(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(December 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

---

Sorry but that is an absurd prediction. We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things.

The sub-realities you have defined really are created by the rules, to the extent that they exist at all. But they really do not exist except as a set of rules. We cannot create real space merely by making up rules for how that space should work, no matter how complex or internally consistent the rules are.

To induce anything about the the construction of the real world based upon these sub-realities you have to assume that the the real world is a great deal more like a sub-reality than we have any reason to believe it is. Or you have to believe that sub-realities described by an intellect, cause those sub-realities to exist in any way other than as a thought experiment.

---

What is exactly absurd about the prediction? One of the two conjectures must be true.

A)Sub realities always require intelligence to come into existence.
B)Sub realities do not always require intelligence to come into existence.

There is nothing absurd about thinking about these two conjectures and looking for reasons to favor one over the other. Can you think of a good reason to favor B over A. The only reason I can think of to favor B is that it might be more consistent with your world view.....but this is not a good reason. There is good objective reason, however, to favor A over B. That good reason is that we always observe sub realities requiring intelligence to come into existence. We never observe sub realities not requiring intelligence to come into existence.

The problem is much more fundamental than that. I will try to be clearer. At this point there are no sub-realites whatsoever that include real space. Rules do not create reality. The sub-realities you discuss are really just organized bits of imagination. They don't create a reality. Therefore, how they are created doesn't have any relevance to how actual reality was created.

It's like comparing how an orange grows to how one is painted. The processes have nothing to do with each other.

(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: When you say, "We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things." I interpret this to mean you think the concept of a sub-reality is nonsensical. Is that a fair interpretation?

Yes and no. I so think the concept of sub-realities is currently a null set if we are talking about realities that are in any sense real inside the sub-reality. We don't have any examples of real sub-realities.

But that's not what I was saying about the laws of the universe. I was saying that the fact that the universe has constants which we can discover does not mean the constants created universe. Not surprisingly the constants we create by rules when we create imaginary space don't actually create real space and things either.

(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: One assumption made by my argument is that the real world is a sub reality. If you don't accept this assumption....you're not going to accept the argument.

That is indeed an assumption I don't accept. It's an interesting idea, and certainly possible. But we have no way of knowing. Nor do we have any idea how a sub-reality such as our world might be created. We do know that just making up rules for an imagined space won't work, because our computer simulations don't create real spaces.

(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: It seems to me that you do not accept this assumption. Right now I don't really care to go into detail why I believe this assumption. I have covered it in other threads. It has to do with causality, the nature of randomness, quantum mechanics, and what Bells theorem tells us. I'm going to ask you to accept this assumption as true for the sake of the argument we are having....just to see if by accepting it you reach the same conclusion I have.

I'm not sure you really understand Bell's Theorem--in fairness I don't really understand it either, but what you are saying does not seem to follow from it. But, sure, for the sake of argument I'll assume for the moment that we are in a sub-reality.

(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: Last, you claim sub realities are not really real....well I have argued why from certain perspectives they are real. You don't do anything to refute my argument on this point. You don't even say my argument on this point is wrong. You simply re-iterate your claim that sub realities provided as examples by me, you, and others....are simply are not real. I am asking you here to address the argument I made on this point and show why it is wrong.

No I think the burden of proof is the other way around. You imagine a space and give it rules. Now you say it is a real space. I ask in what way? You say it is real if viewed from the inside. But there is nothing inside to do the viewing. The burden of proof that it is more than just imagination is yours. Your sub-realities are nothing more than rules and descriptions of outcomes of those rules. They don't create anything real.

If we could actually create real sub-realites (which we can't) and we knew we were in a sub-reality (which we don't), your induction would be highly suggestive. But like all inductive conclusion it would not necessarily be true.

(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: Leonard Susskind talks about the apparent fine tuning. Leonard is a well known and very well respected in the physics world. He is considered one of the fathers of string theory. He agrees the universe appears to be fine tuned for our existence....I disagree and claim it is fine tuned for emergent complexity....but non the less we both agree it is fine tuned. When he talks about the cosmological constant being precisely fine tuned....it is to one part in a trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion. Change it that much and there is no sustained emergent complexity.

Susskind favors the multiverse explanation for the apparent fine tuning BTW. Watch the vid...its good stuff.

I watched. He says that if one of about a dozen constants of the universe were changed between 1% and 30% depending on the constant the universe as we know it would not exist and life would not exist. No argument there. I'm mere surprised there are things we can change by as much as 30%.

He suggests three possibilities: 1) intelligent design just for us; 2) highly improbable hitting the jackpot in this one universe; 3) many universe and we are in one of the ones that can sustain life. He likes number three. Must admit, I like number three too.

But I'm not bothered by number two either. As far as we know all possible universes are equally improbable. If this is the only one, than it is the only one in which we could ask the question, how did we get here? We know our lottery number came up because here we are.

Number one bothers me because it presumes an over arching universe containing all the others that was not created but does manage to house a universe creating being (how many constants do you think that might take hitting the jackpot on?). That strikes me as extremely improbable, much more improbable than choice number 2.

@Heywood

If I create a 'sub reality' does that necessarily infer that it is intelligent?

(December 4, 2014 at 10:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: No I think the burden of proof is the other way around. You imagine a space and give it rules. Now you say it is a real space. I ask in what way? You say it is real if viewed from the inside. But there is nothing inside to do the viewing. The burden of proof that it is more than just imagination is yours. Your sub-realities are nothing more than rules and descriptions of outcomes of those rules. They don't create anything real.

Presumably nobody is viewing the far side of Pluto right now....yet you and I would both agree that the far side of Pluto is not imaginary. Why? because potentially we could put an observer there and view it. Perspective is what determines what is real and that perspective exists whether or not a conscious observer exists. Our entire understanding of reality is formulated on this idea that what is real is determined by perspective.

Imagine you are in a space ship positioned in space. You see me pass you in my space ship traveling at the speed of light. You observe a clock on my space ship and see it is stopped. Is time really not passing for me? From your perspective there is no flow of time for me. Now from my perspective reality is completely different. From my perspective I see you passing me at the speed of light. From my perspective your clock is stopped and for you there is no flow of time.

Does the flow of time exist for me? Well it exists and it doesn't exist. It all depends on perspective. Sub realities exist and they don't exist...it all depends on perspective. How can something exist and not exist? The notion is nonsensical. I resolve the nonsense by thinking about it this way. If something can be observed to exist from at least one perspective, then that thing can be said to exist. Since a sub reality is real and has physicality from the perspective of the things they contain, I can credibly say sub realities exist....even if they lack physicality from my perspective. I can credibly say the flow of time exists for you even though it doesn't from my perspective.

---

(December 5, 2014 at 12:32 am)IATIA Wrote: @Heywood

If I create a 'sub reality' does that necessarily infer that it is intelligent?

You can create a sub reality that has no potential for the emergence of intelligence. If you did that sub reality could not be a parent of its own sub reality. It would be a dead end.

(December 4, 2014 at 9:56 pm)Heywood Wrote: Can you provide an example of a procedural generated thing which did not require intelligence?

-Every "world" in every game you've mentioned as examples of a " sub reality".

As I've already explained to you- many times -this is a defining feature of procedural generations. They require rules, not intelligence. That's how expansive worlds are handled in an economic way so that you, as a user, can enjoy them. As I said, pages ago, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about....you have defined a sub reality as something that specifically does not require intellect, or intelligence to achieve - and have ironically claimed that any example of such a thing would demolish your argument. Let that sink in.......and when it has, explain this thread to me Heywood...what's happening here?

Now, understandably you have a perception that when you log in a world is created. That you've somehow formed a necessary portion of that...or that the programmers of the sim are generating a world for you. This is not the case. An algorithm is generating that world with no input required from either you or the programmer -and it's done that way on purpose. Any algorithm that meets the definition of a procedural generation will be capable of generating such a "sub-reality" regardless of whether any intelligence is there to perceive it - and even if the initial state is a product of random number generation (and random number generation is often the core of a procedural generation even when -we- design them for a specific purpose). It's a testament to the state of tech and gaming that these environments are so compelling to you, but the observations you are making are entirely disconnected from the very practical reality of how this is all accomplished. This isn't magic, games are not portals to another world.

Try making observations from accurate info, and see how your argument pans out. "Sub realities" - if the things you have pointed to are sub realities - don't require intelligence to come into existence, nor are they some discrete "space" unto themselves or within a "parent reality". Same space, same reality, same rules. The last bit there is counter-intuitive, but very explanatory-

:We observe our character riding on the back of a dragon shooting bolts of dark energy from her fingertips. This is certainly impossible in our world...so there must be different rules in this world - in order for us to observe this. Right?

