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]

[Replying to post 10 by Willum]

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.

There is a common argument by anti-naturalists who assert that because evolution doesn't actively "select" for truth-seeking behaviors, therefore no human can claim to have any access to "truth" because it could be all of this is a mere fabrication designed to maximize survival and reproduction. Jordan Peterson goes further, claiming that truth should be defined by what maximizes our evolutionary capabilities, and as such any truthful answer to a question should only be considered "true" if it provides some discernible benefit to humanity. His redefinition is so ubiquitous in his talks in scientific discussions that it really is annoying having to come back to it after putting it to bed.

This prelude is to highlight how some anti-naturalists try to pull the rug out so they can have their little time in the sun. By asserting, without evidence, that their god "gives them a foundation for truth," they declare, a priori, that this means that their position is by definition more truthful, or perhaps more useful, than evolutionary theory. It is a little messy what their argument actually is. "We both make faith-based assertions, it's just that mine gives me a valid foundation for truth, while yours only gives you an approximation necessary for survival." This is the strongest version of the argument I can find.

And if we're being honest, there are pragmatists out there who believe that using perceptive traits solely to survive and reproduce is something we are to do, and this prevents us from "perfectly" perceiving reality. The color magenta has no physical existence, and is merely our brain producing a series of signals that fills in the gap in what we are trying to perceive. Change the structure of the brain, fill in with new signals, and you'll get a different outcome. This is something neuro-scientists would state quite plainly. Evolutionary psychology, a fledgling science without much backbone, will likely assert that our ability to fill in the gaps necessarily depends on what signals and prior instinctive responses that our ancestors routinely experienced and cultivated in past environments. Quite the quandary eh?

But here's the thing. Anti-evolutionists insist that evolution "will not" give us anything except a survival-based paradigm of experience. But we see cases in all forms of data input where increased information gathering necessarily leads to more precise answers. Even if we had a fictional model in our heads, simply by adding information we approach the more correct result. To claim otherwise would be to claim that it's "possible" all of our knowledge has led us to believe something that is diametrically opposite of its actual truth value. But they have no method of demonstrating this. This falls back onto the epistemological basis we have to use: That information gathering and inference lead to conditional and rational conclusions about reality. Every human alive uses this, including anti-evolutionists, regardless of what they claim otherwise. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be have so... humanlike and rely on things like trust in other humans based on past experience, as opposed to "faith."

What's more, our inability to perceive certain stimuli is made up for by technological instruments. We no longer require solely our senses to perceive reality, we've got machines to do that for us.

But it's time we go over why our evolutionary heritage would even "bother" to gradually drift us away from a fictional play to a real representation of reality (as close as we can get with our limited senses). The answer is... A lot of people died when it turned out they were wrong. Simple as that.

We hear pop science articles talking about how "the universe is actually a hologram" or "the universe is flat." The actual abstract is always more nuanced than articles will allow, because journalists are generally useless, their practices parasitic. But this is why we have to accept our limited faculties, and accept that fine instruments correct that and give us a more complete picture. If we're not perceiving reality as it actually is, then what are we doing?

Well, we're active entities who still exist. Even if we take the laughably simple claim "we're all just holograms" seriously for a moment, that wouldn't change the relational paradigm in which our physical bodies interact with other physical bodies. We're constrained by the nature of reality, and our behaviors depend on what reality actually is, not the limited sphere of fiction a brain could conceivably come up with to keep us alive.

This will only be more prominent as time passes. We are no longer a species that can survive by imagining the sky as a "firmament" or "dome." Our actions have too much weight to them.

Hunting prey efficiently is useful, but conceptually someone could come up with a false "narrative" for what we experience when hunting that doesn't line up with reality. But what's so hilarious is that they miss the forest for the trees: The single most efficient method for acting in accordance with physical limitations is to understand those limitations at a non-fictional level.

Lastly, neither religion nor psychology necessarily predispose us to finding out "truth." Religious types will claim otherwise, but they've effectively lost the fight in this regard. Science isn't a natural (innate) method. It's the most sincere attempt to remove extraneous unrealistic assumptions made by our brains or dogma in order to present a neutral, rational and evidence-informed picture of reality. But science isn't perfect, so our model isn't going to be perfect either. But as instruments get more precise, we'll achieve much more than either our brains or our fictional gods could ever tell us about reality. And since science corrects our errors at a rate much higher than human judgment could, it's going to be our bulwark against a cold, dangerous universe going forward.

The whole thing about being "designed" or "simulated" is pure fluff. Just an extraneous assumption. Wake me up when they make a prediction about our observed historical or paleontologic evidence that matches up with the epistemological foundational assumption "We are designed or simulated." Since the creationists will never bother doing actual science, we don't have to waste our efforts on their lazy methodology. The end.

[TSGracchus]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by Neatras]

Well, I completely agree.

However, I was thinking arguments about efficiency could be used to say we don't all view truth "as shadows on a cave."

Just as a bubble is round due to it adapting to its environs, so to, would evolution demonstrate a real, rather than manufactured environ? The manufactured would follow a reason, take short-cuts and even have bugs.

Whereas, wouldn't a real, evolutionary world be what we observe?

As stark contrast, a virtual world could be a Biblical world with flat Earth, unicorns, angels and other mythical beings and events, whereas, a real one, would have round planets... and so on.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Willum]

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

Oh okay.

I was under the impression this was a debate forum where 'justifying maybe' (as in offering alternate explanations as my post offered) is part of the debate process, rather than simply creating threads to 'criticize a probable' and make such posts as mine 'not relevant to the purpose of the thread.'

[Walterbl]

A virtual, or a simulated world can have virtually anything. It can be made to look as if life evolved, or however the programmer wants it to look, since the posibilities are unlimited.

One could say that evolution is the kind of thing a simulator would do if he didn't want the beins inside the simulation to immediatly realize they are in a simulation

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by Walterbl]
Yes, of all possible worlds why would you have it look like it evolved. It is a terrible waste of resources.

I am beginning to understand why religious people are what they are: Clever.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

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.

Might want to tell that to me whenever I play The Sims, and I want to see what happens if I say...edit the game files such that a father can fall in love with, marry his daughter and have a child. Will the game crash because the grandfather and father entries are the same person?
Or maybe whenever I play Universe Sandbox and want to see what happens if I smash two galaxies together.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 17 by rikuoamero]

Well in the context of your Sims game, there would be evidence of intervention. It'll be a 1:1 comparison to our universe when we find evidence of intervention.

But in a scientific setting, simulations are used to find out what will happen given a certain criteria so we aren't forced to conduct the experiment in real life, if there is some limiting factor such as quantity of resources or uniqueness of the event.

[Walterbl]

It is a terrible waste of resources.

Doesn't matter if the simulator has near unlimited resources.

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by Walterbl]

The resources are not the issue. What is involved in experiencing the simulation is the issue.

Or, perhaps more to the point ... "what issue?".