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]

The nature of our Body-Set as mentioned in the preamble which limits the information available to us, is one such evidence.

I don’t understand why that is support for us not experiencing the universe as it fundamentally is. Can you elaborate on why you think it is?

Also - have you taken a look at the links provided in the OP?

I have briefly looked them over. It would be very beneficial for you to lay out what you feel are supporting reasons, summarizing the articles succinctly to that end, rather than pointing to other articles.

Yes, I would say so. Indeed theology teaches the same, but refers to us existing within a creation and I understand that a creation is no different from a simulation.

In post 40, you agreed with me (for the time being) that there is a clear distinction between creating a VR world that one can then move about in and manipulate and creating a painting that you can't move about in and manipulate. If you are still agreeing with me there, then creation and simulation do refer to different things, where simulation is one type of creation, but not a synonym of creation. If you disagree with me above, then why?

[William]

I disagree that the universe is a creation like a painting.

I think you may want to disregard your line of questioning as you have the wrong end of the stick there.

We both agree that we exist in a creation. In that, we are speaking about the Universe.

The difference is that where you say "Creation" I say "Simulation".

It is apparent to me that you are aware of what a simulation is re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing.

What you haven't explained is what you mean by "Creation" re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing, if indeed you do not believe it is a simulation.

Once we sort that out, we can move to the next step.

To [hopefully] give you a better idea of where I am coming from;

William: The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation.

Christian: Depends on what you mean by simulation. You mean we do not actually exist?

William: No. How could we experience a simulation if we did not actually exist to experience it?

If we exist within a created thing, then the created thing must have to be a simulation.

If it is a "real" thing, then there is no requirement to call it a "created" thing unless, in doing so, one is saying it is a simulation.

This because, there is no difference between something which has been created and experienced as real, and a simulation which is experienced as real, as far as any evidence goes.
I am certainly open to viewing any evidence/hearing any logical argument which supports that a supposed real created universe is demonstrably different from a supposed real simulated universe.

[The Tanager]

I disagree that the universe is a creation like a painting.

I think you may want to disregard your line of questioning as you have the wrong end of the stick there.

I’m not arguing that a creation is like a painting. That line of questioning is to show that we shouldn’t be using simulation as a synonym for creation.

The difference is that where you say "Creation" I say "Simulation".

It is apparent to me that you are aware of what a simulation is re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing.

What you haven't explained is what you mean by "Creation" re the universe existing as we within it experience it existing, if indeed you do not believe it is a simulation.

Once we sort that out, we can move to the next step.

I’m not talking about what I believe about it, we are analyzing your claim of it being a simulation. I’m saying there is a difference between me having a son (I can interact with him, influence him, have great influence over his actions, but I don’t control his actions) and me having an avatar that I control. I’m fine with calling both creations. The first is not a simulation; the second one is what I would call a simulation (there could be other kinds of simulations as well).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #53]

My statement is that calling the universe a creation is the same as calling the universe a simulation.

I do not have to prove to you that it is a simulation any more than you have to prove to me it is a created thing. These are both the same and if you think they are not the same thing, then it is up to you to clearly say why.

If you cannot clearly say why, then we can either agree that your use of the word creation and my use of the word simulation are saying the same thing and move on to the OPQ, or we can abandon the discussion as a pointless thing for you and I together, to waste time on.

I’m saying there is a difference between me having a son (I can interact with him, influence him, have great influence over his actions, but I don’t control his actions) and me having an avatar that I control. I’m fine with calling both creations. The first is not a simulation; the second one is what I would call a simulation

How does human reproduction provide an example of your idea of creation?

Are you confused by the idea that the human form is an avatar and that your "son" is not the body-set but the mind which uses the body-set?

I fail to see the connection you are trying to make between what I have already said of the universe and our place within it, and this apparent digression into arguing how you are not in 'control' of your son.

[The Tanager]

I do not have to prove to you that it is a simulation any more than you have to prove to me it is a created thing. These are both the same and if you think they are not the same thing, then it is up to you to clearly say why.

If you cannot clearly say why, then we can either agree that your use of the word creation and my use of the word simulation are saying the same thing and move on to the OPQ, or we can abandon the discussion as a pointless thing for you and I together, to waste time on.

I’ve said why I think they are not the same with two examples. A painting is a creation that is not a simulation. Having a child is a creation that is not a simulation. If one of those is true, then creation and simulation are not the same thing. This says nothing about whether we live in a simulation or not. It doesn’t address that question. It’s only addressing the meaning of the terms.

[William]

I do not have to prove to you that it is a simulation any more than you have to prove to me it is a created thing. These are both the same and if you think they are not the same thing, then it is up to you to clearly say why.

If you cannot clearly say why, then we can either agree that your use of the word creation and my use of the word simulation are saying the same thing and move on to the OPQ, or we can abandon the discussion as a pointless thing for you and I together, to waste time on.

I’ve said why I think they are not the same with two examples. A painting is a creation that is not a simulation. Having a child is a creation that is not a simulation. If one of those is true, then creation and simulation are not the same thing. This says nothing about whether we live in a simulation or not. It doesn’t address that question. It’s only addressing the meaning of the terms.

A painting is a creation that IS a simulation of whatever the artist is attempting to convey.

Having a child IS a simulation. We know this through our discovery of DNA, and coding therein, that our children's body-sets are simulations of their parents body-sets. To simulate something is not to make exact copies, but replication through algorithms which make those replications possible.
All evidently pointing directly to the idea of existing within a simulation.
____________________________
Did you get my email of the picture with the OPQ?

I sent it to you because even though I mentioned the OPQ a number of times, you haven't yet asked me what the OPQ is - since telling us that your computer would not allow you to see it from this site, in picture form.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #56]

I did see it. "Is simulation theory a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible?" So your definition of 'simulation' is something like "to replicate through algorithms"? The definition from Oxford Languages online for algorithm is: "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer." Would you define 'algorithm' differently than this? If so, what would be your definition?

[William]

What is your definition of "simulation"?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #57]

I did see it.

Did you see it because you read the email I sent to you, or because your computer is allowing you to see the image on this site?

"Is simulation theory a valid way to interpret the stories of the Bible?"

Yes. That is the OPQ - I hope this gives you a target re your questioning from now on...

So your definition of 'simulation' is something like "to replicate through algorithms"?

No. Rather I am pointing out that this is an aspect of how simulations are created. Through coding.
I acknowledge the coding found within the things of Universe and appoint that as evidence of being in a creation and therefore evidence of a creator. Like a fingerprint of sorts...

The definition from Oxford Languages online for algorithm is: "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer." Would you define 'algorithm' differently than this? If so, what would be your definition?

That definition is fine by me. I would define DNA in the same way.

[The Tanager]

Did you see it because you read the email I sent to you, or because your computer is allowing you to see the image on this site?

From the email.

So your definition of 'simulation' is something like "to replicate through algorithms"?

No. Rather I am pointing out that this is an aspect of how simulations are created. Through coding.

I acknowledge the coding found within the things of Universe and appoint that as evidence of being in a creation and therefore evidence of a creator. Like a fingerprint of sorts...

How would you define ‘simulation’ then? Without it, I just think it’s vague enough to cause confusion later on where we agree and disagree.

The definition from Oxford Languages online for algorithm is: "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer." Would you define 'algorithm' differently than this? If so, what would be your definition?

That definition is fine by me. I would define DNA in the same way.

Thank you. I will keep that in mind, if your definition of ‘simulation’ includes ‘algorithm’.