On this rainy Monday afternoon, I dare to explore the scary and unsettling ramifications of accepting the simulation hypothesis as a functional belief system.
This video requires an open-mind and a basic understating of the simulation hypothesis. I'm not advocating violence or any particular belief system... I'm merely exploring a line of logic.
I promote non-violent solutions to love, life, and liberty.
Peace,
dan-atstarlite
That is some scary rabbit hole.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The Fine Game of NIL
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@thoughts-in-time/the-fine-game-of-nil
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
varied excellent video congratulations
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
this is a pale imitation of creationism, not that much different than intelligent design, or descartes' evil demon thought experiment. the only difference is that simulations are copies and are not genuine. the quantum theorists and especially the superstring believers have been over this. also, if we are simulations we are not eternal beings because we don't even exist. i am curious as to what makes you think this is likely. elon musk might have a billion dollars but that doesn't mean he knows jack about ontology. especially to just assume something is near certain because of the hypothetical possibility. musk, bostrom, greater minds than these have been over this, and it is far from that simple. there is not a parmenides, plato, or aquinas among them, or even a philip k. dick. if you are actually interested i could recommend 50 or so books, philosophy and fiction, which explore various aspects of this. i don't want to come off as too harsh but, i dearly love this subject and, this simulation hypothesis is born of an internal logic, it's assumptions are without foundation, it reverses circular logic and turns the basis for logic against itself, which, i suppose is possible but not provable, let alone statistically demonstrable. this is the double bind as well. entertaining as fiction but not to be taken seriously. the map is still not the territory. furthermore, violence is the unintiated use of force. force, in the use of self defense is not violence. please, let me know what you think, as i said i do love this subject. something new would be refreshing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can tell that we're approaching this from completely different perspectives. For me, the simulation hypothesis has nothing directly to do with ontology. I don't believe that we are a simulation, but rather that we are in a simulation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
assuming the internal logic, if we can do that, if it is indistinguishable from reality, why would you use actual biological organisms in your video game? let me put it this way. if you had a circus holo-deck projector, and it reproduced reality down to the minutest detail, why would you invest the resources to have a real elephant and all the infrastructure that feeding, housing, transporting, cleaning up after entails, when you could just pick up the projector, put it in your pocket, and go. the simulation hypothesis does not preclude our conscious awareness, because that is part of the detail of the simulation. the hypothesis almost of necessity includes that we be "simulants", if i may coin a usage. unless it implies that we are brain in a tank or bodily plugged in. there is, for the sake of argument, the possibility that the "real" universe in which we live is the projection substrate, the simulated base reality, that Musk is talking about. if the projection is grown about us why should we be made of something separate from it? or is this a giant LARP, that our plugged in somewhere bodies are paying for, being paid for, volunteering in, or slaves to? are we participants in a historical study as is postulated? or something else? what are the options? i still am not sure this is different from creationism, except for the infinite variety in simulation variants but how is that different from the many worlds interpretation? if we are separate from the world can we violate the rules of it's parameters? this is cool, i am not sure i've clarified any of my understanding. there will always be more questions than answers. do you have ideas? what do you think?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is no "real elephant" in my understanding of the simulation hypothesis. These "actual biological organisms" are not actually material, but rather detailed information. We haven't yet found a convincing unifying theory to explain our reality (the big and the small) as material, whereas the simulation hypothesis unifies our reality perfectly. It seems a lot more likely to me that all reality could be broken down into 1s and 0s, positive and negative, thesis and antithesis, love and fear. But that's not proof to me, it's just icing on the cake.
What I find convincing is the probability of the following scenario: If humans get to the point where they can keep a brain alive in a jar and the consciousness associated with that brain is hooked into a 5 senses virtual experience, while simultaneously blocking any conscious memory from outside of that experience, then you basically have to assume that we are not the first ones to figures this out.
Any of the specifics of our current simulated reality (ie. are humans the focus of the simulation or are we a byproduct) are pure speculation at this point, and not crucial to taking the first step toward acceptance of the theory.
The first step would be to run experiments based on the assumption that digital information is not something other than material or a way of describing material, but rather actually gives birth to the material.
For instance, I wonder whether at some point in the future, instead of genetically modifying an apple, we will just digitally reprogram the apple. What "genetically modifying" is under acceptance of a material-based universe, could be what "digitally reprogramming" is under acceptance of an information-based universe. Metaphorically... I'm suggesting that we may be viewing the world right now like a cassette tape when actually it's a CD.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
the elephant i was referring to is us, within the sim. if you are saying that we are naught but, rather detailed information, that is what i meant, when i said we need not be real for the purpose of simulation. i'm still not sure how the lack of "a convincing unifying theory to explain our reality" makes simulation hypothesis a forgone conclusion. it would be easier if we could break down all of reality to 1s and 0s but easy never won a nobel physics prize or elucidated a natural law. i am almost certain that i can't make any assumption about the creative thought processes of sentient sapients other than myself, even within my own species. this seems another attempt to address the origin problem without actually addressing it. i call this, "getting lost in the weeds" show me evidence of the simulation base program, beyond the internal logical assumptions required for the hypothesis and based on a desire for ease, and i will concede the possibility. that is still far from the deluge of assumptions required to make this hypothesis go. i do love speculation but i try to keep it separate from assumptions that are safe to be made about the natural world.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit