The simulation argument self-refutes. If we live in a sim, then somewhere there's a real, physical computer simulating it (or simming the computer simming it, etc). And we live in _that_ reality: the reality instantiating the first simulator(s). As do all other sim-branches!
-
-
Yeah, that’s not a *refutation* (i.e: it could still be true we’re in a simulation: so that claim hasn’t been refuted by the knowledge it’s true). The computer we’re simulated in may exist in a universe where the laws of physics are very different, for example.
-
Hmm. I suppose it's more of a pedantic point, then: if indeed we're living in a sim, big whoop. That sim depends on the real world. So the sim argument is no argument against realism. As for different laws: only _so_ different! As all would have to be computable in reality.
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
The simulation argument doesn't say there isn't a real reality above the first simulation. Simply says that what we experience is simulated by a computer
-
Fair enuf! Though I always thought it said more: that the claim was stronger. That it the idea included, "and we're forever trapped in it." And/or, "so the real world is inaccessible." "You should be profoundly skeptical." Etc. But aren't the sims constrained by real physics?
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.


// Philosophy '19
