4 ms·

This assumes that a map, if sufficiently detailed, is identical to the territory. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t - but it is a highly debatable metaphysical assum

This assumes that a map, if sufficiently detailed, is identical to the territory. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t - but it is a highly debatable metaphysical assumption. I’m not sure how seriously we should take some people’s claims that they “know” that such an assumption is actually true

worstspotgain 2y ago
It's an argument about simulations, not about reality. If reality is a simulation, then arguments about simulations apply to it, but that's the big if.
- mistermann 2y ago
  The word "simulation" is it self a simulation. So is the word "is". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics Reality is a multi-disciplinary domain, but it gives off the appearance of being physics only, because of its metaphysical nature.
- skissane 2y ago
  Not necessarily. Suppose that consciousness/qualia/etc is “something extra” which has to be added to non-mental reality, as some dualists believe. Then, it would be possible that we live in a simulation which contains consciousness because that “something extra” has somehow been added to it. And yet, maybe the “much larger” universe which contains our simulation also contains such a “log book” of a very similar universe to our own, also containing intelligent life - and yet, if the “something extra” has not been added to that “log book”, it would lack consciousness and qualia, unlike our own universe. I’m not arguing that a dualism (of this sort) is actually true, merely that we don’t (and can’t) know for a fact that it is false. But if we can’t know for a fact that it is false, then even if we (somehow) knew our reality was simulated, that wouldn’t give us grounds to make confident inferences about the nature of other simulations, or the nature of simulations in themselves
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    I agree with your post. However, I was using the most mechanical meaning of simulation: "the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study," which implies determinism and excludes the "something extra."
    - skissane 2y ago
      It doesn’t actually exclude the “something extra”, it is neutral as to whether or not there is any “something extra” Panpsychists claim everything is conscious, even rocks, even atoms. Again, I don’t claim this is true (I’d be rather shocked if I somehow found out it was), but we can’t know for a fact that it is false. Yet if panpsychism (or at least certain versions thereof) is true, every simulation (even a simulation of the weather, or of crop growth) is conscious, simply because absolutely everything is. But I don’t think most standard definitions of “simulation” are excluding that possibility - on the contrary, they are agnostic with respect to it, treating its truth or falsehood as outside of their scope It also doesn’t necessarily imply determinism because some computer simulations use RNGs. Most commonly people use pseudorandom RNGs for this, but there is nothing in principle stopping someone from replacing the pseudorandom RNG with a hardware RNG based on some quantum mechanical process, such that it is indeterministic for all practical purposes, and the question of whether it is ultimately deterministic or indeterministic depends on controversial questions about QM to which nobody knows the answers
      - worstspotgain 2y ago
        > It doesn’t actually exclude the “something extra”, it is neutral as to whether or not there is any “something extra” Roger, that's even better. I tried to clarify the log book idea in another reply.[1] The question is whether you can have reality (from the observer's perspective) just based on whether coherent information exists in any setting. Basically the question is whether we can go from "I think, therefore I am" to "something is constructing information." The latter is obviously a simpler, lower-level proof than other concepts of existence. That brings us back to the "something extra." Is it required for our observations to be possible, i.e. can we rule out the log book conjecture? I don't think we can, but I might be wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783599
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Except for the randomness introduced in Quantum Mechanics. If they ever solve the randomness, then if the map is down to every particle, then yes, the map and reality could be the same. But think at that point you need a computer the size of reality to keep track of every particle. Or, maybe the entire universe is one giant wave equation. But again, I think you need a computer the size of the universe to solve it.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  Are you saying that some things are just not simulable, given a sufficiently large and powerful computer, or that the universe is or might be infinite?
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    If the universe is real, not simulation. If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. So even thought the map is the territory, equal scale, and you have the map. It is little worthless because the map ends up being reality. Edit: Little different than the idea that if this is simulation, you can do clipping and only render what we see. I'm saying the entire universe is 'real'.
    - tines 2y ago
      > If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Yes. I referred to the randomness that would prevent this, "once that is solved". Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF. Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.
partomniscient 2y ago
I am King Ozymandias look upon my complete data dump/backup*, ye mighty and despair! *May be subject to entropy over time.

