Show an error in reality. Computers have scores of errors all the time, and it's not really hard to find them. Where are the equivalent of crashes in people, for example? Where are the infinite loops? Doesn't entail that we don't live in a simulation or aren't a simulation, but it does show that the the question "Are we in a CG simulation?" cannot be operating under the same understanding of how computers work as we have for our computers. Which seems to be evidence against this since the key term is too vague.

Show an error in reality. — MindForged

Firstly, an ''error'' from who's perspective?

Secondly, how do we know this universe is error-free? May be we haven't detected any yet?

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense.

How are transistor-switchings in a computer somewhere supposed to be able to "make" a world?

All that a computer programmer, or the running of his program, could accomplish would be the duplication and display, of some already, timelessly, "existent" possibility-world, showing it (as you seem to mean it) from the objective point-of-view.

The computer simulation could display that to its viewing-audience, but it certainly can't create it.

The "computer-simulated universe" theory requires faith in some magical power of transistor-switchings.

Michael Ossipoff

How do we go about answering the question whether we're machines or not? — TheMadFool

As animals, we're purposefully-responsive devices, basically like a mousetrap, refrigerator-lightswitch or thermostat--but differing from those by having been designed by many millions of years of the events of natural-selection.

Michael Ossipoff

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense — Michael Ossipoff

The point is both cyberspace and our universe are based on mathematical rules. See?

Show an error in reality. Computers have scores of errors all the time, and it's not really hard to find them. Where are the equivalent of crashes in people, for example? Where are the infinite loops? Doesn't entail that we don't live in a simulation or aren't a simulation, but it does show that the the question "Are we in a CG simulation?" cannot be operating under the same understanding of how computers work as we have for our computers. Which seems to be evidence against this since the key term is too vague. — MindForged

How about seeing a bent straw in water, or mirages and illusions? Would those qualify as bugs in the system? What about mental/physical disorders?

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense.

How are transistor-switchings in a computer somewhere supposed to be able to "make" a world?

All that a computer programmer, or the running of his program, could accomplish would be the duplication and display, of some already, timelessly, "existent" possibility-world, showing it (as you seem to mean it) from the objective point-of-view.

The computer simulation could display that to its viewing-audience, but it certainly can't create it.

The "computer-simulated universe" theory requires faith in some magical power of transistor-switchings. — Michael Ossipoff

Minecraft is a first-person game where you explore an infinite world and the world generates itself as you move into new areas, thereby growing the world as you explore it. Each world has a seed - a string of characters - that is used in an algorithm to generate the world at the beginning.

What if the world that you percieve didn't exist, rather it was just your consciousness that was the program - you know, like your dreams. All the other people were just sub-programs. In a way, it would be solipsism, but not quite because your program exists within a real world, or else it wouldn't make sense to call it a program. It would be solipsism.

The point is both cyberspace and our universe are based on mathematical rules. See? — TheMadFool

The real world isn't based on mathematical rules. Mathematics is just a model of how things are. They are not the basis of how things are. There is just how things are and our models of how things are. Cyberspace is based on our models of how things are.

Asking if this world is a computer program just creates an infinite regress because you then have to ask, "How do we know that the world our program is in isn't a program too?"

To halt the regress you'd need to show the difference between our world and theirs. Is their world made of atoms, protons and electrons? Quarks? Does there seem to be an infinite regress of causation in their world as well?

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense — Michael Ossipoff


The point is both cyberspace and our universe are based on mathematical rules. See? — TheMadFool

Yes, I didn't miss that similarity to what I've been saying. One thing I like about the Simulated-Universe theory is that it isn't so far from what I'm saying. The popularity of Simulated Universe shows that people aren't really so far from agreement with my suggestion.

Yes the universe is a mathematical/logical system. No, it wasn't created by the writing or running of a computer program, or by transistor-switchings somewhere. ...because mathematical and logical systems just timelessly are.

A computer programmer, or the running of a computer, can't create what already timelessly is.

They can only duplicate it and display it for a viewing audience.

So yes, I didn't mean to disparage Simulated Universe. I don't agree with it, but I like it because it's so close to what I'm proposing.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes the universe is a mathematical/logical system

Wouldn't it be better to say something like "The universe can be modeled by a mathematical or logical system"? Because reality and formal systems (or abstract objects if you swing that way) have properties the other cannot. Although to be honest, I've never found that to be a very profound discovery. There are an infinite number of mathematical and logical systems so it almost seems inevitable that at least one could be isomorphic with reality in some sense (while other such systems would map onto different possible realities).

You said:
.

How about seeing a bent straw in water, or mirages and illusions? Would those qualify as bugs in the system?

.
No, because those instances of refraction are completely consistent with known physics.
.

What about mental/physical disorders?

.
Less well-understood, but not unexplainable enough to support Simulated-Universe.
.
I’d said:
.

The "computer-simulated universe" theory doesn't make any sense.

.
How are transistor-switchings in a computer somewhere supposed to be able to "make" a world?
.
All that a computer programmer, or the running of his program, could accomplish would be the duplication and display, of some already, timelessly, "existent" possibility-world, showing it (as you seem to mean it) from the objective point-of-view.

.
The computer simulation could display that to its viewing-audience, but it certainly can't create it.
.
The "computer-simulated universe" theory requires faith in some magical power of transistor-switchings.

.
You said:
.

Minecraft is a first-person game where you explore an infinite world and the world generates itself as you move into new areas

.
In my proposal, your life-experience possibility-story isn’t being generated as your experience unfolds. That story is already timelessly there. The time that you experience is within that story-system, and that story is across its own time, not generated in time.
.
The complexity of your experienced world, and its self-consistency, make it difficult to explain how a person could write that story on-the-fly during his/her first day of life, immediately after being born (and in late fetal life, for that matter).
.

, thereby growing the world as you explore it.

.
Again, your life-experience possibility-story is already timelessly, there, and isn’t being written sequentially in time, as you experience it.
.
You and your surroundings are the two complementary halves of your life-experience possibility-story, which is about your experience.
.

Each world has a seed - a string of characters - that is used in an algorithm to generate the world at the beginning.

.
You’re talking about something written on-the-fly, and I’m talking about a story that is a logical system that already timelessly is.
.
(I mean “is” in a much less strong sense than “exists”. I mean “is” in a hypothetical, insubstantial sense, or discursive grammatical sense, instead of existential sense. …referring only to a topic of discussion, not something existent.)
.
You’re in a life because you’re the protagonist of one of those life-experience possibility-stories.
.

What if the world that you perceive didn't exist

.
The word “exist” isn’t metaphysically-defined. I agree with what you’re saying there--I don’t claim that this world exists. I don’t make any claims about the existence of anything metaphysical, including this world or the abstract if-then facts of which it’s composed.
.

, rather it was just your consciousness that was the program - you know, like your dreams.

.
Different from dreams, because dreams are composed by you, subconsciously. Your life-experience possibility-story couldn’t be being composed by you on-the-fly. As I said, what about the day you were born? You couldn’t have composed a complex self-consistent physical world then.
.
In fact, in general, self-consistency could be a problem if you were writing your experience-story on-the-fly.
.
Though I don’t agree with philosophers’ chase after Consciousness separate from body, I agree that it can fairly be said that Consciousness—that’s each of us--is at the basis of each of our experience-story. After all, we and our experience are what that story is about. So I don’t think it’s wrong to suggest that Consciousness is at the basis of it all.
.

All the other people were just sub-programs.

.
Inevitably, in your experience-story, you’re a member of a species, and therefore, consistent with your “existence”, there must be other members of your species in that experience-story.
.

In a way, it would be solipsism, but not quite because your program exists within a real world, or else it wouldn't make sense to call it a program. It would be solipsism.

.
I don’t think it’s Solipsism, because it isn’t just in your mind, and isn’t being sequentially-written by you. As I said, you and your surroundings are the two complementary halves of your life-experience possibility-story, and that story timelessly is.
.
…and for each of the other people and other animals in that story, their experience from their own point-of-view, is just as valid as yours.
.
Aside from those differences, most of what you said agrees with my proposal.
.
TheMadFool said:
.

The point is both cyberspace and our universe are based on mathematical rules. See?

.
You replied:
.

The real world isn't based on mathematical rules.

.
True. The main requirement for your experience-story is that it be self-consistent, non-contradictory, because there’s no such thing as inconsistent facts. Obviously not all of your experience is mathematical.
.
But, as soon as you examine or investigate the physical world, and make some measurements of it, you find that it follows mathematical physical laws.
.

Mathematics is just a model of how things are. They are not the basis of how things are.

.
That’s a big assumption. You’re assuming that, for some reason, there’s that brute-fact world, and we just model it by logic and mathematics.
.
Uncontroversially, there are those logical/mathematical if-then facts (…but I don’t say that they “exist”—see above, regarding how I mean “are”), and complex systems of inter-referring if-thens. As I said, inevitably one of those infinitely-many logical systems has the events and relations of your experience. There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
So the burden of proof is on someone who wants to say that there’s a “real”, “concrete” objectively-existent physical world, superfluously existing alongside that logical system, and duplicating its events and relations.
.

There is just how things are…

.
…as a brute-fact?
.

Asking if this world is a computer program just creates an infinite regress because you then have to ask, "How do we know that the world our program is in isn't a program too?"

.
Quite so. Most advocates of the Simulated-Universe theory say that we’re in a simulation that’s being run within another simulation, which is being run within another simulation…and so on.
.
I’ve told what’s wrong with the Simulated-Universe theory.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Wouldn't it be better to say something like "The universe can be modeled by a mathematical or logical system"? — MindForged

Sure, if you assume that there's that brute-fact objectively-existent, fundamentally-existent physical world, that we're modeling.

But the complex logical system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts is a lot easier to explain, and doesn't require any explanation, assumptions or brute-facts.

...and there's no need to assume that your experience in our physical world is other than that.

Because reality and formal systems (or abstract objects if you swing that way) have properties the other cannot.

Any fact about our physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact. ...and is part of the "if " premise of some if-then facts, and is the "then" conclusion of other if-then facts. ...as I've described in more detail, with examples, in other posts. (I'll gladly paste that description here, if you haven't seen it).

There are an infinite number of mathematical and logical systems so it almost seems inevitable that at least one could be isomorphic with [our physical] reality...

Yes.

You mean the physical reality of your experience in our universe. (I use Reality, without modifier, only to mean all of Reality--more than is covered or described by physical or metaphysical reality.)

Yes, I agree, and that's what I've been proposing.

And there' s no reason to believe that your experience is other than one of those infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

in some sense (while other such systems would map onto different possible [physical] realities).

Yes.

Michael Ossipoff

It is obvious that the programers did not expect us to look at things on the quantum level, and so did not bother to code it well enough to distinguish particles from waves. They just muddled through with a bit of statistical modelling.

Similarly, the expansion of the universe was an unintended bit of behavior, but once they found it, it became a feature rather than a bug. ;-)

:o And so we can continue. Black holes are closed loops, iterating to infinity.

The real world isn't based on mathematical rules. — Harry Hindu

F = G(m1×m2)/r^2

E = mc^2

Did you read the book Just six numbers?

Yes, there's the infinite regress problem with the simulated universe view but the point is the similarity between a computer world and ours in being based on rules (if you don't prefer mathematical rules).

What I really want to ask is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' The Turing test checks whether AI is human-like or not? That's great but the bigger question is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' What's the difference between being human and being AI?

What's the difference between being human and being AI? — TheMadFool

I would say consciousness. As intelligently as you could ever program AI to be, you still have to tell it how to react to stimuli. Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions.

Basically we can't distinguish between computer simulated reality and this universe of ours. — TheMadFool

Well this is rather absurd. It's as if the producer of the documentary can't tell the difference between his wife/girlfriend and an Apple Computer. Really?

I would say consciousness. As intelligently as you could ever program AI to be, you still have to tell it how to react to stimuli. Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions. — CasKev

That's chauvinistic. If an android were built to perfectly model human behavior then, by the meaning of consciousness it has human consciousness.

Unless you believe in Spiritualism.

Even when we say that a mousetrap doesn't have consciousness, we're expressing chauvinism.

Where do you draw the line, for consciousness? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Eukaryotic cellular organisms? All cellular organisms (including bacteria)? All biological organisms coded by DNA or RNA (including viruses)? All biological organisms (including prions)?

(Viruses show purposeful response. Maybe that term's meaning would have to be generalized more, in regards to prions, but maybe that generalization is reasonable.)

What about an android that exactly duplicates human behavior?

The uncertainty and lack of agreement on where the line should be drawn suggests that "consciousness" is chauvinistically-loaded, and isn't a useful term for general comparison of purposefully-responsive devices.

In general, then, "purposefully-responsive" is more useful term than "conscious".

Michael Ossipoff

No, because those instances of refraction are completely consistent with known physics. — Michael Ossipoff

And what if "known physics" was just a computer program?

In my proposal, your life-experience possibility-story isn’t being generated as your experience unfolds. That story is already timelessly there. The time that you experience is within that story-system, and that story is across its own time, not generated in time.
.
The complexity of your experienced world, and its self-consistency, make it difficult to explain how a person could write that story on-the-fly during his/her first day of life, immediately after being born (and in late fetal life, for that matter). — Michael Ossipoff

Like I said, the world is generated at the beginning based on a seed. So the world is already there as an algorithm that is then used to create the landscape as you move. The landscape is created on the fly based on the seed. The seed is what you would refer to as what would be timelessly is. So we're are both talking about the same thing.

That’s a big assumption. You’re assuming that, for some reason, there’s that brute-fact world, and we just model it by logic and mathematics. — Michael Ossipoff

It's not an assumption. It would be an assumption that mathematics is fundamental to reality - as if we could only look closer at quarks, we'd find numbers and algebraic equations. We don't. We find relationships and we model those relationships using numbers and characters. Different beings (us vs. aliens) will use different characters to represent say the relationship between energy and mass. An alien equal sign will probably look different. Because the numbers and characters we use are arbitrary, then it should be obvious that we won't find mathematics as a fundamental part of reality. Again, it is the relationships that we are modeling, and that aliens would be modeling. While we use different symbols, we will both be referring to the same thing.

Quite so. Most advocates of the Simulated-Universe theory say that we’re in a simulation that’s being run within another simulation, which is being run within another simulation…and so on. — Michael Ossipoff

If it's simulations all the way down, then it wouldn't make any sense to call them simulations. Simulation only makes sense in the light of the real. There needs to be a real world in order for there to be a simulation of one. If it's simulations all the way down, then it could be just as easily said that it is real universes all the way down - which would actually make more sense. Simulations are dependent upon the real, but the real isn't dependent upon simulations. The real is simply what is and would be what is even if there never were any such thing as simulations.

F = G(m1×m2)/r^2

E = mc^2

Did you read the book Just six numbers?

Yes, there's the infinite regress problem with the simulated universe view but the point is the similarity between a computer world and ours in being based on rules (if you don't prefer mathematical rules).

What I really want to ask is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' The Turing test checks whether AI is human-like or not? That's great but the bigger question is ''how do we know we're not machines?'' What's the difference between being human and being AI? — TheMadFool

What are you saying - that if we look close enough at nature, we'll find numbers and algebraic equations? No. When we look closer at nature we find relationships and we model those relationships with mathematics. The alien version of Einstein's equation would probably look different, but refer to the same relationship between energy and mass. The symbols we use to represent natural relationships is arbitrary. The relationships are not.

Unless you believe in Spiritualism. — Michael Ossipoff

Lately, I'm leaning toward Robert Lanza's theory of biocentrism, which as I understand it (not so well just yet) relies on consciousness, wherever or however it exists, to collapse probabilistic wave functions into one's perceived reality. Things don't exist until they are perceived. Matter, space, and time are constructs of the conscious observer.

What about an android that exactly duplicates human behavior? — Michael Ossipoff

Like I said above:

Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions. — CasKev

..

... or having the will and final choice on how to act.

In general, then, "purposefully-responsive" is more useful term than "conscious". — Michael Ossipoff

Something like a mousetrap is simply compelled into movement by events in its physical surroundings. It can't randomly decide to release on a whim.

Where do you draw the line, for consciousness? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Eukaryotic cellular organisms? All cellular organisms (including bacteria)? All biological organisms coded by DNA or RNA (including viruses)? All biological organisms (including prions)? — Michael Ossipoff

I currently draw the line at plants, which as a whole, grow and move according to rules established at the cellular level. I don't see there being a conscious observer witnessing the results of cellular activity. Unlike a mousetrap, the movement and growth is subject to some degree of chaos, there being some degree of probability involved, which would explain that while no two flowers are identical, there exist limits to its ability to move and grow (i.e. a typical rose will never have a span of ten feet, or be able to orient itself to the sun with any sort of speed).

The ideas I'm currently contemplating are whether:
a) i) I would be the only self-aware, conscious creator in my perceived reality; or
ii) Reality would be shared by multiple conscious entities, all contributing to its creation
b) Assuming a) + i), will my consciousness never end; will my perceived reality persistently adapt to explain how my consciousness continues to survive (e.g. will anti-ageing technology somehow extend my life indefinitely?)
c) Assuming a) + ii), will my perceived version of reality continue indefinitely in a realm of multiverses, and my death(s) will only be experienced in the perceived realities of other conscious beings

I’d said:
.

No, because those instances of refraction are completely consistent with known physics.

.
You replied:
.

And what if "known physics" was just a computer program?

.
My objection to Simulated-Universe didn’t have anything to do with proving Simulated-Universe false by observational evidence. My objection to Simulated-Universe is an objection in principle: A programmer and the running of his program can’t create what already timelessly is.
.
I’d said:
.

In my proposal, your life-experience possibility-story isn’t being generated as your experience unfolds. That story is already timelessly there. The time that you experience is within that story-system, and that story is across its own time, not generated in time.
.
The complexity of your experienced world, and its self-consistency, make it difficult to explain how a person could write that story on-the-fly during his/her first day of life, immediately after being born (and in late fetal life, for that matter).

.
You replied:
.

Like I said, the world is generated at the beginning based on a seed. So the world is already there as an algorithm that is then used to create the landscape as you move. The landscape is created on the fly based on the seed. The seed is what you would refer to as what would be timelessly is. So we're are both talking about the same thing.

.
Alright, but that seed would have to already encompass and be the whole life-experience possibility-story, with nothing new being created in time, because all that’s happening in time is the individual’s perception of unfolding events--with the whole experience-story (or maybe a suite of similar ones—we don’t know exactly what story we’re in) already there.
.
I’d said:
.

That’s a big assumption. You’re assuming that, for some reason, there’s that brute-fact world, and we just model it by logic and mathematics.

.
You replied:
.

It's not an assumption.

.
That you’re in a world isn’t an assumption.
.
That that world is fundamentally existent and, in some meaningful metaphysical sense, more than the complex logical system whose events and relations it duplicates is a brute-fact assumption.
.
You said:
.

It would be an assumption that mathematics is fundamental to reality

.
Mathematics isn’t fundamental to Reality.
.
(Using the word “reality” without a modifier, I capitalize it as “Reality”, because, without a modifier it refers to all of Reality.)
.
And have I been saying that mathematics is fundamental to metaphysical reality? What I’ve been saying is this:
.
Among the infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably is one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
I can’t prove that Materialism’s fundamentally existent physical world that is, somehow, more than that, doesn’t superfluously exist, as a brute-fact, and an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that complex logical system that I referred to above.
.
The main requirement for your life-experience possibility-story is that it be self-consistent, non-contradictory.
.
That’s because I consists of facts, and there’s no such thing as mutually contradictory facts.
.
Where mathematics comes into it is: Physical laws are at least often mathematical. As I’ve said, a physical law is a hypothetical relation among a set of hypothetical physical quantity-values. As a relation among quantity-values, of course a physical law is, by definition, mathematical.
.

- as if we could only look closer at quarks, we'd find numbers and algebraic equations. We don't. We find relationships and we model those relationships using numbers and characters.

.
We “model” physical quantity values with numbers because they’re quantity values, and numbers denote quantity values. Relations between numbers are, by definition, mathematical.
.
When physicists examine and investigate the physical world they find mathematical relations among physical quantity values. They suggest theories that propose certain relations among those quantity values. That’s what a physical theory is. Sometime they’re wrong, but sometimes such a theory keeps being confirmed and is never refuted. Sometimes a physical theory turns out to need refinement, in order to be consistent with the latest complete set of observations.
.
As relations among quantity-values, yes those physical theories are mathematical.
.
But of course a person’s ordinary daily experience isn’t entirely mathematical. The mathematical nature of physical reality is only experienced when someone examines, investigates the physical world more closely.
.
That’s why I don’t emphasize mathematics, as does MUH. I speak, instead, of a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals. As I said, that story’s main requirement is self-consistency, non-contradiction.
.
You said:
.

Different beings (us vs. aliens) will use different characters to represent say the relationship between energy and mass.

.
We’d speak different languages too. That doesn’t mean that our physical and metaphysical reality doesn’t consist of a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts.
.

An alien equal sign will probably look different. Because the numbers and characters we use are arbitrary, then it should be obvious that we won't find mathematics as a fundamental part of reality.

.
Mathematics isn’t a fundamental part of Reality. Mathematics is a fundamental part of physical reality.
.
No one’s saying that when examining matter with an electron microscope, the physicist will observe an algebraic formula written out on the surface of a piece of matter.
.
But yes, physicists do find relations among physical quantities. Quantities are numbers. Relations among numbers are, by definition, mathematical.
.
So yes, physicists find mathematical relations among physical quantities.
.
As I’ve been saying:
.
A set of physical quantity-values, and a relation among them (called a “physical law”) are parts of the “if “ premise of an if-then fact.
.
…except that one of those physical quantity-values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
Obviously any particular physical quantity-value can be part of the “if “ premise of some if-then facts, while also being the “then” conclusion of other if-then facts.
.
I’ve also given an example of the fact that any fact about our physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact.
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, then you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
And, as I said, there’s a complex system of such inter-referring if-then facts, whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.

Again, it is the relationships that we are modeling, and that aliens would be modeling.

.
Yes, it’s the relationships that are fundamental, physically and metaphysically. Relationships among physical quantities (such relationships are mathematical). Relationships and inter-reference among abstract if-then facts. You could word it by saying that physical and metaphysical reality are all about relationships, consisting of abstract-facts, and inter-reference among them.
.
The Materialist’s “stuff “ for the if-then facts to be about, is a brute-fact belief of his.
.
Contrary to popular belief, there needn’t be concretely objectively existent and real “things” and “stuff” for if-then facts to be “about”.
.
“If there were ____, and if there were ______, and if ___________ were _____, and if ______ were ______then _______ would be ________”.
.
An if-then proposition of that form could be one that is inevitably true regardless of whether there are really any material things at all.
.
As for what “exists”, the word “exist” isn’t metaphysically-defined, and causes many completely unnecessary arguments.
.

While we use different symbols, we will both be referring to the same thing.

