simulation theory

I'd summarize my (different but probably related to some extent) pieces of skepticism as follows:

- yes, I think simulation theory kicks questions back up -- for one thing, it's hard to see if they stipulate a useful definition of what the alternative to simulation is -- what's "real" (this is kind of related to how I also find it smells of a God-did-it)

- I've never seen what seems to me to be even close to a good theory of consciousness, and without that, I don't see how we can meaningfully speculate about our being a simulated consciousness. Well, by meaningfully I just mean to ask if there's much force to the speculation, not if it's literally meaningless
 
But supposing we are in a simulation, isn't our experience of it then our actual reality in a way? Like yeah let's try and find a way out sure, but in the mean time just take that blue pill and chill.
 
charlatan said:
I'd summarize my (different but probably related to some extent) pieces of skepticism as follows:

- yes, I think simulation theory kicks questions back up -- for one thing, it's hard to see if they stipulate a useful definition of what the alternative to simulation is -- what's "real" (this is kind of related to how I also find it smells of a God-did-it)

- I've never seen what seems to me to be even close to a good theory of consciousness, and without that, I don't see how we can meaningfully speculate about our being a simulated consciousness. Well, by meaningfully I just mean to ask if there's much force to the speculation, not if it's literally meaningless
Click to expand...

There is also the problem that simulation theory is not falsifiable. Thus, it is not science. Therefore, evidence can not be used to "support" it.
If we are to take simulation theory as a philosophical claim, then as you have already said, it has to explain where the simulation came from. Since if it does not, there is no reason to prefer simulation theory over "god did it". Which is a big problem.
 
I think the deep problem is with most purported explanations that invoke something like "information" -- e.g. asking if information is more fundamental than physics. The problem is most such theories never really pin down what information is, or even say much about it/just use the terminology in a quasi-mystical way, and without such pinning-down, it refers to such a broad array of things as to not have much explanatory power.

In fact, it's not too different from the God-did-it -- information ~ mind ~ God. Now, I have no problem with a kind of spirituality built around this (meaning, using that quasi-mystical language in some kind of inspirational sense), but I do have a problem with it when assessed for explanatory power.
 
Last edited:
You all make some good points. Essentially you are saying "prove it."
How can a ghost prove it's a ghost when all it knows is what it's like to be a ghost?
We can observe that things either fit or do not fit in a certain way. We can then dole out definitions of our observations. Essentially being boxed in by the definitions we give.
Never thd less it's still possible to come up with best conclusions and theories with what we havd been able to observe and those things based on observation and measure will always be more accurate than those we pull from thin air. Science will always beat religion in this way.
 
charlatan said:
I'd summarize my (different but probably related to some extent) pieces of skepticism as follows:

- yes, I think simulation theory kicks questions back up -- for one thing, it's hard to see if they stipulate a useful definition of what the alternative to simulation is -- what's "real" (this is kind of related to how I also find it smells of a God-did-it)
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, an omniscient grasp of reality is the perfect opposite of existing in simulation, or 'a dream within a dream.' You can't prove the material (or in this case mystical) existence of something that you have an imperfect knowledge of; hence why waking reality is inconsistent - composed of packets [nested] of rhetorical dimensions i.e. thoughts, concepts versus percepts, sense limitations, consciousness defined by symbolic language. In the same sense that the individual does not define (or really known to) herself, she is perceived into existence. That's the conceit of naive materialists in other terms.

charlatan said:
- I've never seen what seems to me to be even close to a good theory of consciousness, and without that, I don't see how we can meaningfully speculate about our being a simulated consciousness. Well, by meaningfully I just mean to ask if there's much force to the speculation, not if it's literally meaningless
Click to expand...
That's the big hiccup I see with this theory, too.
 
 

This guy is hitting it out of the park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top