I also only use 6% of my brain. The rest is being used by -- *argh* -- . . . . :devil:
What was I saying?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
SIM argument
- Thread starter Fyle
- Start date
I also only use 6% of my brain. The rest is being used by -- *argh* -- . . . . :devil:
What was I saying?
I do want to add that I appreciate the article about the 10% myth. I remember seeing ads for that movie in which a woman is using 70% of her brain, 80%, 90%… and if she uses all one hundred percents of her brain—
Well, I don't know what happens because that premise was so off-putting I decided to give that movie a miss.
Well, I don't know what happens because that premise was so off-putting I decided to give that movie a miss.
- Thread starter
- #23
Fyle
Inkling
Fair enough, I will look into the 100% use of the brain. Its not the most compeling possible piece of evidence, just something that goes along with a humans understand their surroundings argument... Sure, that could be wrong.
I am well aware of Moore's Law (and yes, it is just called law, not as in a scientific law that is made clear by most people who cite it of the bat). It is not needed to grasp the concept that computers in the future will have far surpassed the capabilites of ours.
I guess my explanation of that was rushed. Perhaps CPU doubles every 3 years, or than every 4 then 2 again (and do not forget breakthroughs happen which may exceed the expected progress)... Moore's Law is used here not as absolute fact, but just as a guideline, as a way to show how people are arriving at this theory and agreeing with Nick Bostrom.
What do you think of Professor James Gate discovery / statement that binary error correction code was found in string theory ?
Also, another piece of recent evidence that gives this agrument weight is the observer effect. I cannot go into detail, for I am still trying to understand the physics of it myself but, the basic idea is that when a particle is "watched" its course of travel is altered.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #24
Fyle
Inkling
This would mean a program wrote everything as it developed, kinda like SIM City.
Not sure how it fits with "you/I" would have written every piece of music etc...
Everyone is a skeptic in regards to something. This interests me because there are clues in science that can point to this being the case.
I am not saying I believe it, I am saying it is the most solid theory for me so far. Also, due to James Gates recent discoveries. If he finds more on that, it leaves a big question mark in physics that this answers.
I don’t know anything about string theory on a level well enough to put it into practice and solve equations and neither does anyone here I don’t think. So, we will have to take his word (and the word of others who can confirm it) that he found computer code in string theory. James Gate Jr. is a professor at Maryland University. None of these people who are claiming evidence that points towards this are whacky unknowns. All reputable scientists.
As far as going too far... not really.
It fascinates me that people who are totally paralyzed can now move a mouse on a screen using, well, a computer attached to their brain. I can't explain how a computer can work hand-in-hand with a brain to grant that ability, but obviously it can... just take that a step further that computer is controling everything. Its advances in technology like this that allow the theory to stand in reality and not be some "well, its just another philisophical magic thing in the sky."
This isn't too far, its just too many steps ahead for most people to accept. As computers assimilate more and more into our society, it will be easier to grasp and less "far out there."
It's similar but in this case there are supposedly external forces that produce what you experience, eg a computer simulation/programer or an evil demon.
You didn't miss much. I actually found the film very insulting and if it was a book I would have thrown it across the room. As someone who has seen every Transformers movie and was able to take them for what they were, I rank Lucy below them. Why? Because the film was trying to be a thought provoking movie and at the same time an action movie. Because of this it failed at both things and ended up being excruciatingly pretentious.
After looking into it a bit deeper, I'm not yet convinced that this is anything more than an interesting thought experiment. Even Gates doesn't believe that we're in a simulation. In this audio interview (S. James Gates — Uncovering the Codes for Reality | On Being) at around the 24 minute mark he states something to the effect of just because these codes are in the equations of string theory and these codes are like error correcting codes used in a browser does not mean reality is like a browser.
Mathematics can be a funny thing. There was a meme that went around a while back that stated
This may or may not be true, because certain properties of Pi are unknown, just like certain things about these error codes are unknown. If it's true, is it just a neat coincidence or a sign of something grander? (It like the infinite monkey theorem, the theory that an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare) But regardless of if Pi contains everything, it's still a cool thought.
