81–90 of 94 posts
Op’s conjecture can be thought of as the same conjecture as proposing that things in the past and future still / already exist, a conjecture that I find compelling based on dimensional reductionist thought experimentation.
The missing component in the thesis is that it argues that consciousness is just an abstract, immaterial object that consists of states. That's not true because to be conscious you need matters.
Basically it's a question of whether math exists. If it exists then the states of the simulation exist and look like reality "from the inside". I really like Iain M. Banks moral argument against universe being simulated. No intelligence capable of simulating it would be immoral enough to create something so horrible. Unless they are a total bastard. So it's not a 100%.
> No intelligence capable of simulating it would be immoral enough to create something so horrible. Based on what just the human race has demonstrated across history, this claim is arguable at best.
This reminds me of the "dust" theory in Egan's Permutation City .
It is indeed similar. It seems to take a highly reductionist pathway: reality/experience can be simulated -> simulation is computation -> computation is mathematics -> mathematical objects exist regardless of whether anybody has discovered them. This implies that all conceivable universes (including the ones where a lot of really bad things happen on an eternal loop) are possessed of the exact same reality as ours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why believe consciousness arises from matter? Versus matter arising from consciousness?
Because we can change brain states (ie, manipulating a material object) to go from conscious to unconscious, which is strong evidence for the former. What evidence is there for the latter?
Basically it's a question of whether math exists. If it exists then the states of the simulation exist and look like reality "from the inside". I really like Iain M. Banks moral argument against universe being simulated. No intelligence capable of simulating it would be immoral enough to create something so horrible. Unless they are a total bastard. So it's not a 100%.
By whose standards is it horrible? What if the intelligence doesn't even know we're here? Or that we are (or believe ourselves to be) conscious? Do you feel guilty playing The Sims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know consciousness is real, and we're not just the same as robots or a tv series? Couldn't every moment throughout the universe have been encoded in every atom before the Big Bang?
How do you know that when you touch a chair that that sensation is real?
Real, in the way I believe you are trying to express, is a complicated topic.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
A couple issues with the assumption of simplified view of determinism: 1.) It doesn't appear computationally feasible to simulate general relativity 2.) Quantum mechanics is described by probability distribution equations that don't have "states" but superpositions of states