I don't think, even were it proven to be a simulation, that the ultimate truth of everything could be "it's merely a simulation." Or that you'd yet be able to define it as ordinary rather than somehow indescribable.

I also think everything that exists, however far removed from the grandest of perspectives, is, technically "real." There's nothing about being artificial that would make it unreal, per se.

I'm just not sure how you simulate consciousness or take an objective step outside of reality and say, "All it is is this code, and that's mundane."

Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

Read BIV - brains in a vat.

I think it was Bertrand Russell that said something to the effect that even dreams/illusions are real.

You seem to be referring to the idea expressed by Donald Hoffman that we are in reality, but, we experience it through an illusionary lens, to aid gene survival.

It could be and I think, probably is, so. It's a life crime to create so much randomness.

Why create billions of planets to facilitate a mediocre quality life?

Especially when the possibilities are predictable. You'd only need a few hundred planets to discover everything. What appears to have been done sloppily, could've been done carefully.

A mind alone can fathom everything, why over populate minds into existence?

It's not numbers that are the problem(more to the point, anywhere), its size.

I can think of many more harmonious formats of existence. We need not create a massive explosion to create an enjoyable life.

Is this hell, therefore? No.

Is this a simulation, are stars twisted special effects of a illusionary planet? Probably. Can other planets be simulated? Can the simulation fathom all possible simulations in the universe? Yes.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

If our experience is "not reality", then by definition it isn't "100% identical" to reality. Since the simulation is a simulation, then by definition it is "fake".

On those two counts, at least, your question seems absurd. You might try reformulating the problem, and specifying what you mean by "our experience", and what sort of "simulation", for starters.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

If there is no way for us to know that we are in a simulation as opposed to what we call reality, then they are the same thing. If there is no difference, there is no difference.

In that regard, I recommend a good science fiction book - "NPC" by Jeremy Robinson. Good story. Good writing. Good philosophy.

I mean, there's no proof that we live in a simulation at all. Sure we have The Matrix or Brain in Vats as a movie and an illustration respectively, that can serve as interesting thought experiments, but they shouldn't be taken literally.

But to entertain your argument, lets admit that we are in a simulation. In what possible manner would a simulation differ from reality? If there is no way to tell in principle how these things are to be distinguished, then it is irrelevant for everyday life. However, if someone can provide evidence, or give a good argument as to why we are in a simulation, then that might be worth considering.

In any case, I don't see why a simulation should be considered fake as opposed to reality, because what would the difference be?

Do we say movies are fake or video games? You can say these things don't happen outside the context they are given in, but that doesn't mean movies, videos games, etc. are fake.

Do we say movies are fake or video games? You can say these things don't happen outside the context they are given in, but that doesn't mean movies, videos games, etc. are fake. — Manuel

I think we do - endlessly repeated phrases - 'it's only a movie' or 'it's just a video game' spring to mind, which I believe stands for 'it's phoney'. The person who can't tell the difference between the fake worlds there ends up as Mark Chapman.

I don't see why a simulation should be considered fake as opposed to reality, because what would the difference be? — Manuel

Yes, I think this is largely true. It seems to me that if reality is a simulation, we have no alternative but accept that this 'external world' is real and carry on accordingly (all mysticism and religious posturing aside).

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

If our experience is "not reality", then by definition it isn't "100% identical" to reality. Since the simulation is a simulation, then by definition it is "fake". — Cabbage Farmer

A good reply. The simulation ceases to be a simulation, dropping out of consideration.

Notice that this is a piece of conceptual analysis? Clarifying the question and drawing out the consequence.

If there is no way for us to know that we are in a simulation as opposed to what we call reality, then they are the same thing — T Clark

Yep.

If there is no way to tell in principle how these things are to be distinguished, then it is irrelevant for everyday life. — Manuel

Yep.

It seems to me that if reality is a simulation, we have no alternative but accept that this 'external world' is real and carry on accordingly — Tom Storm

Yep.