I'm not sure how this phenomena applies to the possibility we are living in a simulation. But my basic understanding of this comes from skimming through this article. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #26
Fyle
Inkling
Sure, there needs to be further research and Gates has no reason to believe anything. My point is, this is a positive sign that reality may somehow be connected to computers.
The writter of the argument himself says he beleives his own theory about 20%. Which is where I would say I am building towards. Eveything must be judged by percentage chance since we do not have "the answer."
Keep in mind, this is offered as an explanation to where this universe as we know it came from. If you say this has 0% chance of being true, you have to divide your chances towards other explanations of what the universe is/where it came from...
what's your best scientific explanaition, because none of them have convinced anyone yet 100%...
Above all, you must admit, it is an interesting theory. And by the way, as the years roll by, we can watch computer simulations get more and more advanced... the more advanced simulations because, the more likely this is to be true.
I also read someplace they can "record" and delete/add memories in rodents and will begin monkey trails soon. Its things like his that open the door to a theory like this being possible. Memory manipulation does exsit, and will improve.
Observation causing particles to act differently proves that their are oddities in quantium mechanics that are very hard to explain using physics and logic as we know it, that physics on the molecular level may not be what we think, that is to say may be digital and impossible to know all about from our perspective.
I vote for the possibility Number 1.
First of all, I want to say that I am pretty sure the universe is an illusion. Everything works in perfect order to produce worlds, life forms and conscience, but we have no way to know why this happens or what causes it. It could be the result of a computer simulation, the work of a superior being or something beyond our imagination, who knows.
My argument against the computer simulation is this:
I do believe that it could happen and maybe we live inside an unimaginably powerful Play Station or something, but then, why would that mean that the computer (and its creators) are real at all? They could be another simulation ran by yet another simulation, and then another, and another...
The theory would transform into an Infinite problem, and then everything is equally real.
Also, the celebrated and impressive development of technology over the past two hundred years would be part of the simulation too, so then how could we trust that it's real? Maybe our entire history would be the result of whatever intelligence that plays with the simulation, and the real world would be a completely different thing.
The Simulation theory is flawed in my opinion, even though it's intriguing indeed. I prefer to believe in other and even stranger theories of my own invention, but maybe it's better to avoid discussing stuff that could be interpreted by some people as a challenge against their own beliefs.
First of all, I want to say that I am pretty sure the universe is an illusion. Everything works in perfect order to produce worlds, life forms and conscience, but we have no way to know why this happens or what causes it. It could be the result of a computer simulation, the work of a superior being or something beyond our imagination, who knows.
My argument against the computer simulation is this:
I do believe that it could happen and maybe we live inside an unimaginably powerful Play Station or something, but then, why would that mean that the computer (and its creators) are real at all? They could be another simulation ran by yet another simulation, and then another, and another...
The theory would transform into an Infinite problem, and then everything is equally real.
Also, the celebrated and impressive development of technology over the past two hundred years would be part of the simulation too, so then how could we trust that it's real? Maybe our entire history would be the result of whatever intelligence that plays with the simulation, and the real world would be a completely different thing.
The Simulation theory is flawed in my opinion, even though it's intriguing indeed. I prefer to believe in other and even stranger theories of my own invention, but maybe it's better to avoid discussing stuff that could be interpreted by some people as a challenge against their own beliefs.
Queshire
Istar
I'm sorry, but I'm confused? Reading the original post and the premise of the article it's based off of it seems to be a clear cut example of the False Dichotomy fallacy. Or would that be False Trichotomy since there's three of them?
I... I have to be honest here, I'm confused and slightly offended that this argument has such a glaring logical fallacy. It's even worse since the argument proposes that this is all a computer simulation since such fallacies lead to Bad Stuff happening in a computer program. It's like writing a program to guess a number where if it isn't 1 and isn't 2 then it has to be 3 while completely ignoring the fact that the number could be 4.
Someone please tell me there's something I'm missing?
I... I have to be honest here, I'm confused and slightly offended that this argument has such a glaring logical fallacy. It's even worse since the argument proposes that this is all a computer simulation since such fallacies lead to Bad Stuff happening in a computer program. It's like writing a program to guess a number where if it isn't 1 and isn't 2 then it has to be 3 while completely ignoring the fact that the number could be 4.
Someone please tell me there's something I'm missing?
Last edited:
To me, this is like when someone sees Aztec carvings of people who look like they're wearing space helmets as a sign of ancient alien astronauts. Without clear evidence of what this code actually is or isn't anyone can make claims as to its meaning without being out right disproved.
Other parts of string theory say that we might all be holograms. Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OR I could just say I don't know and say that they all have 0% chance of being true because none of them ring true to me based on available evidence. If the true answer or the beginnings of it have yet to be revealed, then it won't be among the available choices.
Right now I reserve judgement and say I don't know. Just because there are lots of guesses being thrown out there doesn't mean I have to choose one.
As stated before, it may very well be that computational power and the limits of what can be programmed will halt this. And/Or what Gates found has nothing to do with computer code at all.
Also option 2 of given by the paper states that posthumans may not have any interests in running simulations.
But the paper isn't about memory manipulation, its about the universe and us being a simulation. Just because we can manipulate memories doesn't automatically mean we'll one day be able to write code that can simulate a universe in right down to the quantum level.
Jabrosky
Banned
As far as I'm concerned, the existence of this giant Matrix-like simulation is like the existence of God. You can't 100% disprove they're real any more than you can 100% disprove anything else imaginable, but given how difficult it would be to confirm or falsify them, there's not much point in assuming they must exist. It's the kind of "what if" speculation that would be more useful for writing fiction or creating art than living our day-to-day lives.
On the other hand, if you must pass it off as more than idle speculation, there is such as thing as the burden of proof. You can claim anything you want, but if we're not inclined to agree with your claim, the onus is on you to back it up. For example, if someone asserts that Northern Europeans have somehow evolved greater intelligence than Africans, they must provide evidence for it before demanding the bio-anthropological community take their word for it. The same could be said for the Matrix, God, the Illuminati, or anything else you can think up.
On the other hand, if you must pass it off as more than idle speculation, there is such as thing as the burden of proof. You can claim anything you want, but if we're not inclined to agree with your claim, the onus is on you to back it up. For example, if someone asserts that Northern Europeans have somehow evolved greater intelligence than Africans, they must provide evidence for it before demanding the bio-anthropological community take their word for it. The same could be said for the Matrix, God, the Illuminati, or anything else you can think up.
DISCLAIMER: What I'm saying below is not meant to be a mockery of one's belief. It IS a mockery of the way the argument is presented.
If the same pattern were used to promote religious or political beliefs that I share, I would still say the logic is flawed and is a cheap (and ineffective) trick to get the reader to consider option #3 by presenting two plausible, somewhat related options (which, I might add, don't necessary rule out other options).
The pattern here is:
#1 = an eventual truth
#2 = a possibility + some mention of #1 and #3 to make the argument flow
#3 = the author's unpopular theory
1) Humans will eventually be extinct. Well, yeah. Posthuman is "after humans" so of course extinction comes before that. Eternity's a long time, so all humans dead? Eventually? Most religions don't question this.
2) So the intelligent beings that run things when humans aren't around don't give a crap about humans and don't run simulations of humans. Maybe. Don't we simulate dinosaurs and stuff? Monster Hunter games sort of simulate dinosaur-like environments. Anyway, #2 is possible along with #1, but if human remains are discovered then #2 may eventually be false. We'll be long dead by then, so whatever.
3) This is totally out of left field. The real humans are dead and we're the fake humans. We think we invented computers, but computers invented us, after being invented by creatures way smarter than us, and… no. Just no. Sorry. No.
No.
#2 is just a buffer to get the idea behind #3 out there. It serves a purpose. #1 is inevitable, but #1 also sucks to think about so let's consider #3.
Not to be a jerk, but I could do the same thing to promote my own unpopular creation theory.
1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.
2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.
3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars."
If the same pattern were used to promote religious or political beliefs that I share, I would still say the logic is flawed and is a cheap (and ineffective) trick to get the reader to consider option #3 by presenting two plausible, somewhat related options (which, I might add, don't necessary rule out other options).
