Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#21  Postby ughaibu » Jun 09, 2018 5:40 am

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.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#22  Postby Mike_L » Jun 09, 2018 8:23 am

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...

Image
...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.
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14352
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#23  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 09, 2018 8:43 am

Wee are a massive turd in the bottom of a bucket.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#24  Postby GrahamH » Jun 09, 2018 9:53 am

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
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#25  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 5:15 am

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.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#26  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 10, 2018 7:44 am

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.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#27  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 8:35 am

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
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#28  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 10, 2018 8:52 am

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.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#29  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 10:10 am

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.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#30  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 10, 2018 10:45 am

Cant find it yourself? Where is your evidence?

This is one of the companies I worked with:
3D traffic simulation
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#31  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 10:51 am

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.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#32  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 10, 2018 11:25 am

A bit like your mind.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#33  Postby GrahamH » Jun 10, 2018 11:28 am

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.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#34  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 1:07 pm

GrahamH wrote:The only bits that aren't there are moving some actual physical molecules around.
The bits with properties, in fact.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#35  Postby newolder » Jun 10, 2018 1:23 pm

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.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7320
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#36  Postby GrahamH » Jun 10, 2018 1:39 pm

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.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#37  Postby ughaibu » Jun 10, 2018 1:49 pm

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
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#38  Postby GrahamH » Jun 10, 2018 2:02 pm

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.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#39  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 10, 2018 3:04 pm

Pure madness. :lol:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone debunk the Simulation hypothesis?

#40  Postby PensivePenny » Jun 10, 2018 3:28 pm

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?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest