The Simulation Hypothesis

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This documentary, The Simulation Hypothesis, builds upon the idea forwarded by Nick Bostrum that we might all be living in a computer simulation.

It opens by presenting the two main philosophical constructs of Plato and Aristotle, respectively Idealism vs. Materialism. It then advances through discussion of quantum physics (variations on the double slit experiment) and finishes claiming that Plato has won the day. Apparently, this argumentation is being forwarded by Scientific Creationists, based upon one comment I read.

It does not touch on Quantum Field Theory though, whose field equations can reconcile the macro and micro realms.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Sounds like bull malarky to me man.
I agree. But nevertheless, the video is a good primer on the underlying ancient debate between Platonism and Aristotelianism. The producers are indeed of the opinion that the more recent interpretations of the double slit experiment prove Plato correct, but I'm still dubious in this regard.

But as to who is currently winning the war (on the ground) for global political control, at least of the expanding West, is clearly is the Platonists, via such as Plato's (ig)Noble Lie(s) needed to maintain their hierarchical control of societies, overtly or covertly - Xianity, fake democracy and such). Everyone loves Aristotle, that is, until they want to jump to the front of the line or beyond. Then we find that their forked tongues only need one slit and not two.

Scientific Creationists
I probably should have said 'Intelligent Design denizens'.
 

dude

New Member
the simulation hypothesis in my opinion shows the philosophical bias of science itself. It is like a robot accidentally revealing its social skill limitations to those who can see it .... while being blissfully unaware that it is doing just that :)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
the simulation hypothesis in my opinion shows the philosophical bias of science itself. It is like a robot accidentally revealing its social skill limitations to those who can see it .... while being blissfully unaware that it is doing just that :)
Isn't it curious that the dual nature of light, is much similar to the Duality usually denied by the Abrahamic religions in that if their 'God' created Everything, then he must be responsible for all his Sons, including Jesus and Satan, i.e. Good and Evil from a moralistic POV. In reality this can only be partially resolved by resort to metaphorical interpretation, and we are yet left to muck through it all, quite likely to never answer the ultimate question(s).
 

dude

New Member
hi richard

uh well yeh maybe :) i am not sure how that relates to simulation theory since science is without morality.

As far as i am aware simulation theory is taken as seriously as the many worlds and multiverse theories in physics. Those 2 other theories provide an infinite get out from a tight spot. Simulation theory on the other hand is a lunge for "the model of reality is the thing in itself" theory of mathematical/reality completeness . That particular hope is also expressed in another grand theory where the universe is postulated to be a pure information hologram. (preferred by the likes of susskind)

Simulation theory is slightly different in that if we were to 'prove' that the universe is a simulation then for completeness, the 'machine' that created the simulation is in effect running the simulation. Its all very recursive :) .... or if you stand back and watch, it reveals the desire of science to be complete and not a partial description of something bigger (however amazing and accurate that description is. and it is!). Simulation theory is overtly recursive, since science itself is an attempt at the simulation of reality.

Simulation theory just like information holograms and also multiverse and many world theorems for that matter, do not necessarily have to be complete in order to study and apply them. But it is so obvious that that is the motivation in each case. I am sure there will be other narratives to come where the serpent can feed off its own tail.

Personally i dont think any narrative of reality could ever be complete, scientific or otherwise. Which is to reject the logos as being all there is ..... "in the beginning was the word". As far as i am concerned there could well have been 'the word' in the beginning .... but not on its own. And if i call the other 'substance' then the scientists will try to replace it with measured symbols :) That is what physics is all about.

Humanity has variously wanted to believe in word over substance. Present day science is yet another example. As humans we are compelled to name reality, and in doing so we actually create reality.... but we repeatedly live in hope that we can point the arrow of cause and effect in the one direction only. All order ...... and only simulated chaos :)
 
Simulation theory on the other hand is a lunge for "the model of reality is the thing in itself" theory of mathematical/reality completeness .
I think I get what you are saying. It's like a cartographer saying that the universe is like a giant map. Or maybe a teacher (rabbi) saying that life is one big test.

As for "the word" (Logos), in the context of a simulation hypothesis model, I think the Creator is roughly equivalent to the system hardware (including programmer and CPU), and the Logos is roughly equivalent to the program/software
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Science is supposed nothing but a quest for the understanding of Reality, but as with people transposing symbols, like a flag, for what the symbol represents, I suppose that this can happen with Science. The classic case today being the Singularity concept of Kurzweil and friends, where they assemble their robotic Legos ... perhaps from the Logos?

Of course, this is the exact same case with Religion, which a a quest for Reality using different principles of investigation. And the reason that periodically a new paradigm must be rolled out (revelation) for the new age, as the audience is ever more sophisticated and is slowly learning the holes in the old paradigm.

I wonder how long it will take for androids to come up with the notion that they might be able to develop better versions of themselves. Wouldn't it be nice to be a fly on the wall during their discussions?

So we are left with the Existential question of what is the proper limit for humans to exploit. From a hunter-gatherer's perspective Jesus would be considered quite decadent riding around on a donkey, a dangerous attack on their culture.
 

dude

New Member
I think I get what you are saying. It's like a cartographer saying that the universe is like a giant map. Or maybe a teacher (rabbi) saying that life is one big test.

As for "the word" (Logos), in the context of a simulation hypothesis model, I think the Creator is roughly equivalent to the system hardware (including programmer and CPU), and the Logos is roughly equivalent to the program/software
hi :)

yes..... or god is the 'word'. In this respect science shares many features of the abrahamic religions. It claims truth authority. It claims to have (or will have) the one and only true text. It has its high status 'interpreters' of the text, both of the present and the past, who are by definition more learned than the laity could ever be. (most of the laity are the equivalent of illiterate in scientific terms)

Contrary to popular belief the rise of science from the renaissance was in many ways supported by the abrahamic religions. In todays context, just like the major religions, science is now corporate. Corporation is itself a pyramid form of organisation..... and it claims authority and truth through the changing of law and social structures into corporate forms. 'Representative' democracy is clearly corporate in structure, and anyone who goes to court will be presented in 'the dock' and judged by the standards of 'legalise'. This supplanted of course the pyramid structure of royalty and sovereign law.

The 'word' is claimed to be the thing in itself, just as a corporation is the word (contract) that defines it.
 

dude

New Member
So we are left with the Existential question of what is the proper limit for humans to exploit. From a hunter-gatherer's perspective Jesus would be considered quite decadent riding around on a donkey said:
"Proper" ? :) ..... "we are left with" ? :)

I see humanity as a narrative explosion on planet earth. The dust will have to settle before we find out who 'we' are. In the meantime the corporate meme/virus will run its course.

If by hunter gatherers we mean the pre symbolic, then they could be perplexed, frightened, in awe etc. By contrast there was presumably a time when hunter gatherers had some symbolism, but it wasnt long before we left the pack behind. By 'we' i mean the majority. There are still ruling and scavenging minorities who act as packs/families/gangs at both ends of the social spectrum. They dont conform.

I see the audience as always being conformist. Sophistication wont see holes in a conformist paradigm
 
Top