Evolution dismisses a virtual universe?

[Willum]

Don McIntosh has credit for this topic:

Many folks concede that we may live in a virtual world.

I'd like to put forward as a foil to this concept, that evolution demonstrates this concept is false.

A virtual world would not require an evolutionary footprint, nor the granularity required for such an approach.
Further, a virtual world would adapt along very different lines than (and not to argue the phrase), 'natural selection.' But rather 'programmer selection.'

Now, one could, theoretically program such a thing, (but why would anyone program my intelligence - what a waste), but why put so much fidelity into it? Why not have logical resolution to evolutionary constraints and so on?

I propose this world being virtual is not a logical conclusion of what we observe, and that evolutionary processes are/do.

Thoughts?

[Neatras]

If I design a simulation and allow it to run based on lower level rules that create higher levels of emergent phenomena and complexity through unexpected interactions, I would not expect to have any control over how life develops in that system. Evolution is merely a residual effect of the laws of physics, which themselves create a vast range of complex phenomena that aren't immediately obvious just by looking at the subatomic particles. It is only by the relationship and interaction between different elements and items that leads to unexpected combinations, such as the wetness of water or the complex characteristics of organic molecules.

Similarly, I can write a simulation that provides selective pressure to a constrained set of objects, and simply by letting the simulation run the population will experience gradual evolution.

[Youtube][/Youtube]

Don McIntosh's claim can be dismissed just by applying actual knowledge of how simulations work. They aren't constantly supervised or intervened in by the outside force, the entire point of a simulation is to examine the outcome of a given set of axioms or physical rules without any added control.

"Programmer selection" is a non sequitur, born out of an ideologically based failure to account for how actual programming works, how actual simulations are designed, or how evolutionary theory behaves.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

I don't disagree with what you say, I disagree with your approach.
Why would the programmer program such a reality? Why would they choose those rules?

Why choose rules for example that align with a biological, rather than logical system?

Why aren't there any bugs? LOL.

But seriously, if we evolved, then what we perceive is much better perceived than a design. A video game, does not need to be programmed to atomic interactions, nor with the birth of the player 1's great grand aunt.

Any programmer knows there is sufficiency, and why model a universe when there is one?
Or why model a universe alien to your own?
It defeats the purpose of modeling.

Unless you wish to resort to: The programmer works in mysterious ways...

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

Well personally, if we developed a mathematical formula that let us use computing power greatly improved over what data we can fit into a unit of area, we could develop a simulation sufficiently able to simulate the universe we are in, or at least a copy of it. We could use that to hopefully look into the future. Science is cool like that. Maybe it's possible, probably not, but in our attempts we'll learn something new for sure.

Simulations can be used for anything from education to entertainment, and I wouldn't mind making a few simulations in the future to glean what I can.

[Divine Insight]

Why choose rules for example that align with a biological, rather than logical system?

I don't understand the above concern?

"Biological" is nothing more than a word invented by humans to refer to a specific category of purely physical mechanisms. Just because animals and humans are "soft" (i.e. flexible) robots doesn't mean that we aren't mechanical.

We are actually just as mechanistic as any machine we've ever invented.

It's actually a gross misconception to think that "biology" is somehow different from the rest of physical chemistry. That's just a human classification. Period.

It's nothing more than this. There really is no physical distinction between living and non-living things.

Why aren't there any bugs? LOL.

Ever heard of birth defects?

I would suggest that our universe, and especially humans, are full of "bugs".

And this bring up the question of why an intelligent designer would bother programming so many bugs into the simulation?

What would be the excuses for that?

1. Ineptitude?
2. Malevolence?
3. The creator works in mysterious ways thus freeing us from having to explain why things are so screwed up?

Obviously choice #3 is preferred because choices 1 and 2 imply a faulty creator.

So, #3 "No Explanation" is the best choice. It's just "mysterious ways", end of argument. Theists win without having to give a meaningful explanation!

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Many folks concede that we may live in a virtual world.

This, because it is feasible.

I propose this world being virtual is not a logical conclusion of what we observe, and that evolutionary processes are/do.

Thoughts?

Given what we do know about the universe, which presently isn't a lot...but enough...there is no reason I can see why the whole thing isn't an interactive simulation.

Before the beginning was the 'word' or 'code' represented as a geometric language. The code and the programmer as essentially one and the same - the code is the will of the programmer.

Perhaps the universe is a simulation which is programmed from within? This explains the presence of consciousness/intelligence as well as the idea of intelligence and order coming from apparent chaos.

The whole act of the consciousness integrating with quantum potential and from that, what actually unfolds, (actually has unfolded) is the product of the programmer within the program (essentially there being no differentiating the program from the programmer) which amounts to what manifests as being an exact reflection of the programmer - an 'image' rendered into a physical dimension of the 4th kind, as it were.

But since the platform is limited to 4 dimensions, what is seen is like the shadow of the shadow of the shadow... of the image of the programmer/programmers actual reality.

Nevertheless, very impressive for that.

In that sense, the unfolding of this universe is the image of the programmer within the stimulation which allows for the programmer to experience a beginning as genuinely as possible, which accounts for the background radiation we assign as evidence of the Big Bang and the theory that everything came from the [seed] object referred to as "infinite density" the object wherein, the programmer lost all memory of any prior existence (even as a programmer) and the unfolding of this object into forth dimension time-space as it has done, eventually allows for the programmer to understand Its position by degree and adjust accordingly.

The 'adjusting' allows for the programmer to program from within the simulation, as the knowledge the programmer uncovers is revealed and the ability to actually be able to do this is part of that revelation.

In regard to that, we - within the biological form of 'human' on a planet which is part of this unfolding process - already understand now that the unfolding of this universe is going to be an extremely long process, and we are - in relation to that process - practically/essentially experiencing the very beginning of this unfolding simulation experience, so close we are in the timeline to it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

Yes, it is a neat concept, but if we take a stance on evolution, doesn't that better explain the world as observed, than any simulation.

That is the topic, not justifying a maybe, but to criticize that probable, and perhaps even definitize it.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Willum]

Yes, it is a neat concept, but if we take a stance on evolution, doesn't that better explain the world as observed, than any simulation.

What is 'explaining' either?

If your answer is "Why William, that would be consciousness itself!" then we can proceed, yes?

Otherwise I understand if you want to put the horse before the cart...nothing here for me to engage with...

That is the topic, not justifying a maybe, but to criticize that probable, and perhaps even definitize it.

I' hearing 'too hard basket" there Willum. My bad...



This is your particular program so you can make it how you want to.
As I wrote, we are far too intimately close to the beginning to make final assertions as to what is and is not occurring. If you prefer to live you life free from simulation theory, that is entirely your own willful call.

If you change you mind, you know where to find me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by William]

I don't understand any of your statements.

Please read the OP.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Neatras]

Hey Neat, I was actually hoping you would agree with the elegance of the approach:
If we evolved it explains far more than if we were designed or simulated. We would evolve to perceive efficiently - to capture prey for example.

I imagined your amazing insight into evolution would add dramatically to the topic...
(Hint hint)