worstspotgain 2y ago

It's an argument about simulations, not about reality. If reality is a simulation, then arguments about simulations apply to it, but that's the big if.

mistermann 2y ago
The word "simulation" is it self a simulation. So is the word "is". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics Reality is a multi-disciplinary domain, but it gives off the appearance of being physics only, because of its metaphysical nature.
skissane 2y ago
Not necessarily. Suppose that consciousness/qualia/etc is “something extra” which has to be added to non-mental reality, as some dualists believe. Then, it would be possible that we live in a simulation which contains consciousness because that “something extra” has somehow been added to it. And yet, maybe the “much larger” universe which contains our simulation also contains such a “log book” of a very similar universe to our own, also containing intelligent life - and yet, if the “something extra” has not been added to that “log book”, it would lack consciousness and qualia, unlike our own universe. I’m not arguing that a dualism (of this sort) is actually true, merely that we don’t (and can’t) know for a fact that it is false. But if we can’t know for a fact that it is false, then even if we (somehow) knew our reality was simulated, that wouldn’t give us grounds to make confident inferences about the nature of other simulations, or the nature of simulations in themselves
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  I agree with your post. However, I was using the most mechanical meaning of simulation: "the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study," which implies determinism and excludes the "something extra."
  - skissane 2y ago
    It doesn’t actually exclude the “something extra”, it is neutral as to whether or not there is any “something extra” Panpsychists claim everything is conscious, even rocks, even atoms. Again, I don’t claim this is true (I’d be rather shocked if I somehow found out it was), but we can’t know for a fact that it is false. Yet if panpsychism (or at least certain versions thereof) is true, every simulation (even a simulation of the weather, or of crop growth) is conscious, simply because absolutely everything is. But I don’t think most standard definitions of “simulation” are excluding that possibility - on the contrary, they are agnostic with respect to it, treating its truth or falsehood as outside of their scope It also doesn’t necessarily imply determinism because some computer simulations use RNGs. Most commonly people use pseudorandom RNGs for this, but there is nothing in principle stopping someone from replacing the pseudorandom RNG with a hardware RNG based on some quantum mechanical process, such that it is indeterministic for all practical purposes, and the question of whether it is ultimately deterministic or indeterministic depends on controversial questions about QM to which nobody knows the answers
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      > It doesn’t actually exclude the “something extra”, it is neutral as to whether or not there is any “something extra” Roger, that's even better. I tried to clarify the log book idea in another reply.[1] The question is whether you can have reality (from the observer's perspective) just based on whether coherent information exists in any setting. Basically the question is whether we can go from "I think, therefore I am" to "something is constructing information." The latter is obviously a simpler, lower-level proof than other concepts of existence. That brings us back to the "something extra." Is it required for our observations to be possible, i.e. can we rule out the log book conjecture? I don't think we can, but I might be wrong. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783599

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Except for the randomness introduced in Quantum Mechanics. If they ever solve the randomness, then if the map is down to every particle, then yes, the map and reality could be the same. But think at that point you need a computer the size of reality to keep track of every particle. Or, maybe the entire universe is one giant wave equation. But again, I think you need a computer the size of the universe to solve it.

worstspotgain 2y ago
Are you saying that some things are just not simulable, given a sufficiently large and powerful computer, or that the universe is or might be infinite?
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  If the universe is real, not simulation. If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation. So even thought the map is the territory, equal scale, and you have the map. It is little worthless because the map ends up being reality. Edit: Little different than the idea that if this is simulation, you can do clipping and only render what we see. I'm saying the entire universe is 'real'.
  - tines 2y ago
    > If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Yes. I referred to the randomness that would prevent this, "once that is solved". Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF. Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.

partomniscient 2y ago

I am King Ozymandias look upon my complete data dump/backup*, ye mighty and despair! *May be subject to entropy over time.