In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

We know that this sensory circuitry is encased with flesh and held up with bone - completing the suit needed in order to experience The Universe as a "reality".

We also know that the Body-Set does not experience The Universe as The Universe fundamentally IS, but that it interprets what information it can from the incoming data of experience channeled through the sensory device, which is the same thing as saying that the Body-Set creates a simulation of a Reality, as outgoing data, based on the interpretation of the incoming data.

How do we know the Body-Set doesn’t experience the universe as it fundamentally is?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #11]



Science is how we know.

Take the eyes of the Body-Set as example.

Our eyes only detect a fraction of what exists [fundamentally] and the WST confirms that there is beaty yet to explore re that.

All the sensory aspects of the Body-Set are likewise limiting our ability to experience all that fundamentally is the Universe.

If the Body-Set is designed for that purpose - to allow for us to experience the simulation [creation] the way that we do, then that is the one thing.
The other thing, is that we also have to determine the nature of the data of experience isn't misinterpreted through whatever device the interpretation is being done - either the brain or consciousness or perhaps both...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #12]

Oh, experiencing everything that the universe fundamentally is? Okay, I agree with that. But how is the failure of the Body-Set to do this the same thing as saying the Body-Set creates a simulation of reality? Why isn't this just a sign that the Body-Set interacts with a part of the universe as it fundamentally is but not the whole thing?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #12]

Oh, experiencing everything that the universe fundamentally is? Okay, I agree with that. But how is the failure of the Body-Set to do this the same thing as saying the Body-Set creates a simulation of reality?

There is no 'failure' to assume re the Body-Set. It is designed specifically to function as it does.

The Body Set gives an impression and the impression is then interpreted. It has not been established what does the interpreting but the interpretation acts as a type of simulation in itself, but not over and above the reality of the simulation proper.

The idea then, is to make the correct interpretation.

"Do we exist within a simulation?" is the question and our perspectives on this are currently different because we do not agree that the question is the same one as "Do we exist within a creation?"

Why isn't this just a sign that the Body-Set interacts with a part of the universe as it fundamentally is but not the whole thing

That is exactly what is happening.

However there are ways in which folk can interact with the things unseen with ordinary use of the Body-Set sensory system.
The Bible has stories of such events.

Practically speaking, this would imply that the designer(s) made the Body-Set to function in that way.

[The Tanager]

The Body Set gives an impression and the impression is then interpreted. It has not been established what does the interpreting but the interpretation acts as a type of simulation in itself, but not over and above the reality of the simulation proper.

I’m not getting why you think this is evidence of simulation. Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding your use of “simulation”. What have I misinterpreted, if anything, in this attempt to speak back to you your view:

When the Body-Set sees the tree it gives an impression that is then interpreted by something, so that it simulates the tree, which is itself a simulation of some deeper reality.

If I understand you correctly here, where exactly would you see the differences between your view and something like this:

When the Body-Set sees a tree, the tree’s form or essence is transferred to the mind by something, so that we are actually interacting with the actual, physical tree and not just an interpretation of that tree.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #15]

I’m not getting why you think this is evidence of simulation.

Since you have issue with the idea that Creation is the same thing as Simulation, you're not getting why I think this is evidence of simulation.

I am pointing out the Body-Set in relation to what we know about simulations humans now create, which are mainly to do with wearing a Head-Set.


When we play with a head-set we can enter into a simulated game and become the character and play the character from within the game.
____________________________________

The experience of our Universe as a Simulation
The Body Set [human form] is how we experience the simulation in the ways that we all do.

IF we exist within a Creation THEN our bodies would act as Body-Sets [Avatars] and are thus evidence that we exist within a Creation.

So our first task is best to determine why the one [your idea of Creation] cannot be the same as the other [Simulation Theory]

So we can start by examining the Body-Set through which we each experience the Creation, and give our reasons why it can/cannot be accepted as evidence.

I think it is good evidence since, without some type of form to move around within the gameplay, we would not be able to BE in the gameplay or come to understand it as BEING within a simulation.

It makes more sense that we exist within a simulation, if indeed we exist within something which was created.

Some reasons why we can say we exist within a simulation.

When the Body-Set sees a tree, the tree’s form or essence is transferred to the mind by something, so that we are actually interacting with the actual, physical tree and not just an interpretation of that tree.

The issue is not "Is the tree real?" The point of any simulation is to make things seem as real as possible for the one experiencing it.

[The Tanager]

Since you have issue with the idea that Creation is the same thing as Simulation, you're not getting why I think this is evidence of simulation.

I am pointing out the Body-Set in relation to what we know about simulations humans now create, which are mainly to do with wearing a Head-Set.

When we play with a head-set we can enter into a simulated game and become the character and play the character from within the game.

Okay, but we can’t enter into a painting we create. Thus, there seem to be creations that are simulations and creations that are not simulations. If that is true, then why are the Body Set’s impressions (that are then interpreted) a type of simulated creation rather than a non-simulated creation?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #17]

Okay, but we can’t enter into a painting we create.

Not in the same way as entering a simulation which was created to be entered into.

My point is more to the idea that - just as human beings are creative within the simulation experience, and machinery is created as due process [according to established rules and principles] we would expect to see such copy-cat creativity.

[In the image of I am That I am ["I am Mighty! Hear me ROAR!"] re OP]

Thus, there seem to be creations that are simulations and creations that are not simulations.

Creations leading up to simulations. The Game involves this aspect.

If that is true, then why are the Body Set’s impressions (that are then interpreted) a type of simulated creation rather than a non-simulated creation?

I am unsure as to what you are asking here. Please expand with an example...

[The Tanager]

My point is more to the idea that - just as human beings are creative within the simulation experience, and machinery is created as due process [according to established rules and principles] we would expect to see such copy-cat creativity.

I think there are two levels here and I’m not sure if you are talking about one or both. (1) Are we living in a creation? (2) What kind of creation (simulation, painting, etc.) are we living in?

[William]

My point is more to the idea that - just as human beings are creative within the simulation experience, and machinery is created as due process [according to established rules and principles] we would expect to see such copy-cat creativity.

I think there are two levels here and I’m not sure if you are talking about one or both. (1) Are we living in a creation? (2) What kind of creation (simulation, painting, etc.) are we living in?

No.

"Are we living in a creation" has already been agreed on by us together.

"What kind of simulation" we exist within can be determined through the study of it.

Please provide what was put to you from my last post.

If that is true, then why are the Body Set’s impressions (that are then interpreted) a type of simulated creation rather than a non-simulated creation?

I am unsure as to what you are asking here. Please expand with an example...