Wrong. What is actually occurring is a series of images are being moved around a central image identified by the user as the character, the avatar. While it may be impossible to fly on the back of a dragon - it's not impossible to slide pictures of mountains around pictures of a dragon on a screen - and that's what's actually occurring. That the vast majority of this is handled by some automated function - a piece of code delineating rules and interactions -between data sets- rather than an artist on the other end painting the world in front of you as you move to generate whatever server address is considered a "loaded chunk" explains why intelligence is neither required -but also why it would be cumbersome as a means of generation (imagine all the artists that would be required to service a game world, 24/7 watching players and trying to anticipate their movements to generate terrain in advance of their game location)....and this is why we use this type of program to begin with. Now, try explaining our universe et all in this manner and you find that it becomes even more cumbersome - and still no more necessary.

To go deeper still, these sims often share the same game engine- and while the effect of the games themselves may be very different an actual description of each individual game is nearly identical at the level of machine language - where things are actually occurring. The same "rule" that allows you to ride a dragon in the one handles a dirtbike going over a mogul in another. All of what you see is simply a variable. An abstraction..not referent to any observation or event other than the work of a logic gate - an assumption made by a beefed calculator. Even here, these are not discrete rules with an objectively quantifiable function in separate spaces or realities. The "sub reality" created by two entirely different games from the users point of view is mechanically and mathematically equivalent to any other game running the same engine. Amusingly, the rules of that sim are the same as those in ours because they are the same reality. Simply put, you can't make impossible things happen in a computer, even though you can leverage what is possible to give the effect of what is not - in the same way that a magician "pulls rabbits out of a hat" - here, in our world (as opposed to a game environment).

Is there anything else I've left out? Any got suggestions?

(December 5, 2014 at 8:32 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 4, 2014 at 9:56 pm)Heywood Wrote: Can you provide an example of a procedural generated thing which did not require intelligence?

-Every "world" in every game you've mentioned as examples of a " sub reality".

As I've already explained to you- many times -this is a defining feature of procedural generations. They require rules, not intelligence. That's how expansive worlds are handled in an economic way so that you, as a user, can enjoy them. If they had to handpaint the flowers - they couldn't deliver at pricepoint (and probably couldn't deliver at all, for an mmo/sandbox). As I said, pages ago, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about....you have defined a sub reality as something that specifically does not require intellect, or intelligence to achieve - and have ironically claimed that any example of such a thing would demolish your argument. Let that sink in.......and when it has, explain this thread to me Heywood...what's happening here?

Try making observations from accurate info, and see how your argument pans out. "Sub realities" - if the things you have pointed to are sub realities - don't require intelligence to come into existence, nor are they some discrete "space" unto themselves or within a "parent reality". Same space, same reality, same rules.

Procedural generations are tools used by intellects to create sub realities. The are not sub realities in and of themselves. Can you give an example of a sub reality that uses a procedural generation but was not created by an intelligence?

How do you determine that we are currently living in a sub-reality that required an intelligence to generate?

(December 5, 2014 at 7:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Procedural generations are tools used by intellects to create sub realities. The are not sub realities in and of themselves. Can you give an example of a sub reality that uses a procedural generation but was not created by an intelligence?

LOL< goal posted. Confronted with the reality that it is a procedural generation and not an intellect required and creating the game worlds referenced, you've decided to take a step back, and ask a different question. Good for you, unfortunately, yes I can.

-In that all of them are examples. We implement procedural generations, our intelligence is used to direct their effect - it isn't required for their existence, nor do we need to "create" them. A procedural generation is a description of a logical function - we discovered those, we didn't invent them. What we -did- invent was the implementation thereof, in the form of a modern computer. But...since we've invented a variety of computing systems and they all fulfill the function it's very plain that it isn't any specific invention of ours upon which this all depends. Strings, levers, analog or digital...even rolls of toilet paper (I shit you not) - it all does the same thing for the same reasons under the same rules in the same reality - and the same space.

(I'm afraid that you can't decide that procedural generations are not sub-realities unless you ditch all of your examples - but then where would you draw your observations from? If you decide to keep your examples (so that you can claim to have observations upon which this argument is arranged) you must allow procedural generations, as the examples you've offered -are- procedural generations themselves)

-this thread has been an idiots guide to poor logic btw and we're talking fucking computers!...... so gratz on that - I'm wondering if any stone will be left unturned by the time you bail out, impressive..in it's own way.

