Kataclysmal wrote:Thanks.

Simulations do not have the properties of the things that they simulate, so, if we're in a simulation, then we are radically deluded about how the world actually is. Simulation arguments moot premises about the supposed actual world, but as we cannot hold the premises to be true, we must reject such arguments as unsound.
The interesting question is, given that simulation arguments fail, which of their premises are refuted by reductio? In the case of Bostrom's argument, the obvious candidate is computational theory of mind. After all, as it's just the latest in a history of silly metaphors that some people have, bizarrely, taken seriously, it has never been plausible.

Some attempt to "prove" that we live in a simulation by pointing to so-called "glitches in the Matrix" (a reference, of course, to the The Wachowski bros movie). There's no shortage of videos on YouTube in which examples of such "glitches" are offered, but none are the least bit convincing, IMO. They generally take the form of...

* incredulity that a low-probability event actually occurred,
* naturally occurring optical illusions,
* the 'Mandela Effect', in which it is claimed that subtle alterations reveal the tenuous nature of 'reality'.

The lattermost is satisfactorily explained by the phenomenon of false memory, and there are usually perfectly mundane explanations for the first two (coincidence, skewed perception, etc.).

Of course, the absence of convincing evidence doesn't mean that we don't live in a simulation.

Some have combined the simulation hypothesis with Aldous Huxley's rumination...


...to conclude that we're all in some kind of purgatory simulation. It's an idea explored in The Sentence, an episode of the television series The Outer Limits.

Wee are a massive turd in the bottom of a bucket.

ughaibu wrote:

Kataclysmal wrote:Thanks.

Simulations do not have the properties of the things that they simulate.

That is grossly overstated. SImulations have some of the properties of things they simulate, else they would not be simulations of those things.


I would recommend you to read some Graziano but I fear you would not be able to think through what he has to say about mind

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Simulations do not have the properties of the things that they simulate.

That is grossly overstated. SImulations have some of the properties of things they simulate, else they would not be simulations of those things.

What utter nonsense. Tell me, what non-trivial properties do simulations of weather systems and actual weather systems share? As we are incorrigibly subject to weather, this example suffices to refute simulation arguments.

I used to build micro traffic simulations and sound simulations. The traffic simulations had all the mathematics in them that was in traffic and drivers behaviour. So of course they had the properties of real life otherwise the whole point of simulations was pointless. The more detailed the better. The number of parameters was enormous and took days to set up. We even had parameters for drivers and how the felt. With noise all the building and land had the characteristics of the location.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The traffic simulations had all the mathematics in them that was in traffic and drivers behaviour. So of course they had the properties of real life

You understand that you're implying that you can empirically establish mathematical realism? As this issue is as contentious as they come, I think I can safely ignore your claim.

ughaibu wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:The traffic simulations had all the mathematics in them that was in traffic and drivers behaviour. So of course they had the properties of real life

You understand that you're implying that you can empirically establish mathematical realism? As this issue is as contentious as they come, I think I can safely ignore your claim.

You think you cant? It is not contentious in traffic engineering and probably only in your mind. It is no claim. It can be and is easily verified by resulting facts. All modern roads are designed using simulations. The results prove the design is correct.

How about aircraft simulators? Ship and train simulators? Crowd simulators? Read and learn will you.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:You understand that you're implying that you can empirically establish mathematical realism?

You think you cant? [ ] Read and learn will you.

Go on then, link me to the research that demonstrated the observability of mathematical objects.

Cant find it yourself? Where is your evidence?

This is one of the companies I worked with:
3D traffic simulation

ughaibu wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:You understand that you're implying that you can empirically establish mathematical realism?

You think you cant? [ ] Read and learn will you.

Go on then, link me to the research that demonstrated the observability of mathematical objects.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Cant find it yourself?

Rather obviously, the nonexistent has no location, so cannot be found.

A bit like your mind.

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Simulations do not have the properties of the things that they simulate.

That is grossly overstated. SImulations have some of the properties of things they simulate, else they would not be simulations of those things.

What utter nonsense. Tell me, what non-trivial properties do simulations of weather systems and actual weather systems share? As we are incorrigibly subject to weather, this example suffices to refute simulation arguments.

Pretty much all the properties are in the simulation and the effects of weather on other systems are there as well. The only bits that aren't there are moving some actual physical molecules around. If the molecules are what matters your point is valid, but if it the relations between things, behaviours, aboutness and so are key then simulations can have all that.
But rant on, as you love to do.

GrahamH wrote:The only bits that aren't there are moving some actual physical molecules around.

The bits with properties, in fact.

Temperature and pressure are emergent properties of bulk quantities of gaseous atoms and molecules relevant to the weather. We don't track the kinematics of each molecule to model weather.

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:The only bits that aren't there are moving some actual physical molecules around.

The bits with properties, in fact.

There you then. If you think 'mind' is something like molecules, with perceptions being physical things that move into 'mind' then of course simulations can't do that, but such a position is arguably more absurd than the views you like to deride.

GrahamH wrote:If you think 'mind' is something like molecules, with perceptions being physical things that move into 'mind' then of course simulations can't do that, but such a position is arguably more absurd than the views you like to deride.

Are you seriously suggesting that a physicalist theory of perception is absurd? Have you never heard explanations of sight or hearing in terms of external physical entities interacting with physical sense organs and being transmitted by electro-chemical processes to the brain, a physical organ? And are you suggesting that minds are not things that arise in and are irremovable from brains?

ughaibu wrote:

GrahamH wrote:If you think 'mind' is something like molecules, with perceptions being physical things that move into 'mind' then of course simulations can't do that, but such a position is arguably more absurd than the views you like to deride.

Are you seriously suggesting that a physicalist theory of perception is absurd? Have you never heard explanations of sight or hearing in terms of external physical entities interacting with physical sense organs and being transmitted by electro-chemical processes to the brain, a physical organ? And are you suggesting that minds are not things that arise in and are irremovable from brains?

Your posts are absurd.

Pure madness.

I can debunk the simulation hypothesis. There actually is an irrefutable answer!

But, could you ever be certain that I am not in fact the creator of this simulation and feeding you data to throw you off my scent?