Philosophy, Science & Reality

[Mordred]

You are not wrong... buuuut.. if we were a simulation of humans from the 20th/21st century to test out whatever the programmer was testing... all we would know was the level of tech you are talking about.. I am saying that there would be no way to actually know. your test might not work for a 30th century human sim bot programmed to think he was a human in the 21st century. Besides, it doesn't need to be a fully human sim robot... it just needs a brain/processor to think it is.

 

(I do not believe that we are, obviously, but I am saying that I do not think you have a test to disprove that reality, and just saying "well I'd feel the wires coming out of my arse" or some thing to that effect that that other guy posted doesn't win the argument imo).

Sounds like a good topic for a seperate thread. How would one test if something is real or a simulation ?

 

If our universe was a simulation that would be our reality. So if our universe is a simulation. How could we possibly test gor it?

 

The only answer I can come up with would be based on our understandings of how programs work. Hence the repeatability test. Its the only possible method I can come up with.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

Just gesturing perhaps, but if there is a requirement in science to explain that you really don't know reality, you really are not trying to match reality, you just have this model that is the best you have at the moment, subject to change and improvement and such, why it is bad to say I have this working model that has me conscious, and other people conscious, that has so far past every test I have put on these other humans that are everywhere, and have been everywhere for a long time?

 

What is the objection?

 

Who would get in trouble if they were to say that other minds existed?

 

Regards, TAR

In fact, if the idea is to be right, about the call as to whether you are a simulation or you are real, who would be angry with you, if you called it wrong? If you determined you were a simulation, would the simulators be upset that you found out? Are the simulators then automatically real, or do they have to claim they don't know either?

 

And more importantly if there is anybody whose job it is to enforce the idea, that you can not prove you are not a simulation, then I would say automatically the enforcers had to be the real thing.

Edited July 6, 2017 by tar

[Mordred]

Well I for one know I have made so many mistakes in life that the programmer who wrote the algorithm for me must be an idiot lol

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

Mordred,

 

Yeah, but she is a "real" idiot.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mordred]

Recall my post about significant difference between a program that follows instructions to the letter. Without deviations ?

 

I can quarantee I don't lol.

 

In all seriousness though the amount of data to simulate a universe is one of the open questions. This question led to a particular property of QCD called lattice spacing. Which is rather tricky to describe. (Rather complex mathematics) but certain aspects of this lattice spacing is one of the key searches to Test if we are a simulation. (Uh oh back to that whole testing argument I proposed earlier).

 

If anyone is interested I can probably dig up the details. Science does look at every possibility. Even ones that seem absurd. However physics is placing constraints on this possibility. Based on guage theories of particle physics.

 

Trust me on this one. Do not trust any pop media coverage on this theory.

 

They all get it wrong.

 

Under philosophical arguments the two main categories is objective reality vs virtual reality. I'm not much on philosophy as I favor the hard science.

 

I pointed these out as the arguments under philosophy and model under physics do exist.

 

(so it might be a good idea to research the arguments and model) with regards to the debate going on in this thread.

Mordred,

 

Yeah, but she is a "real" idiot.

 

Regards, TAR

Yeah I'm positive my mother agrees

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Manticore]

As far as simulations go: Try messing around with fuzzy logic.

 

From Wikipedia:

"Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false."

 

Add a bit of randomness & I guarantee you won't get the same results from a program every time. Include a learning algorithm & it's liable to end up at least as unpredictable as me at my most chaotic.

[tar]

Mordred,

 

On the lattice spacing and gauge considerations, and transforms and models and such that you prefer the hard science on, I would like to point out that the models are residing in human brains and on sheets of paper and in 1s and 0s in computer chips and algorithms, and these things are subsets of reality, so any characteristics that they can describe about reality are limited by limitations that reality itself actually has...if reality does have limitations.

 

Example: In my business of technical support on wide format inkjet printers, the programing of the image processing and the physical arrangement of the inkjets and the pattern and spacing of horizontal and vertical movements created what we referred to as "artifacts". The analogy I am attempting to draw, is that our job was to lets say, make a life sized banner of body painted model, look lifelike, look real, look like reality itself. And the moire pattern visually evident on the finish product, or the increased contrast and enhanced color, were not exact representations of reality but had elements that were added or subtracted by real interpreters. The model and the model painter and make up artist, the camera and the camera designer and the camera's internal programming and memory, the settings of the camera and the effects that the photographer added or subtracted, the programming of the photoshop program that touched up the picture, the resolution of the original image, the data transfer encoding and the memory limitations of various devices, could have, NO, actually HAD TO have left artifacts on the data, before the pixels even where presented to the printer and its many transforms.

 

So, when researching lattice spacing, be aware that some characteristic that you are finding reality has, might be a characteristic that a subset of reality has. Your brain can shift grain size and might not make all transforms required to keep all aspects of the studied item intact, and reproduced in true and complete form. The scientific equipment gathering your data has limitations and things are already encoded and averaged and adjusted. The thing might look different under a microscope, or from 100 million lys.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited July 6, 2017 by tar

[swansont]

Sounds like a good topic for a seperate thread. How would one test if something is real or a simulation ?

 

If our universe was a simulation that would be our reality. So if our universe is a simulation. How could we possibly test gor it?

 

The only answer I can come up with would be based on our understandings of how programs work. Hence the repeatability test. Its the only possible method I can come up with.

 

 

Science is based on being repeatable. We do measurements and if we've been careful, we get the same answer to within experimental uncertainty. What does that tell us about reality vs simulation? Or the other question, about whether we are testing for reality?

[tar]

The computer holding the model, holding the information of the exact position and momentum of every quark and photon the universe possesses would have to be composed itself of real quarks and photons, which themselves would have to have some position and spin and momentum that would "stand for" the position spin and momentum of the target components of the universe. So the mind that could comprehend the output of the computer, would have to be bigger than the place.

 

For me, and my philosophy, I think it better to cut out the middle man, and look at the universe directly. It is already real, exactly as it is. And the whole place is already reporting its existence to me, when I look at it, and when I believe the reports of scientists that study it, and measure it and record and catalog it for me.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited July 6, 2017 by tar

[Mordred]

 

 

Science is based on being repeatable. We do measurements and if we've been careful, we get the same answer to within experimental uncertainty. What does that tell us about reality vs simulation? Or the other question, about whether we are testing for reality?

Good to see someone hit the mark. The HUP is one of the arguments between objective vs virtual reality. Though Its been some time since I last read how the argument went. So I will have to check how they used the HUP in their arguments after work. From memory it was a supportive argument for objective reality but will have to check if a good counter argument is involved since I last looked at this.

Mordred,

 

On the lattice spacing and gauge considerations, and transforms and models and such that you prefer the hard science on, I would like to point out that the models are residing in human brains and on sheets of paper and in 1s and 0s in computer chips and algorithms, and these things are subsets of reality, so any characteristics that they can describe about reality are limited by limitations that reality itself actually has...if reality does have limitations.

 

Example: In my business of technical support on wide format inkjet printers, the programing of the image processing and the physical arrangement of the inkjets and the pattern and spacing of horizontal and vertical movements created what we referred to as "artifacts". The analogy I am attempting to draw, is that our job was to lets say, make a life sized banner of body painted model, look lifelike, look real, look like reality itself. And the moire pattern visually evident on the finish product, or the increased contrast and enhanced color, were not exact representations of reality but had elements that were added or subtracted by real interpreters. The model and the model painter and make up artist, the camera and the camera designer and the camera's internal programming and memory, the settings of the camera and the effects that the photographer added or subtracted, the programming of the photoshop program that touched up the picture, the resolution of the original image, the data transfer encoding and the memory limitations of various devices, could have, NO, actually HAD TO have left artifacts on the data, before the pixels even where presented to the printer and its many transforms.

 

So, when researching lattice spacing, be aware that some characteristic that you are finding reality has, might be a characteristic that a subset of reality has. Your brain can shift grain size and might not make all transforms required to keep all aspects of the studied item intact, and reproduced in true and complete form. The scientific equipment gathering your data has limitations and things are already encoded and averaged and adjusted. The thing might look different under a microscope, or from 100 million lys.

 

Regards, TAR

You might want to actually read the paper on this. It is the main proposed test for virtual reality. I will dig up the paper for everyone after work.

 

As far as I understand it is the only test I have seen proposed to test between the two

Edited July 6, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

Thank you scientists for working for me, for free. I truly rely on you and appreciate your work.

[robinpike]

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.

I will expound it thru questions:

...

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

 

 

 

DrP,

 

So I take the opposite task and concentrate on the evidence that there is, that you have a mind, regardless of the fact that I can not know this for sure.

 

But follow me here. For me to think I have a mind, I MUST be capable of developing a theory of mind. The ability to view yourself objectively in this fashion, requires having a mechanism within your brain that is capable of taking "you" and putting that observer in someone else's or something else's "place". It is done in science all the time. The very idea of the models we are talking about requires the ability to have one thing stand for another, to consider what it would "be like" to be the thing under study. This operation requires two minds, one's own, and one's own in the place of the entity under study. Einstein had observers all over the place, that were given hypothetical minds. Science has peer reviewers. Other minds, meant to check reality for the same conditions you found. The whole operation, philosophy, science and reality, requires at it's base a mind that is investigating, recording and manipulating the place, and then only when this mind is assumed to be real, is there any reason to continue the investigation. Then the question of whether someone else has a mind, like yours, can be asked...but the fact that there is science (requiring peer review) and language (requiring a second party, or a internal construct,) to share your thoughts with and philosophy (requiring the consideration of other people's thoughts, by definition), and a reality to share with these other minds, already has the question of whether other minds exist, answered in the affirmative.

 

Regards, TAR

for instance, if one scientist makes some progress, but allows for the fact that he/she stood on the shoulders of giants to make such strides...the fact the other scientists existed, and had not only minds, but exceptional ones, is a given

 

Perhaps the following example shows how science and philosophy can be different.

 

When we consider quantum mechanics, science is able to model reality with QM maths, matching what is observed with what is calculated by the model. Note that science doesn't have to answer the question: How does the mechanism of quantum mechanics work? Or what is QM?

 

If we do ask, 'How does quantum mechanics work?', this perhaps leads to philosophical reasoning. For example, on trying to explain QM, we note that it has aspects that are very difficult to explain in physical terms, such as quantum spin, quantum entanglement, etc.

 

So philosophically, we could use the inexplicable physical aspect of QM to arrive at the conclusion that we exist in a simulation! ...since a simulation could have QM in it without the necessity to have a physical mechanism for that QM (which of course reality must do).

Edited July 6, 2017 by robinpike

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

Just gesturing perhaps, but if there is a requirement in science to explain that you really don't know reality, you really are not trying to match reality, you just have this model that is the best you have at the moment, subject to change and improvement and such, why it is bad to say I have this working model that has me conscious, and other people conscious, that has so far past every test I have put on these other humans that are everywhere, and have been everywhere for a long time?

 

What is the objection?

 

Mostly because you've been arguing the opposite up till now, you can't have it both ways whatever you do with the goal.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

I don't know what you mean by me arguing the other way up to now. My stance is that reality is real, and we are real, and we each have an internal model of reality that is less than as complete and fitting, as reality itself is. That science seeks to understand this reality, same as philosophers seek to understand this reality, is an indication that we are all in and of the same reality. I think everything I have argued in this thread is consistent with this stance.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

We are clearly all in the same reality - regardless of what any of us believe. The point is - you can't prove it or which one you are in.

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

I don't know what you mean by me arguing the other way up to now. My stance is that reality is real, and we are real, and we each have an internal model of reality that is less than as complete and fitting, as reality itself is. That science seeks to understand this reality, same as philosophers seek to understand this reality, is an indication that we are all in and of the same reality. I think everything I have argued in this thread is consistent with this stance.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Sorry, I've misread your post, so please disregard mine.

[Mordred]

 

 

 

Perhaps the following example shows how science and philosophy can be different.

 

When we consider quantum mechanics, science is able to model reality with QM maths, matching what is observed with what is calculated by the model. Note that science doesn't have to answer the question: How does the mechanism of quantum mechanics work? Or what is QM?

 

If we do ask, 'How does quantum mechanics work?', this perhaps leads to philosophical reasoning. For example, on trying to explain QM, we note that it has aspects that are very difficult to explain in physical terms, such as quantum spin, quantum entanglement, etc.

 

So philosophically, we could use the inexplicable physical aspect of QM to arrive at the conclusion that we exist in a simulation! ...since a simulation could have QM in it without the necessity to have a physical mechanism for that QM (which of course reality must do).

Good answer there is a counter argument here that applies in your last paragraph but let me dig that up after work. Edited July 6, 2017 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

Conscious being imo can never be made by naturalistic means. If we humans invent robots, this robots can never have consciousness because it is dependent on the way it is programmed. No matter how complex the way it is programmed, it can never achieve consciousness. It is because of the infinitude of consciousness and intelligence. But we humans are different, our first ancestors must be created by supernaturalistic means because we have this consciousness.

 

So, "if only" we are in a simulation, the being that controls that simulation must have supernaturalistic characteristics in order to create us conscious beings.

 

*Grammatical error. I change independent to dependent.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Randolpin

[beecee]

But we humans are different, our first ancestors must be created by supernaturalistic means because we have this consciousness.

 

So, "if only" we are in a simulation, the being that controls that simulation must have supernaturalistic characteristics in order to create us conscious beings.

 

Not at all.....

Supernaturalistic/s and/or any form of ID is strictly non scientific, and is in reality a senseless illogical argument.

 

As Carl Sagan says......

 

 

In reality only one of two scientific answers can ever really be possible.......

The Universe [and as an extension , intelligence and consciousness] arose from nothing via quantum potential, or the universe is infinite.

I prefer the former.

Edited July 6, 2017 by beecee

[Randolpin]

 

In reality only one of two scientific answers can ever really be possible.......

The Universe [and as an extension , intelligence and consciousness] arose from nothing via quantum potential, or the universe is infinite.

I prefer the former.

Arose from nothing? how can nothing create something? If this "nothing" create something, therefore it must be something not nothing.

 

Again, I argue that q potential is purely naturalistic.

[beecee]

I'm no philosopher...nor am I a scientist...I actually see philosophy as a foundation corner stone for science, reflections on how we live, and sometimes useless musings........

Perhaps some Philosophers of late are somewhat disgruntled and annoyed at the apparent recent "put downs" of Philosophy by people such as Lawrence Krauss.

Science on the other hand is generally seen as a more "hands on approach" and attempts to describe the universe around us with models that match observations,successfully make predictions, and models accordingly......as observations improve, scientific theories and approximations are extended upon with new more encompassing models.

Reality and pure truth is not really the goal from what I understand, but obviously if those models hit upon the truth and reality of the universe, then all well and good.

Science is a discipline in eternal progress.

 

I will conclude with a couple of quotes...

 

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

 

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

 

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists. Richard Feynman

 

 

And one attributed to Einstein:

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

 

I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of those quotes and musings but there are many more here.....

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm

Edited July 7, 2017 by beecee

[tar]

We are clearly all in the same reality - regardless of what any of us believe. The point is - you can't prove it or which one you are in.

 

DrP,

 

This one of course. That is why there is uni in universe. It's mine, yours and the guy's down the street.

 

Regards TAR

[Randolpin]

We are clearly all in the same reality - regardless of what any of us believe. The point is - you can't prove it or which one you are in.

The fact that we observe the same skies at night, living in the same planet thus prove that we have the same reality and we all really "in" in this reality.

Common sense is somewhat also plays an important role.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Randolpin

[tar]

Randolpin,

 

To back up your argument, I offer this.

 

I looked at the Carl Sagan clip beecee posted, and Carl Sagen said exactly what I have argued on several threads regarding the logic that if God has to be eternal to explain his existence, why not just cut out the middleman and consider that the cosmos is eternal. I thought I came up with this logic myself. I had a talk with God when I was thirteen (and felt sorry for him because he had no mother and father, and was all alone, except for us, and it was important for us to keep it a secret that we were his imagination) around the same time I was considering, grain size wise, that the universe could be a component of a greater reality and we might be, to some other consciousness as tiny and brief as a consciousness living on the surface of an electron, is to us...so I also have Carl Sagan's book Cosmos on a shelf downstairs, and I believe I read through the whole thing, and could have gotten my argument from Carl Sagan, OR I could have actually had the idea when I was 13, and this proves that Dr. Sagan and I are living in and attempting to comprehend the exact same reality, in all its complexities, from the quark to the beginning of the universe and beyond, in both directions, and possibly eternal, and extending in both directions not only in size, but in duration. And here we are, in the middle, with tiny quick stuff out of our reach below and huge expanses of space and time out of our reach above. But we are in this together, us Philosophers and Scientists and laypersons. And we experience it on the same size and time scale as every other human, with the same basic equipment in terms of senses and folded up brain parts, and this human sensing of the place has been going on since Lucy.

 

But its the same place it always was, before we each individually where born, and it will be here after we die, and it will not get any bigger or smaller, slower or faster, simpler or more intricate, depending on what we think about it. The place is our place. The time is now, the place is here, and we are all in this together.

 

Regards, TAR

And what is true is true, regardless of what we think about it.

Thread,

 

Just thought of how a saying I learned in business relates to this discussion.

 

The saying is "Think Globally, Act Locally."

 

Perhaps philosophers are the global thinkers, and scientists are the local actors.

 

Regards, TAR

[beecee]

Arose from nothing? how can nothing create something? If this "nothing" create something, therefore it must be something not nothing.

 

Again, I argue that q potential is purely naturalistic.

Perhaps our definition of nothing needs looking at.....

 

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by beecee