(December 5, 2014 at 7:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Imagine you are in a space ship positioned in space. You see me pass you in my space ship traveling at the speed of light. You observe a clock on my space ship and see it is stopped. Is time really not passing for me? From your perspective there is no flow of time for me. Now from my perspective reality is completely different. From my perspective I see you passing me at the speed of light. From my perspective your clock is stopped and for you there is no flow of time.

Does the flow of time exist for me? Well it exists and it doesn't exist. It all depends on perspective. Sub realities exist and they don't exist...it all depends on perspective. How can something exist and not exist? The notion is nonsensical. I resolve the nonsense by thinking about it this way. If something can be observed to exist from at least one perspective, then that thing can be said to exist. Since a sub reality is real and has physicality from the perspective of the things they contain, I can credibly say sub realities exist....even if they lack physicality from my perspective. I can credibly say the flow of time exists for you even though it doesn't from my perspective.

Sorry, woody, you can't invoke relativity just so you can slip in "subreality" assertions without justification and then expect nobody to notice that you've palmed a card.

(December 5, 2014 at 9:39 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 5, 2014 at 7:52 am)Heywood Wrote: Procedural generations are tools used by intellects to create sub realities. The are not sub realities in and of themselves. Can you give an example of a sub reality that uses a procedural generation but was not created by an intelligence?

LOL< goal posted. Confronted with the reality that it is a procedural generation and not an intellect required and creating the game worlds referenced, you've decided to take a step back, and ask a different question. Good for you, unfortunately, yes I can.

-In that all of them are examples. We implement procedural generations, our intelligence is used to direct their effect - it isn't required for their existence, nor do we need to "create" them. A procedural generation is a description of a logical function - we discovered those, we didn't invent them. What we -did- invent was the implementation thereof, in the form of a modern computer. But...since we've invented a variety of computing systems and they all fulfill the function it's very plain that it isn't any specific invention of ours upon which this all depends. Strings, levers, analog or digital...even rolls of toilet paper (I shit you not) - it all does the same thing for the same reasons under the same rules in the same reality - and the same space.

(I'm afraid that you can't decide that procedural generations are not sub-realities unless you ditch all of your examples - but then where would you draw your observations from? If you decide to keep your examples (so that you can claim to have observations upon which this argument is arranged) you must allow procedural generations, as the examples you've offered -are- procedural generations themselves)

-this thread has been an idiots guide to poor logic btw and we're talking fucking computers!...... so gratz on that - I'm wondering if any stone will be left unturned by the time you bail out, impressive..in it's own way.

We didn't create the tensile strength of steel either....does that mean intelligence wasn't required for the existence of the Burj Khalifa? I understand that we don't create algorithms, but we certainly employ them in ways nature never would. I keep asking you to show me an example of a sub reality which would exist even if there was no intelligence. You claim Secondlife is a sub reality which would exist or could reasonably come into existence if there was no intelligence. That claim is absurd.

---

(December 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Sorry, woody, you can't invoke relativity just so you can slip in "subreality" assertions without justification and then expect nobody to notice that you've palmed a card.

The point is it is not a novel concept on my part to use perspective to determine what is real and what isn't. Such thinking is fundamentally ingrained into our physics and now I am applying the same thinking philosophically.

There is no palmed card here....there is only consilience.

---

(December 5, 2014 at 9:05 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How do you determine that we are currently living in a sub-reality that required an intelligence to generate?

There are two questions here:
Question 1: is our reality a sub reality.
Question 2: is intelligence required for the creation of our sub reality.

I claim the answer to question 2 is yes because it appears that all sub realities come into existence needing the involvement of intellect. I've already discussed this in great detail. I haven't really touched on question 1 in this thread. But there are lots of reason to think this is true. Here is a simple one.

The universe appears to be fine tuned. This is a view held by many physicist and cosmologists and not just crack pot theists. The fine tuning problem cries out for an explanation. There are 3

A)The universe is a sub reality of God and His reality.
B)The universe is a sub reality of a multiverse.
C)It is just happenstance that the universe came into being so fine tuned.

Now apply the principle of indifference to the 3 explanations and consider each of the three to be equally likely. Since 2 of the three have our universe as sub reality of a larger reality...then by this thinking you can reasonably assume that there is a 66% chance that we live in a sub reality. There are other lines of thinking that also conclude we are probably living in a sub reality.

I'll ask this once more, then I'm done for realsies.

Say there is some being somewhere that made our reality. Do you have a further point, or is that it?