You're not missing anything. The author is giving a false choice because it's 3, or so the author is attempting to imply.
The pattern here is:
#1 = an eventual truth
#2 = a possibility + some mention of #1 and #3 to make the argument flow
#3 = the author's unpopular theory
1) Humans will eventually be extinct. Well, yeah. Posthuman is "after humans" so of course extinction comes before that. Eternity's a long time, so all humans dead? Eventually? Most religions don't question this.
2) So the intelligent beings that run things when humans aren't around don't give a crap about humans and don't run simulations of humans. Maybe. Don't we simulate dinosaurs and stuff? Monster Hunter games sort of simulate dinosaur-like environments. Anyway, #2 is possible along with #1, but if human remains are discovered then #2 may eventually be false. We'll be long dead by then, so whatever.
3) This is totally out of left field. The real humans are dead and we're the fake humans. We think we invented computers, but computers invented us, after being invented by creatures way smarter than us, and… no. Just no. Sorry. No.
No.
#2 is just a buffer to get the idea behind #3 out there. It serves a purpose. #1 is inevitable, but #1 also sucks to think about so let's consider #3.
Not to be a jerk, but I could do the same thing to promote my own unpopular creation theory.
1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.
2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.
3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars."
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #32
Fyle
Inkling
Okay.
Here's the thing.
There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, clues that point toward probability of truth.
Take this below for example, what in reality and technology points to this being true?
1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.
2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.
3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars."
Nothing really. The Simulation argument is a theory on our reality that has clues based from reality. Not to be a jerk, but this was just typed up in 30 seconds with nothing supporting it in any way.
Now, Penpilot says “Just because we can manipulate memories doesn't automatically mean we'll one day be able to write code that can simulate a universe in right down to the quantum level.”
Well, of course it doesn’t automatically mean/prove that, it is just something that points the direction of the theory having merit. Here is why memory manipulation/mapping brains is very important to this theory:
At this point in time, humans are mapping brains of worms and putting them into robots. These robots act as biological worms, not robots or not like a program. So, this tells us we can “copy” a brain and put it in binary form — no theory, no what if, putting a brain in binary 0s and 1s is reality.
Let’s put that on the table, we can simulate simple brains — now.
The next thing is the memory manipulation of mice. Scientists have been able to implant false memories in mice. The thing to keep in mind, is the mouse (the organism, like you, the organism) has no idea which memories were “real.” They have taught mice tricks and then “deleted” them causing the mouse to forget these tricks.
We can put that on the table — we can manipulate memories of simple mammals - now.
So, how long do you think it will take until these techniques can be used on the human brain?
The thing about connecting this to the Simulation theory is that you only have to take it a few steps further to assume that this will be able to be done on humans one day if humans reach technological maturity (meaning a peak in technology). Chances are according to how technology is progressing that in the future we will be able to manipulate human brains in the same way we manipulate animal brains now. This makes the SIM argument less farfetched compared to other arguments that do not derive clues from reality and just have their thoughts and points with words.
The other thing is, this is hard to accept if given any merit. Unlike other theories, it is humbling, so you have automatic defense mechanisms against thinking “I could just be a program,” you have an ego, not an ego like “I think I am awesome,” but an ego that thinks it is unique or more special than simply electrical impulses.
Scientists Put A Worm's Mind Into A Robot's Body | IFLScience
Scientists Produce False Memories In Mice | Inside Science
Here's the thing.
There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, clues that point toward probability of truth.
Take this below for example, what in reality and technology points to this being true?
1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.
2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.
3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars."
Nothing really. The Simulation argument is a theory on our reality that has clues based from reality. Not to be a jerk, but this was just typed up in 30 seconds with nothing supporting it in any way.
Now, Penpilot says “Just because we can manipulate memories doesn't automatically mean we'll one day be able to write code that can simulate a universe in right down to the quantum level.”
Well, of course it doesn’t automatically mean/prove that, it is just something that points the direction of the theory having merit. Here is why memory manipulation/mapping brains is very important to this theory:
At this point in time, humans are mapping brains of worms and putting them into robots. These robots act as biological worms, not robots or not like a program. So, this tells us we can “copy” a brain and put it in binary form — no theory, no what if, putting a brain in binary 0s and 1s is reality.
Let’s put that on the table, we can simulate simple brains — now.
The next thing is the memory manipulation of mice. Scientists have been able to implant false memories in mice. The thing to keep in mind, is the mouse (the organism, like you, the organism) has no idea which memories were “real.” They have taught mice tricks and then “deleted” them causing the mouse to forget these tricks.
We can put that on the table — we can manipulate memories of simple mammals - now.
So, how long do you think it will take until these techniques can be used on the human brain?
The thing about connecting this to the Simulation theory is that you only have to take it a few steps further to assume that this will be able to be done on humans one day if humans reach technological maturity (meaning a peak in technology). Chances are according to how technology is progressing that in the future we will be able to manipulate human brains in the same way we manipulate animal brains now. This makes the SIM argument less farfetched compared to other arguments that do not derive clues from reality and just have their thoughts and points with words.
The other thing is, this is hard to accept if given any merit. Unlike other theories, it is humbling, so you have automatic defense mechanisms against thinking “I could just be a program,” you have an ego, not an ego like “I think I am awesome,” but an ego that thinks it is unique or more special than simply electrical impulses.
Scientists Put A Worm's Mind Into A Robot's Body | IFLScience
Scientists Produce False Memories In Mice | Inside Science
I was just following the pattern where #1 is undeniably true, #2 is plausible, and #3 is a theory that has ideas that were brought up in #1 and #2.
The ten-year-old paper mentions a "posthuman" era in #1. In #2, simulations are mentioned. #3 is a way-out-there theory that we are in a simulation right now. I would submit that this is an unpopular theory the explain our reality.
My theory is less popular because nobody believes our world is a snot flicked out of a window. But I did follow the pattern. #1 is undeniably true. #2 is plausible, though it may depend on your definition of "prehuman." Primates pick head lice and eat it, never mind noses. #3 is the way-out-there theory which was being set up by #1 and #2.
Yes, my example is absurd, but the pattern is the same. Point being, it's not a choice of #1, #2, or #3. For either example, #1 must be true, #2 may be true, and if #3 were true, #1 would still be true and #2 could still be true.
The ten-year-old paper mentions a "posthuman" era in #1. In #2, simulations are mentioned. #3 is a way-out-there theory that we are in a simulation right now. I would submit that this is an unpopular theory the explain our reality.
My theory is less popular because nobody believes our world is a snot flicked out of a window. But I did follow the pattern. #1 is undeniably true. #2 is plausible, though it may depend on your definition of "prehuman." Primates pick head lice and eat it, never mind noses. #3 is the way-out-there theory which was being set up by #1 and #2.
Yes, my example is absurd, but the pattern is the same. Point being, it's not a choice of #1, #2, or #3. For either example, #1 must be true, #2 may be true, and if #3 were true, #1 would still be true and #2 could still be true.
- Thread starter
- #34
Fyle
Inkling
That's cool. Maybe I was a bit harsh on it.
But, I mean, the argument is more complex than his 3 simple conclusions.
For me, its about finding out if how he came to those conclusions could have any merit. What lead him to write the paper in the first place. The conclusions are laid out for all to see off the bat, but they are really the last thing that should be discussed as far as if there are actual clues for it to map onto reality.
- Thread starter
- #35
Fyle
Inkling
Yes! That's right. This is a positive towards the theory, not against it.
This is what Bostrom mentioned in a 2013 interview. IF the day comes when we can make powerful simulations, say powerful enough to emulate an entire nation, they would no doubt flip on their own simlulations and the cycle continues.
The fact that humans make simulations is another piece of the puzzle. Think about it, what do humans do the most? Well, there are lots of things, but I would say the number one thing is - watch other humans.
I didn't take it as harsh.
In your reply, you made a better case than the professor did because you simply stuck to the technology. Even though the premise isn't something I don't buy into, you make the case that having life-long fake memories is simply more elaborate than what's currently being done (to rats). When I read that, I still don't believe anyone could ever be an artificial intelligence and think and feel like a person (which is what I took #3 to mean), but I can accept the possibility that someone could be tricked into interacting with A.I. and think it's all real.
Tom
Istar
Kind of late to the party, but I just wanted to say that this kind of thing freaks me the hell out. I get goosebumps--and not the enjoyable, watching-a-horror-movie-that-you-really-love kind--when I read stuff like this. More the goosebumps you get when you realize your view of the world has been shaken into a new shape, one that is unsettling and not at all what you want it to look like. Another reason why I started the whole "Who are these people?" thread.
Plus, I think that if this were true, we humans would have figured out that we're living in a simulation by now. I like to think that we're pretty smart.
Plus, I think that if this were true, we humans would have figured out that we're living in a simulation by now. I like to think that we're pretty smart.
Whoa.... First, this proposition--As of now, I'm not going call it a theory because scientifically that has a very specific meaning--comes from a philosopher/economist, not a scientist. The evidence cited comes from science, but its interpretation is conjecture. This isn't a theory, because theories have testable hypotheses. This does not have those.
This is a philosophical argument not a scientific one, and as such here are some links to philosophical counters to this proposition.
Against the argument that we live in a simulation - Philosophy & Immortalism - LONGECITY
Full disclosure, when I read this, my eyes glazed over fairly quickly.
http://fabien.besnard.pagesperso-orange.fr/pdfrefut.pdf
As for "theories" with no clues as good as this, I refer you to Mr. Hawking. The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking
Bumba is grosser then Dumbar.
- Thread starter
- #40
Fyle
Inkling
True. Technically it is not a theory. I was using that word in a more casual sense as "an idea." Technically it is a hypothesis, yes.
I am not so much concerned with semantics unless they are important to the content of the argument. To your credit, that was a misuse of the word.
The article you linked is written 11 years ago. The theory has become popular again due to advances in science such as ones I mentioned and others. It seems interest in the theory goes in waves, the reason is, as new discoveries come about, it makes more and more sense. There are rebuttals of course, none have knocked out the argument to the point people consider it wrong though.
Here are some thoughts on the article because I have heard these before.
“I would think that this only adds another layer of complexity, such that a computer simulating such a computer would actually have to be larger and more complex than the computer it's simulating.”
I hear this a lot. This is based on the computers we have now. So, this knock down argument does not hold so well. It doesn’t seem like it, but on the grand scale computers are in beginning stages. Plus, the computer doesn’t have to run the entire universe, just enough to simulate the earth and immediate areas (say as far as Mars or something).
Imagine if people said what other technologies could or couldn’t do in infant stages, I bet many people would be wrong.
“The conclusion that we are living in a simulated world inside another world is a violation of Occam's razor.”
This is another one people like to throw around. I am not sure you can violate Occum's Razor. You can decide that for yourself it for yourself, it is a guideline, not a rule therefore, I would say it cannot be "violated". This guideline is great and widely used, but it is also from the 14th century - there have been quite a few complexities in science since then...
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"
Occum’s using words like “most likely” and “more likely” to remind people it is not to be taken as the rule in every case, so I find its application here weak. Plus, the article you sited lists this as number 8 on the list and Occum’s Razor is generally used as the first thing applied to a problem to make sure before you dive in you are not overcomplicating it.
I have not read the Hawkins article as it does not seem like a rebuttal to the SIM argument when i glanced at it. Steven Hawkins has recently hooked a computer (the iBrain) to his brain to help him communicate. So, Hawking does not buy into the SIM argument, but he is living proof that computers have direct effects on our brain (and will have more and more complicated effects as time goes on).
So? Why is a computer able to directly communicate with the human mind. Well, I can’t explain it. But, it does not hurt the SIM argument that humans and computers may be connected, doesnt it?
h+ Magazine | Digital Physics vs. The Simulation Argument [updated] - h+ Magazine
Here is a recent rebuttal from 2013 that is pretty good.
Whether the SIM argument (or similar arguments that say the nature of the universe is digital; i put these in the same family) is true or not, it seems to be on the right track as far as the nature of reality vs. traditional arguments or blind faith explanaitons.
Last edited:
