A question that has vexed physicists for the past century may finally have a solution – but perhaps not the one everyone was hoping for.
In a new, detailed breakdown of current theory, a team of physicists led by Mir Faizal of the University of British Columbia has shown that there is no universal “Theory of Everything” that neatly reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics – at least, not an algorithmic one.
I think philosophical skepticism is an interesting and stimulating learning tool to get people to think—especially about the flaws in modern materialism. But things like simulation theory (just an updated evil genius of Descartes) are intellectually problematic when you get down to business. We don’t need physicists to tell us the universe is not a simulation but more power to the field if it can say that.
The idea that we are in a simulation is self-defeating (or cuts off the branch it sits in at least) in that it uses observations from our universe to argue from as if they are real or valid. How does one use simulated physics to make concrete claims about the physical capabilities of the “real” universe running the simulation? If we are in a simulation, then all our science, physics and computers are fake in the sense that they tell us absolutely nothing about how things work in the “real” base reality nor that we should even trust our simulated observations to being with. In other words, to argue we are in a simulation one seemingly has to assume we are not since the definition of a simulation only makes sense granted a real, physical world.
Computers are artifacts which means they have their meaning entirely imposed on them (e.g. a clock). Computer code is inherently meaningless on its own. It is simply a sequence of physical states. The computer doesn’t truly know what a 4 displayed on the screen means. These are pixels being illuminated by electrical signals. Computer output from its code has the meaning an external, conscious mind gives to it. If our thoughts are just simulated code then our thoughts have no intrinsic meaning, including the one that we are in a simulation.
The brain is not a computer and computers are not a brain. Abstract thought is immaterial (think of a concept like triangularity). Now matter how much processing power a computer gets, no matter how much technology increases, a computer will always consist of an arrangement of unintelligent physical material. Increasing processing power or piling up more code doesn’t magically cross the metaphysical gap between qualitative, conscious experience and non-conscious algorithmic processing. You can stack bricks in a circle and pile them higher and higher but a trillion of them won’t magically turn into a sphere. Simulating water on a computer won’t make it wet and simulating a mind on one won’t make it conscious.
Like the problem of induction, like the is/ought problem, the problem of philosophical skepticism stems from a flawed mechanistic view of reality that goes back to Descartes and Pascal and was taken up by many others such as Hume. For the Thomist committed to hylomorphism, this issue is a non-starter and simulation theory is not cutting edge but simply another logical dead end of materialism.
The definitions I find on the internet often speak imitating something which could happen in the real world. But this is not correct. Scientists do simulations just to see what happens according to a set of rules and often find they could not happen in the real world whether they think it might or not. For entertainment people make simulations with no pretense they could ever happen in the real world.
So what is a simulation REALLY? It is a created system which operates by a set of rules decided by the creator. So… are you sure you theists out there really want to say that the universe is not a simulation? Because it sounds to me that is exactly what theists generally believe.
It is a simulation of what happens according to the rules by which the universe operates.
So how could it not be a simulation?
It is not a simulation if it is not created.
It is not a simulation if there are no rules by which it operates.
Otherwise, I see no way in which it CAN be distinguished from a simulation. Though I suppose this can be a challenge to theists to come up with some way of distinguishing the universe from a simulation.
LOL oh I know. There is that usual special pleading often employed by theists… “It is not simulation if God is the one making it.” LOL
So you’re saying there has to be a real universe but not necessarily the one we think we know? Too much conspiracy for my comfort.
I’ll never think the world I know is secondary to the rules science thinks describes the way it works. Experience is first, representation is secondary.
I suppose I could say there is a more real universe but that is certainly not what I said. I could say God or spirit is the the greater reality.
I said it is a simulation because it is a creation designed to follow given rules, for that is all a simulation is about.
I don’t see the “conspiracy.” Is that in the OP which I haven’t read?
Sounds like solipsism.
Existence is first. Then experience. Then essence.
I suppose you could stick representation in there after experience as part of how the mind perceives existence. But that is not the same as simulation. We could run simulations as part of the perceptual process and the attempt to predict natural processes (even the behavior of organisms we encounter). But that is just one use of simulations.
In any case, I know you are not much of a believer in a creator. What I said was a challenge to those who do believe in a creator because then I think the word “simulation” is applicable.
