6 ms·

>The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. I get that. I was answering your question about a specific version of a reality b

>The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. I get that. I was answering your question about a specific version of a reality being "real".. > The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Is there any proof for this? >The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real. Not sure. Then isn't there a level of reality where God resides? I have another Idea. The only thing that "exists" is consciousness, which is an entity that is outside the scope of time and space, and hence does not need a realm to exist. It is just there. The whole universe is somehow encoded within this consciousness. Every conscious brain has somehow access to a part of this super consciousness. This ability to access the consciousness in such high detail as possible by the human brain, created a tremendous evolutionary advantage and caused the human beings to emerge as the dominant species in this earth. And also, the sensory input is not "generated" for individual consciousness, but is just a result of the being being inside/part of this universe. I have equated God = super consciousness. Because that simplifies a lot of stuff and does not create another entity of arbitrary nature (apart from consciousness itself).

AstralStorm 9y ago
Final mistake. If it exists if has to exist somewhere right? Not necessarily in terms of time and/or space but definitely some sort of location, perhaps even describable truly only by higher mathematics. If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument. (Because the purpose of the argument is to describe.) Fixed the argument for you.
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument... I will ask you a question. Suppose there is a world being simulated by using a normal everyday computer. Say the world of GTA5 or something like that. Now in that world, how will you describe the location of the computer it is being simulated on? Does the computer "exist" for beings inside the simulation? On a continuing thought... Even though the computer does not exist for the beings inside the simulation, they possibly can influence the simulated world by some hack. For example, a being inside can think of some particular thing, that will result in a particular byte pattern in the memory and can trigger a bug in the program (or a hidden feature), granting the respective being some kind of super powers..This might appear as magic in the simulated world..
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Either there is no way for us to know, thus it is irrelevant and impossible to reason about, or it has perceptible results therefore it is possible (though potentially not feasible) to "locate" it by followinv casual chain. If it acts in an acausal way, there is still a possibility to "locate" it in terms of e.g. wave equation or other high mathematics. It's also important whether said phenomenon acts locally or not. Former is easier to trace and attribute. Consider a simulation on top of a cluster of machines. Location in such a system may exist and be meaningful and have observable effects. Whether that explanation makes more sense than just "it is so and we don't know why" makes more sense depends on additional pieces of evidence. This is the long answer to "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to witness it, does it make a sound".
  - bookofjoe 9y ago
    Ready Player One
olavk 9y ago
> Is there any proof for this? It is not a question of proof, it is a question of language. The input to our senses is real by definition if this input allows us to navigate and survive in the world. Any metaphysical hypothesis which posits this input is somehow not "real" (but the actual "real world" is unavailable to our senses) is simply useless and can be discarded by Occam's razor. Any hypothesis about the world which cannot be confirmed or falsified through observation is meaningless. Neither right nor wrong, just useless.

AstralStorm 9y ago

Final mistake. If it exists if has to exist somewhere right? Not necessarily in terms of time and/or space but definitely some sort of location, perhaps even describable truly only by higher mathematics. If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument. (Because the purpose of the argument is to describe.) Fixed the argument for you.

buvanshak 9y ago
> If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument... I will ask you a question. Suppose there is a world being simulated by using a normal everyday computer. Say the world of GTA5 or something like that. Now in that world, how will you describe the location of the computer it is being simulated on? Does the computer "exist" for beings inside the simulation? On a continuing thought... Even though the computer does not exist for the beings inside the simulation, they possibly can influence the simulated world by some hack. For example, a being inside can think of some particular thing, that will result in a particular byte pattern in the memory and can trigger a bug in the program (or a hidden feature), granting the respective being some kind of super powers..This might appear as magic in the simulated world..
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Either there is no way for us to know, thus it is irrelevant and impossible to reason about, or it has perceptible results therefore it is possible (though potentially not feasible) to "locate" it by followinv casual chain. If it acts in an acausal way, there is still a possibility to "locate" it in terms of e.g. wave equation or other high mathematics. It's also important whether said phenomenon acts locally or not. Former is easier to trace and attribute. Consider a simulation on top of a cluster of machines. Location in such a system may exist and be meaningful and have observable effects. Whether that explanation makes more sense than just "it is so and we don't know why" makes more sense depends on additional pieces of evidence. This is the long answer to "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to witness it, does it make a sound".
- bookofjoe 9y ago
  Ready Player One

olavk 9y ago

> Is there any proof for this? It is not a question of proof, it is a question of language. The input to our senses is real by definition if this input allows us to navigate and survive in the world. Any metaphysical hypothesis which posits this input is somehow not "real" (but the actual "real world" is unavailable to our senses) is simply useless and can be discarded by Occam's razor. Any hypothesis about the world which cannot be confirmed or falsified through observation is meaningless. Neither right nor wrong, just useless.