Consensus! How extraordinary.

I think we do - endlessly repeated phrases - 'it's only a movie' or 'it's just a video game' spring to mind, which I believe stands for 'it's phoney'. The person who can't tell the difference between the fake worlds there ends up as Mark Chapman. — Tom Storm

Depends on the context. I only say this because many people have been moved or inspired by movies. Even if they do know it is not "real life", the genuineness of the feeling makes it more difficult for me to say "it's phoney". So there's an element in these things that goes beyond pixels or actors on a screen, for some people anyway.

But yes, for literal use of the word, someone who confuses these is having problems.

It seems to me that if reality is a simulation, we have no alternative but accept that this 'external world' is real and carry on accordingly (all mysticism and religious posturing aside). — Tom Storm

Pretty much.

Consensus! How extraordinary. — Banno

Shit.. it's like we all copied each other's answers in a high school test. :joke:

I know I called this inbetween a "simulation" right off the bat, but that is only because it doesn't drive our experience. The real reality in the background creates this hypothetical simulation and decides outcomes. The simulation is like the delivery boy.

When it comes to our own eyes our retinas do not register every photon that enters our eyes. Even in the central vision's densely packed 3 degrees of vision. And in any event reality only leaves a limited impression on us. Even objects like our fingers don't touch things. We only feel the repulsion of electrons in our atoms.

Is it reasonable that a reality driven simulation of equal complexity is more real than our human takeaway from any reality we can experience? Or is it fake simply because it can't drive itself without reality in the background to mimic?

A good reply. The simulation ceases to be a simulation, dropping out of consideration.

Notice that this is a piece of conceptual analysis? Clarifying the question and drawing out the consequence. — Banno

Thanks. I agree, it seems like one of those cases in which simple analysis of the definition of terms unravels a psuedoproblem. Though in some such cases there may be ways of reformulating the initial problem to avoid this plight.

Consensus! How extraordinary. — Banno

All too extraordinary.

Consensus! How extraordinary. — Banno

Must be wrong, then.

If life = simulation, then death = 'game over'. This is a repetition in garbled pseudoscience of the standard religious trope, that the 'real' is 'beyond'; that there is an afterlife in which possibly your score in the game of life is important. Your reward is in heaven. Or, in another version, you are addicted to the game and keep playing until you get the highest possible score.

That's 'what if...'. People are sooo religious, especially when they deny it.

Of course the truth is that this world is a virtual reality insane asylum; You are strongly advised not to crucify the therapists. It doesn't harm them at all, but it looks bad on your case notes.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

The simulation is surely part of reality, just are the glasses that people wear. We surely can understand when looking at the world through glasses or not, that the perception can differ. The simulator simply cannot exist in non-reality. The link here is "it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation". We wouldn't even call it a simulator, but basically remote control.

This means that we have an effect on reality through the remote control (or we have a simulator). It's easy to think about this with the example of flying a drone through a computer. As the information given back to you from the drone is quite limited (drone camera might be lousy etc), it's easy to make a computer simulator that perfectly depicts you flying by computer link a drone 20 000 ft above the sea 500 km away from you or you truly flying a drone that is flying 20 000 ft over the sea that is 500 km away by a computer. One is just an accurate flight simulator, the other one the real deal. No way for you easily to verify which thing you are doing.

Note that both examples do happen in reality. What differ are the consequences. Let's say you notice a ship below your drone, then decide to crash the drone into the ship. If you are successful in this, then you surely will notice later the difference between the simulator flying and real drone flying afterwards as likely hitting a ship with a real drone will have some consequences more than just losing a physical drone.



Consensus indeed.

There is more to things than meets the eye, though what does meet the eye is, also.

When we fly up to the Sun, there and then it is simulated as a giant orb, but prior to reaching it, it's non-existent.

The sphere shape of space phenomena is an effect of a inner drive. The inner drive of a human produces an effect of that human, that goes unnote.

This would make simulating existence more efficient and less like a massive bomb. I think on the account of the total mass and energy as well as considering alternatives, reality isn't what meets the eye, but is smaller, compact.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality — TiredThinker

This presupposes that you, body and brain, are not simulated. And in there lies the impossibility.

Apparent reality is a simulation, it is a simulation of your biological interpretation, it is if you like, a biological readout of how ultimate reality effects your biology. Ultimate reality is a place of no things and nothing in this world has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject, conscious biology.

The simulation is surely part of reality, — ssu

Unless, like the turtles, it's simulations all the way down...

Apparent reality is a simulation, it is a simulation of your biological interpretation — boagie

However reasonable that may sound, it contains a flaw. If that is so, the the simulation has no substance. The dream would be indistinguishable from reality. The dream, that ultimate simulation.

Unless, like the turtles, it's simulations all the way down... — Banno

This would mean, objective reality is vacuous, non-existent. And it's not. There has to be a first simulation. The infinite line can be mapped on the circle. If it's simulation all around, then where is the world that is simulated?

Unless, like the turtles, it's simulations all the way down...
— Banno

This would mean, objective reality is vacuous, non-existent. And it's not. There has to be a first simulation. The infinite line can be mapped on the circle. If it's simulation all around, then where is the world that is simulated? — DecheleSchilder

Meh. Like the turtles, there is no first in an infinite sequence, yet every item has a previous one on which to stand. So I disagree. Your's is the same argument as the theists who insist on a first cause - it's trivially wrong.

But further, if all there is, is simulations of simulations, then that is what reality is.

And finally, "it's simulations all the way down" was intended as a joke.

Welcome to the forums.

Meh. Like the turtles, there is no first in an infinite sequence, yet every item has a previous one on which to stand. So I disagree. Your's is the same argument as the theists who insist on a first cause - it's trivially wrong. — Banno

Your view is trivially wrong, as you can't point to a material world that is not simulated. Thus, the simulations are vacuous.

Your view is trivially wrong, as you can't point to a material world that is not simulated. Thus, the simulations are vacuous. — DecheleSchilder

That doesn't seem to follow. If it's all simulations, then there is no need for a material world; every simulation is explained by it's parent simulation.

It's ridiculous, but not self-contradictory.

That doesn't seem to follow. If it's all simulations, then there is no need for a material world; every simulation is explained by it's parent simulation. — Banno

As I said, a circle can be projected on the infinite line. That means that both infinities, at the end of the circle become the same. That means that a simulation is the same as the simulation of itself. A contradiction.

As I said, a circle can be projected on the infinite line. That means that both infinities, at the end of the circle become the same. — DecheleSchilder

Nah.

You are right! The simulation becomes the same as the simulation of itself, the simulation can only be vacuous. For every simulation in the infinite line. No contradiction at all!

How dream like reality is. Ultimate reality is a place of no things, apparent reality is a biological readout. Apparent reality is real to your biology and that's got to be enough. Absolutely everything is interconnected there is no separation, there is no separate you.

So think thy. I think there lies a matter reality behind our brainy reconstruction, simulation of it. That's why the dream is dreamlike and reality solid. Which is not to say that isolation is good. Nothing can exist in isolation. And which is not to say that all is matter, for who knows the true nature of matter. Only inside the matter you can know. We are just our body, partial inside the charge in matter, partially connected to the outside of the matter in which the charge is contained. Inside you feel the difference, outside you see the difference. We, our bodies , are unseparably connected with the charge inside us, and the mattershell of the same charges surrounding us in the physical world. We live between our inner and outer world. Something like that. That's why consciousness can never be explained matterialistically. It overlooks the charge of matter.

Dechele,
Excellent, but, slightly negative. Consciousness can be nothing more than the relation between subject and object. How this occurs is the problem, but negativity never furthered knowledge in the past. We monkeys have come a long long way.

Cept one of us.