I guess I’m not that much of a believer in a creator in that I don’t think of what God describes as a deliberative entity deciding how reality will unfold.
My own beliefs are way stranger. What I think of as God actually becomes everything else but then withdraws so that the created may make its own way in the world and perhaps discover its own nature which may permit a relationship with God within.
Simulations are not a matter of deciding how things will unfold. It is just deciding what the rules are and they do not have to be rules which determine things completely.
Not so strange and not greatly distinguishable from creation and thus one of the two conditions for the applicability of “simulation”. Your description even appeals to me since I see the universe as being like a womb.
What remains is the question of rules. Do you think there are rules? And is God responsible for those rules? If so then I think the word “simulations” still technically applies. Though perhaps the word is objectionable to some because it suggests Deism to them. But this does not follow. Simulations are frequently (I would even say usually) made as something people interact with and thus it still fits with the theistic belief in a God who is involved in the events of His creation.
BTW Perhaps I connect with this so much because I have created quite few simulations myself. The biggest was a simulation of relativistic space travel in nearby galactic space with black hole simulations as a part of it too. (Though it stopped working at some point with changes to Windows.)
I think of science as describing regularity which occurs in the world. If rules are just descriptions then fine. But “rules” does seem to imply enforcement and that would only apply if God were more of a micro-manager than I think He is.
I think the opposite is the case. You only make rules when you don’t micromanage. If you are going to directly dictate everything that happens then no rules are needed. And after all, the rules don’t determine everything. There are still choices to make within those rules.
And no, rules do not always imply enforcement – especially in the context of simulations. Rules in this case are simply the way things work.
To be sure, religions like to talk about divine commandments. But enforcement? Don’t make me laugh. But the laws of nature are different. That is not enforcement but just how things work. I suppose we can say it is a different meaning of the word “rules.”
I have much less confidence in the ability of science to fill in the ‘big picture’ in fine detail. Pick a particular marker or two and sure, maybe. But I’m just not so impressed with what we are able to see by staring through a microscope or telescope. More importantly, I think meaning is only ever discovered by way of the RH which means by paying attention to the implicit. The meaning we find isn’t actionable instrumentally but it can help to make peace with our experience. I don’t mean by worship, prayer or ritual necessarily but through poetry, nature, narrative, music, love and friendship.
To me the word simulation carries a sense of unreality. It will be close to reality, but at the same time distinguishable from it. A flight simulator will aim to match real world conditions closely, but a pilot will know whether he’s in a simulator or a real plane.
But I also recognize that the pilot can make that distinction because he is outside of both the plane and the simulator. We are in a different place, because if the universe is a simulation we are part of it. I choose to believe the universe is real, but I understand that belief is an axiom rather than something provable.
In other words, this is only true IF it is a simulation of something in the universe. But many simulations are not.
Furthermore, I think there are ways in which the universe is not the ultimate reality. So even with the word “simulation” carrying a sense of unreality, I think it still fits. I am not saying the universe is not real. It is real. Logical coherence distinguishes it from dreams and in this sense it is certainly real. But likewise, simulations are real also. They exist in reality. When they imitate something then of course they are not the same as what they imitate. But that doesn’t make them unreal.
I am not seeing much connection between what you say here and the topic we were discussing.
And it seems to me fine detail is exactly what science is good at. And while I doubt whether the meaning of “big picture” (as you speak of it) can be objectively defined in general. The ways it can be defined objectively science has proven darn good at get that also. It is science which has persistently expanded our awareness of the universe to larger and larger scales. But of course, that is not what you were talking about, right?
Yes there is a level at which a simulation is a real thing. But it’s not the same thing as the reality it represents. And I thought (checks the opening post) that was the question: is the universe real or simulation?
I don’t think the physical universe is an imitation of something else. But I do think it is a created system with rules given it by the creator much like many simulations which are likewise not imitating something else either.
Reality is one of those things that is set by convention, and not by observation.
We could be in a “simulation”, we could not be in a “simulation. We have no real way of finding out an answer, since we cannot “see” anything without using perception. These are rules and guidelines that our brain has to interpret signals sent along the optic nerve.
We have no way of observing “pure reality,” although again by convention we have to say that it does in fact exist.
Things are not created or destroyed depending on whether we are looking at them or not.