral certitude. We have lots of questions, discussions and disagreements about what acts are moral or immoral.

Very true

 

[Valjean]

We would be that much closer to fulfilling our purpose.
We are here to transform matter into spirit.

Purpose is an extraordinary assumption, as is the even more extraordinary teological assertion. This begs evidence.

In any case, for all of the people and other animals who haven't "known" or believed that the universe is (just) a computer simulation, their suffering has presumably seemed quite real to them. So it doesn't seem to that the simulation creator is exactly benevolent.

Perhaps "simulation" is misleading. You presume an intentional programmer. Couldn't our situation be a natural simulation -- a dream, or an abstract, subjective reality based on sensory and processing deficits?
We know the world we perceive isn't objectively "real," so what is real reality?

But, conversely, for people who believe that the universe is a simulation, it seems to me that they are likely to view the suffering they cause to others as ultimately not "really real"

In which case the suffering would be as unreal as the view?

On the other hand, the issue that stands out in my mind is that the conjunction of the propositions "I believe the universe is a computer simulation" and "I believe I am truly volitional and can choose between available alternatives" seems to me to be, at least currently, contradictory. At least currently, we don't have a clue as to how to create a computer program that willfully chooses between available alternatives, much less a program where there are many billions or trillions of separate volitional conscious creatures who are volitional and acting autonomously.

There are levels of 'reality', and levels of volition. Even in our present state, free will is neurologically questionable. The Neuroscience of Free Will

Well, transferring an objective moral fact and/or belief system to a computer simulation seems like a rather magical accomplishment. I definitely don't know how one would accomplish such a feat. I know of no gate or on/off switch by which to accomplish such a transference.

It wasn't so long ago that telescopy, telegraphy, horseless carriages and sound recording seemed magical.
How would a scientist of fifty years ago, with a slide rule, regard a pocket calculator today, much less a laptop?

Of course, given that there is a great deal of suffering that happens among humans and non-human animals alike, one can only wonder the simulation creator is ethically "responsible". Why didn't he or she create a simulation where creatures don't endure such suffering as found among creatures on earth?

The suffering itself may be part of the simulation. People enjoy reading horror stories; watching violent films and going to war. Could we not be participating in a virtual reality computer game, where the simulation will become apparent as soon as we end the game?

 

[allfoak]

This begs evidence.

You wouldn't accept what i have for evidence.
My evidence is subjective in nature because the testing can only be done by me on me.
What I can tell you is this..
I put the esoteric writings to the test by doing what they say to do and found them to be correct.
Now i pass on what i have learned through my experience.

There are countless souls who have tested and proven true the words of the esoteric writings.
Follow their example and the truth will be known.
Know thyself.

 

[Valjean]

You wouldn't accept what i have for evidence.
My evidence is subjective in nature because the testing can only be done by me on me.
What I can tell you is this..
I put the esoteric writings to the test by doing what they say to do and found them to be correct.
Now i pass on what i have learned through my experience.

There are countless souls who have tested and proven true the words of the esoteric writings.
Follow their example and the truth will be known.
Know thyself.

Understood, but, true or not, you're the only one who can reasonably accept this assertion.

 

[Nous]

Well, transferring an objective moral fact and/or belief system to a computer simulation seems like a rather magical accomplishment. I definitely don't know how one would accomplish such a feat. I know of no gate or on/off switch by which to accomplish such a transference.

It could be achieved by the over-seers interfering in the affairs of the inhabitants of The Simulation, in such a way that certain belief systems that arose there naturally would be favoured by The Simulation by it "playing God" to the inhabitants.

Could you give an example of the sort of "interference" by the "overseers" you are referring to by which a belief system would be transferred to the other parts of (the simulated "persons" in) the computer simulation?

Regardless of whatever "interference" that might be, the overseers would not be transferring an actual objective moral fact, but the mere belief that there are objective moral facts.

Why didn't he or she create a simulation where creatures don't endure such suffering as found among creatures on earth?

That sounds a lot like The Problem of Evil and could probably be answered in a similar way

How does one answer the question as to why the creator(s) of the simulation did not create a simulation where creatures such as humans and other animals don't endure such suffering as found on earth?

