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?

[marco]

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

Thoughts?

We are the products not just of what we have but what we think we have. Some of our basest deeds are done because we believe in beings beyond our senses. If we were in a virtual world, perhaps in the dream world of another being or images on the screen of some player we would not be able to diagnose the fingerprints of our maker or our controller, being their subjects. Our conclusions would rise from observation of the world we have been forced to act in. Plato made this point in his cave analogy.


Your conclusions are about the world we observe which is not the one observed by our master-player. Interesting speculation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

Actually, it should not be the speculation, but the default.
Although the "Cave" analogy has a great deal of wisdom, and showed great wisdom - he could not see electromagnetism, for example, but could see its effects, and so was correct, but we now have modern perspectives.

So, what should we do?
Begin with an assumption, then test it.

Evolution suggests a course of progress, even for reality.
We observe, we hypothesize, we test, we see if it works.

A virtual universe suggests the same thing, except we see no tells for the virtual.

[marco]

So, what should we do?
Begin with an assumption, then test it.

Let's look at mathematics where we do exactly that. If we square a number and add 4 and obtain the result 3 and we search among all the real numbers at our disposal, we conclude that the equation we have formed has no solution. That's correct in the system we have been using. It is not correct in another system. Restricting ourselves ensures we don't get an answer.


When we look for a deity and impose on that deity the conditions of our own existence we may conclude the deity does not exist. This is probably true for Earth conditions.


How can we examine the hypothesis that we live in a virtual universe? I don't see how it is possible. We are using the wrong system on which to make judgments, just as using real numbers fails to solve our equation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by marco]

Test to see if it is a real universe, and see if it fails.
That would be an evolved universe for example.

A virtual universe, like a video game, would have shortcuts and things... inconsistencies, etc..

[marco]

[Replying to post 23 by marco]

Test to see if it is a real universe, and see if it fails.
That would be an evolved universe for example.

A virtual universe, like a video game, would have shortcuts and things... inconsistencies, etc..

And we would be part of the inconsistencies; inconsistencies ourselves. The logic we use is evolved from our internal situation; we have no means of viewing things from an external peerspective. I have often had dreams where in the dream I think I am dreaming and want to test if I am or not. The way to do this is to wake up and move from the system. Maybe when we make it to heaven we will have a new perspective. Who knows?


Euclid's geometry works perfectly and is based on common sense axioms such as the straight line is the shortest distance between two points. Lobachevsky founded a non-Euclidean geometry that also works well; one in which the sum of the angles of a hyperbolic triangle is less than 180 degrees. We are slaves to the axioms imposed on us. As Paul said, we see through a glass darkly - and sometimes not at all.

[EarthScienceguy]

Evolution cannot falsify our existence in a virtual universe. The virtual universe hypothesis was born out the laws of physics not biology. Any observation made would be considered produced by the random chance with simply the appearance of order. Whether your natural virtual universe would be a Boltzmann brain. Where everyone but you is simply a figment of your random imagination. Or if we are simple random information on the surface of a black holes event horizon. In either case everything we see would simply be a product of random chance with the appearance of order.
If would rather be a product of super aliens and we are just part of some super computer with our laws coming from the program that makes us up. The result is the same nothing in our universe would indicate to us that we are in a simulated reality.
The only way that we could assess if we were part of a virtual universe is to be able to see outside our universe.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

An evolutionary algorithm frees up the designer to do more important things than create everything from scratch. Just set up the basic parameters, add a program to drive and create the "kinds"of life on its own and let it rip.
The designer will be home before dinner, playing Fortnite.

Oddly enough I have heard it claimed that if you reset the evolutionary clock back to the beggining and followed it forward you never would end up with the same results as the first time. Big time replay ability, never the same game twice.