3 ms·

How could it not be intriguing? Revert all these questions and that's what makes it interesting. So, yeah clearly opinions differ! We might be way too early to

by creer 2y ago

How could it not be intriguing? Revert all these questions and that's what makes it interesting. So, yeah clearly opinions differ! We might be way too early to be able to measure it - or not. It might have solid consequences on what we can do in our world - or not. How could it not be a fundamental part of our understanding? Etc. From a scientific curiousity point of view, it has to be included. And certainly plenty of people have been working on the nature of our existence. More scientifically than by saying "who cares?" All the way to the current AI fueled debate on what could even possibly be intelligence and consciousness.

thenoblesunfish 2y ago
I guess what I'm pushing back on is that, as other comments allude to, this isn't do different from talking about God, divine watchmakers, etc. Having read the comments here I do see more why people find it intriguing, especially re the connection to AI.
- creer 2y ago
  To me, simulation and god go in similar directions in considering what's bigger and around us. But for simulation, it's in the sense of physics: in the sense of digging always deeper in understanding what we are truly made of. There is no given to experimental proof in physics. They depend on our ingenuity, and also on our technical and financial capabilities - can we manage the high energies? the costs? - Can we even think of what to measure and how to measure it? There is no a priori impossibility in experimental "simulation physics". Same as the rest of physics. It's no harder or easier to think of practical applications as the rest of high energy physics - whether small or large scale (much of which seemed initially remote - but finds applications as the dust settles and engineering progresses.) And "high energy" is the wrong word. Just "physics". I feel there is also no a priori impossibility in applications of better understanding what we are mentally. The problem with religion in general, no matter how many gods it demands, is that it's grounded in ungrounded precepts. And it's actively managed to work around proof. A simulation substrate is not likely to be changed by humans just because other humans are studying it.

by creer 2y ago

thenoblesunfish 2y ago

I guess what I'm pushing back on is that, as other comments allude to, this isn't do different from talking about God, divine watchmakers, etc. Having read the comments here I do see more why people find it intriguing, especially re the connection to AI.

creer 2y ago
To me, simulation and god go in similar directions in considering what's bigger and around us. But for simulation, it's in the sense of physics: in the sense of digging always deeper in understanding what we are truly made of. There is no given to experimental proof in physics. They depend on our ingenuity, and also on our technical and financial capabilities - can we manage the high energies? the costs? - Can we even think of what to measure and how to measure it? There is no a priori impossibility in experimental "simulation physics". Same as the rest of physics. It's no harder or easier to think of practical applications as the rest of high energy physics - whether small or large scale (much of which seemed initially remote - but finds applications as the dust settles and engineering progresses.) And "high energy" is the wrong word. Just "physics". I feel there is also no a priori impossibility in applications of better understanding what we are mentally. The problem with religion in general, no matter how many gods it demands, is that it's grounded in ungrounded precepts. And it's actively managed to work around proof. A simulation substrate is not likely to be changed by humans just because other humans are studying it.