Posted: Nov 06, 2018 11:04 am
Cito di Pense wrote:GrahamH wrote:newolder wrote:GrahamH wrote:
What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.
What a strange reply. If this were a simulation it would require a substrate. For all the same reasoning that produced the conclusion that we are simulants, that substrate would be a simulation at the "next level" and it would be simulations all the way up - ad absurdum.
So there is a substrate, so what? The substrate isn't inside the simulation. How do you get to "simulations all the way up"?
" It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects". Yes of course, but so what?
What, Graham? Did you just pull a substrate out of your ass? All you can manage is a hierarchy of substrates, whatever the fuck that is. Go home on this one, until you can specify 'simulation' in some other terms than 'simulation on a substrate of simulation'. That's a recursive definition, OK?
What? Did you want define simulation in terms of simulations?. Now that's a recursive definition.
We use physical substrates to run simulations. We can't tell if those substrates are "fundamental" but, as ever, we are staring in the midst of something that at least gives us something to think about. We don't need to, and we are unable to, start with fundamentals. All I'm saying there is we don't have to assume a recursive definition, either simulations all the way down or substrates all the way down. Leave that metaphysical foundation crap to jamest.