 

[Nous]

In any case, for all of the people and other animals who haven't "known" or believed that the universe is (just) a computer simulation, their suffering has presumably seemed quite real to them. So it doesn't seem to that the simulation creator is exactly benevolent.

Perhaps "simulation" is misleading. You presume an intentional programmer. Couldn't our situation be a natural simulation -- a dream, or an abstract, subjective reality based on sensory and processing deficits?

The OP defines “simulism” as “the belief that we humans and our reality are somehow simulated, most likely by some kind of advanced computer,” and that “the creators of The Simulation would be a race of super-advanced beings.” Thus, accordingly, such a simulation is not something merely arises from the laws of physics without intervention of or manipulation by a “race” of “beings”.

I do think it's important to distinguish the idea that the universe is a computer simulation from the holographic principle. Holographic principle - Wikipedia

But, conversely, for people who believe that the universe is a simulation, it seems to me that they are likely to view the suffering they cause to others as ultimately not "really real"

In which case the suffering would be as unreal as the view?

But the suffering remains "real" for the people and other creature upon which they perpetrate the acts that cause others to suffer.

There are levels of 'reality', and levels of volition. Even in our present state, free will is neurologically questionable. The Neuroscience of Free Will

If the persons conducting the studies cited in this article lack the ability to choose, then they lack the ability to choose to state true claims rather than false ones about their findings as well as about the existence of free will itself.

The denial of the existence of volition is self-stultifying of the denier regardless of whom the denier is.

 

[Eddi]

Could you give an example of the sort of "interference" by the "overseers" you are referring to by which a belief system would be transferred to the other parts of (the simulated "persons" in) the computer simulation?

I think I can, and I think I know how it could be done: take an individual inhabitant of The Simulation and interfere in his or her life and existence so that their set of beliefs and values etc. come to match yours, more or less. Then nude things along so that they become a certain way, a certain kind of person. Even control his or her virtual mind to make them think how you want them to. Then play God with them - and maybe even give them a direct line to The Simulation, or to some small part of it. And then give them a voice and see what happens. If they are successful you would then see your external morality being mirrored within The Simulation, or at least a seed of your external morality being planted. Especially if The Simulation works to somehow be supportive of certain actions and trends/memes. That would be a transference of sorts.

How does one answer the question as to why the creator(s) of the simulation did not create a simulation where creatures such as humans and other animals don't endure such suffering as found on earth?

Why did the creators not make it so there is no suffering within The Simulation? Because it's a simulation?? I'd answer that by posing the question: "what is the function of suffering within The Simulation?", to which I would answer: to make The Simulation a valid and realistic simulation. This is obviously important to the Overseers, even if they do occasionally interfere. But we can only really speculate about them. And I believe it is up to us humans to eliminate the causes of worldly suffering, and that this is something we have to do to mature as a species. I hope this answers your question adequately?

 

[Valjean]

The OP defines “simulism” as “the belief that we humans and our reality are somehow simulated, most likely by some kind of advanced computer,” and that “the creators of The Simulation would be a race of super-advanced beings.” Thus, accordingly, such a simulation is not something merely arises from the laws of physics without intervention of or manipulation by a “race” of “beings”.

"Somehow simulated" doesn't necessitate any intentional 'programmers'. It could just be basic physics and biology.

I do think it's important to distinguish the idea that the universe is a computer simulation from the holographic principle. Holographic principle - Wikipedia

Good point. Our five senses and brains are sufficient to navigate through an abstract simulated "reality," but are quite incapable of revealing the Reality described by physics.
[quite]But the suffering remains "real" for the people and other creature upon which they perpetrate the acts that cause others to suffer. [/quote]What does suffering have to do with whether or not our reality is simulated?
Of course our perceived, subjective realities seem real to us.

If the persons conducting the studies cited in this article lack the ability to choose, then they lack the ability to choose to state true claims rather than false ones about their findings as well as about the existence of free will itself.

Science is the gold standard for understanding our reality, simulated or not. We must live in the reality we perceive.

The denial of the existence of volition is self-stultifying of the denier regardless of whom the denier is.

What does the distastefullness of facts have to do with their reality?