3 ms·

> You can simulate every molecular interaction in a fire, but that does not mean the simulation gives off the same heat It would to a simulated being standing

> You can simulate every molecular interaction in a fire, but that does not mean the simulation gives off the same heat It would to a simulated being standing next to the fire. > You can write a perfectly accurate equation for splitting an atom, but the equation does not release energy. It releases simulated energy inside the simulation. Every material interaction is simulated. If you believe that consciousness can't exist in the simulation, then you believe that consciousness is not a material interaction, q.e.d.

vundercind 2y ago
It’s some electrons moving around. Any further meaning of that is only what we assign to it. Unless your “computer” is identical matter in the same arrangement and state is the original, actually doing stuff. This is why the “what if you slowly simulated the entire universe on an infinite beach moving rocks around to represent the state? Could anything in it be conscious?” thing isn’t my very interesting. No, you’re just shoving rocks around on sand. They don’t mean anything except what you decide they do. Easy answer.
- MrScruff 2y ago
  Doesn't materialism imply that a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe would be identical to the universe we live in? If not, in what possible way could the two be distinguished?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
>Every material interaction is simulated. If you believe that consciousness can't exist in the simulation, then you believe that consciousness is not a material interaction I think that is missing the point. You are literally changing the material and medium by conducting a simulation. Releasing simulated energy within a simulation is not identical to releasing real energy in the real world. The former is purely representational, and even a perfectly simulated object retains this property, and lack of equivalence. a simulated atom is not a real atom, no mater their similarlity.

vundercind 2y ago

It’s some electrons moving around. Any further meaning of that is only what we assign to it. Unless your “computer” is identical matter in the same arrangement and state is the original, actually doing stuff. This is why the “what if you slowly simulated the entire universe on an infinite beach moving rocks around to represent the state? Could anything in it be conscious?” thing isn’t my very interesting. No, you’re just shoving rocks around on sand. They don’t mean anything except what you decide they do. Easy answer.

MrScruff 2y ago
Doesn't materialism imply that a perfectly accurate simulation of the universe would be identical to the universe we live in? If not, in what possible way could the two be distinguished?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

>Every material interaction is simulated. If you believe that consciousness can't exist in the simulation, then you believe that consciousness is not a material interaction I think that is missing the point. You are literally changing the material and medium by conducting a simulation. Releasing simulated energy within a simulation is not identical to releasing real energy in the real world. The former is purely representational, and even a perfectly simulated object retains this property, and lack of equivalence. a simulated atom is not a real atom, no mater their similarlity.