.
Yes, we’d all be referring to the same mathematical relations among physical quantity values, because we all live in the same physical universe (let’s assume that your aliens live nearby enough so that the physical constants have the same values that they have here).
.
Newton’s approximate dynamical laws would have been discovered by those aliens. If they’re as advanced as our physicists, then they’d have found special-relativity too. Maybe they’d have worked out general relativity better than our physicists have, or something else with more reliable predictive value. Maybe they’d have a consistent physics that explains the acceleration of the recession of the more distant galaxies.
.
They’d know about Galileo’s kinematic equations.
.
If they were interested in investigating the matters that Lagrange and Hamilton investigated, then they’d know about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics.
.
Likewise with all of physics. If they investigated the same things, they’d find the same things, because they’re in the same physical universe (and assumed to be near enough to us that the physical constants are the same for them as for us.)
.
And yes, they’d probably use different symbols.
------------------
As for the Simulated-Universe theory, I don’t advocate it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Something like a mousetrap is simply compelled into movement by events in its physical surroundings. — CasKev

It's compelled by events in its surroundings, and by it's own preferences (It prefers to snap when its trigger is pressed)

...as is a human.

Admittedly the human's preferences are more complicated than those of the mousetrap. Like a Roomba, a human must deal with more than one input, and must do more than one thing. Humans and Roombas are more complex than mousetraps, different in degree from mousetraps, and from eachother.

What a person decides or chooses is determined by his/her preferences (inborn and acquired) and surroundings and events (present and past).

That's a good thing. It means that "our" decisions and choices aren't really ours. It unloads from us the burdens of those choices and decisions.

The person's role is merely to evaluate the possible choices in terms of which better suits his/her preferences, given the circumstances of his/her surroundings. Other than that, it's decided for you. That isn't a large role.

That can be reassuring when there's a seemingly difficult decision or choice.
-----------------
A Roomba is more complex than a mousetrap, especially the more recent Roomba models.

A Roomba's preferences are more complex and elaborate than those of a mousetrap.

A human's preference are more complex and elaborate than those of a Roomba

But the principle is the same, for all purposefully-responsive devices, including moustraps, refrigerator-lightswitches, thermostats, amoebas, insects, fish, lizards, birds, rats, wolves, cats, dogs, and humans.

Michael Ossipoff

The symbols we use to represent natural relationships is arbitrary. The relationships are not. — Harry Hindu

You're right. It's all about relationships. But these relationships are quantitative/mathematical. That's what I want to say.

A conscious computer entity in cyberspace would also see mathematical rules in their world.

A similarity that's good enough to prompt the question ''are we machines too?''

Well this is rather absurd. It's as if the producer of the documentary can't tell the difference between his wife/girlfriend and an Apple Computer. Really? — Rich

Yes, it boils down to that I'm afraid. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I would say consciousness. — CasKev

Consciousness may be computable. What is conscioisness anyway? The Turing Test doesn't actually detect consciousness does it? It can't differentiate real consciousness from one that's simply a mimic.

What that means is we can't be sure if our consciousness is NOT artificial.

What is conscioisness anyway? The Turing Test doesn't actually detect consciousness does it? It can't differentiate real consciousness from one that's simply a mimic. — TheMadFool

Any device that could mimic consciousness would be as conscious as the conscious beings that it mimics. It would be a duplicate of them.

What that means is we can't be sure if our consciousness is NOT artificial.

Sure we can. I've told what's wrong with the Simulated-Universe theory.

Michael Ossipoff

So the question ''how do we know we're not computer code?'' is more important than ''is this AI conscious like us?'' — TheMadFool

Both are more important than "what's the weather like?" which is still relevant, so I don't see what conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison.

Both are more important than "what's the weather like?" which is still relevant, so I don't see what conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison. — BlueBanana

The universe and a computer simulation are so like each other that the distinction human-machine is very blurry; to the extent that it raises questions about our origins and our belief that we're superior to machines or, conversely, that machines are inferior to us.