4 ms·

Morpheus from The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, th

Morpheus from The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation.

naasking 10y ago
> Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation. Simulations are just as real. Why wouldn't they be? What makes "natural laws enforced by reality" really any more "real" than "natural laws enforced by a simulation"?
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Well, there were the glitches - the black cat that ran by twice?
- XorNot 10y ago
  We can look for if lattice QCD was used in the big bang simulation by searching for anomalies magnified during expansion into the cosmic microwave background.
- have_faith 10y ago
  It took someone from the outside to explain what the deja vu meant though, as there was no way of knowing from the inside that the glitches where a result of a broken simulation of the internal reality.
amasad 10y ago
Not only that you can't know for sure that you're not living in a simulation, you actually can't surely tell that you existed before this point in time. Imagine that you are instantiated in a simulation with pre-installed memories that give you the illusion that you existed prior to this point. This line of thought is really old and goes back to Plato (see allegory of the cave) but formalized by Descartes (see evil genius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon)
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  Not a creationist, but a common argument against the earth being only several thousand years old is that star light must have taken much longer to get here given c. However, the simulation of those photons could have begun in transit, as you say.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
naasking 10y ago
> Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation. Simulations are just as real. Why wouldn't they be? What makes "natural laws enforced by reality" really any more "real" than "natural laws enforced by a simulation"?
- Filligree 10y ago
  Nothing, but the possibility does increase the chance of those laws changing.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Are simulations just as real? Or are they only culturally real? A simulation of the weather only makes sense when you have humans around to interpret the output from displays. Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. It's not even really that. It's a lot of electrons moving about. A bunch of electrons aren't a simplification of the weather. It's only because human culture has computing devices that simulations make any sort of sense. Physical systems aren't about anything, and don't represent anything on their own. It's the entire problem of intentionality.
  - unfunco 10y ago
    > It's a lot of electrons moving about The actual weather is also a lot of electrons moving about.
    - goatlover 10y ago
      Sure, in part, but we don't consider weather systems to be running simulations. Although Jaron Lanier wrote a paper on treating a meteor shower as a simulated computer running simulated minds to make a point about consciousness.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. And inside reality, we're just a lot of vibrating strings. I don't see any meaningful difference what the fundamental constituents of reality are. "Real" is simply a relation between perceived and perceiver. > Physical systems aren't about anything, and don't represent anything on their own. It's the entire problem of intentionality. By your own argument, 1s and 0s aren't "about anything" either, they're just as devoid of intentionality anything "truly real".
goatlover 10y ago
But the argument for living in a simulation is parasitic on being outside of a simulation. We say that we could be inside a simulation because we notice that the physical world seems to support the possibility of incredibly detailed simulations which could be indistinguishable from what we experience now. But if we're in a simulation, none of that reasoning applies. In that case, the argument is undermined.
- sa_su_ke_75 10y ago
  the dream is a simulation? we create also an "avatar" of us that is completely different from us like memory and personality. But when we wakeup we understand that was a dream, and also we can wakeup inside the dream (lucid dreaming)
  - goatlover 10y ago
    But the philosophical worry that we could be in a dream our entire waking lives is based on the fact that we wake up from dreams, and can therefore distinguish being awake from being in a dream.
    - sa_su_ke_75 10y ago
      Plotino in the Enneadi say that our life is a teatral rappresentations, and we (we as "souls") are actors that interpreting a role in the show of live. And we are worry for our role more that for our soul. the role is the mask and the soul is our reality.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Not everything that you cannot disprove should be believed to be true, or even taken seriously.

naasking 10y ago

> Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation. Simulations are just as real. Why wouldn't they be? What makes "natural laws enforced by reality" really any more "real" than "natural laws enforced by a simulation"?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Well, there were the glitches - the black cat that ran by twice?

XorNot 10y ago
We can look for if lattice QCD was used in the big bang simulation by searching for anomalies magnified during expansion into the cosmic microwave background.
have_faith 10y ago
It took someone from the outside to explain what the deja vu meant though, as there was no way of knowing from the inside that the glitches where a result of a broken simulation of the internal reality.

amasad 10y ago

Not only that you can't know for sure that you're not living in a simulation, you actually can't surely tell that you existed before this point in time. Imagine that you are instantiated in a simulation with pre-installed memories that give you the illusion that you existed prior to this point. This line of thought is really old and goes back to Plato (see allegory of the cave) but formalized by Descartes (see evil genius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon)

SubiculumCode 10y ago
Not a creationist, but a common argument against the earth being only several thousand years old is that star light must have taken much longer to get here given c. However, the simulation of those photons could have begun in transit, as you say.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

naasking 10y ago

Filligree 10y ago
Nothing, but the possibility does increase the chance of those laws changing.
goatlover 10y ago
Are simulations just as real? Or are they only culturally real? A simulation of the weather only makes sense when you have humans around to interpret the output from displays. Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. It's not even really that. It's a lot of electrons moving about. A bunch of electrons aren't a simplification of the weather. It's only because human culture has computing devices that simulations make any sort of sense. Physical systems aren't about anything, and don't represent anything on their own. It's the entire problem of intentionality.
- unfunco 10y ago
  > It's a lot of electrons moving about The actual weather is also a lot of electrons moving about.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    Sure, in part, but we don't consider weather systems to be running simulations. Although Jaron Lanier wrote a paper on treating a meteor shower as a simulated computer running simulated minds to make a point about consciousness.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. And inside reality, we're just a lot of vibrating strings. I don't see any meaningful difference what the fundamental constituents of reality are. "Real" is simply a relation between perceived and perceiver. > Physical systems aren't about anything, and don't represent anything on their own. It's the entire problem of intentionality. By your own argument, 1s and 0s aren't "about anything" either, they're just as devoid of intentionality anything "truly real".

goatlover 10y ago

But the argument for living in a simulation is parasitic on being outside of a simulation. We say that we could be inside a simulation because we notice that the physical world seems to support the possibility of incredibly detailed simulations which could be indistinguishable from what we experience now. But if we're in a simulation, none of that reasoning applies. In that case, the argument is undermined.

sa_su_ke_75 10y ago
the dream is a simulation? we create also an "avatar" of us that is completely different from us like memory and personality. But when we wakeup we understand that was a dream, and also we can wakeup inside the dream (lucid dreaming)
- goatlover 10y ago
  But the philosophical worry that we could be in a dream our entire waking lives is based on the fact that we wake up from dreams, and can therefore distinguish being awake from being in a dream.
  - sa_su_ke_75 10y ago
    Plotino in the Enneadi say that our life is a teatral rappresentations, and we (we as "souls") are actors that interpreting a role in the show of live. And we are worry for our role more that for our soul. the role is the mask and the soul is our reality.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Not everything that you cannot disprove should be believed to be true, or even taken seriously.