---

LOOK OUT IT'S BANE

---

---

(June 7, 2015 at 8:00 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: The less obvious point is that it does not matter.

That might be true and in your hypothetical you can force it to be true.
But in our possibly simulated life, there are some unknowns which could be critical.
Suppose the computer is about to run out of batteries or fail in some way that you could avoid if you just knew how.

I prefer the version where it is all a disembodied mind, but went with the brain in a vat because people seem to understand it better.  But even with one as just a brain in a vat, it is hard to see what one could do if there is a problem with the power source for the computer or one's life support, as one does not have actual hands to fix anything.

(June 7, 2015 at 8:00 pm)JuliaL Wrote: This is the scenario that the Matrix movie fleshed out in which the 'real' world was one where machines ruled and it was in Neo's best interest to wake and revolt.
What they missed was that this only popped the reality stack one level.  I see no way to determine how deep the turtles go.

The brain in the vat version does invite the world stacked on a bunch of turtles analogy, but the idea that I was getting at with it is that maybe the world isn't the way that some people seem to suppose it is or seems to be to people.

In fact, if we are to believe people like Alex K (and I think we should), the world isn't how it appears to be.  When I look at and use my table, it seems a solid, stationary thing.  But physicists tell us (or used to) it is mostly empty space, with many of the tiny particles moving about constantly.  (Alex can fill in the story better for the current ideas, but his description, of what the table is, is quite a bit different from how I experience it.)

But here is the interesting part.  It does not matter when I set my wine glass on the table, that it is mostly empty space with a bunch of tiny things moving about (or just energy, or whatever other story Alex might want to tell us about it).  What matters is that it holds my glass and prevents it from falling to the floor.  But, and this too matters, Alex's story is importantly different from the brain in a vat story, and the other such stories, in that Alex's story does something, and is testable and usable for some purposes.  (Which is because he is doing physics and not metaphysics.)  The story that I am a brain in a vat does not do anything.  And neither does the story that I am not a brain in a vat.  That should not be too much of a surprise, that a useless statement would also have its negation be useless as well.  This takes us back to something in post 151 about metaphysics, which I will not repeat here, but just have this sentence as a link.

(June 7, 2015 at 8:00 pm)JuliaL Wrote:  My avatar is a screenshot from that movie in the scene where Morpheus offers Neo the Red or Blue capsule.  Red to be shown the truth, blue to remain ignorant.  In my graphic, there is a crude edit to show a brush painting the red capsule which had previously been blue.

In your 'she loves me - she loves me not' story, the difference in the two scenarios lies not in yourself, but in your wife.  To you there is no difference.  To her there is.  Now the question becomes whether you can grant agency to your collection of experiences, intuitions and emotions labelled your wife.  In some scenarios your wife could be real and independent in others she could be simulated.  A question rapidly approaching is, "If simulated, does she still have agency?"

The important point is that the story is unreal; it is not a story that one would ordinarily hear.  It is a kind of description that does not ordinarily occur, as what we describe as someone loving someone would be how things would be either way (that is, with either story that I told, if we were in either situation, we would describe them identically).

The problem with the story is that it is trying to go beyond what we experience, to something that many people feel that they know, but is really unknowable.  And, if the more ordinary story is interpreted as some sort of metaphysical story, then it, too, is problematic in that it is trying to go beyond what can be known.  But it need not be such an attempt; it is a question of interpretation.

(June 7, 2015 at 8:00 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Replace the programmer with God. Now it is of critical importance to know if the victory conditions for life do include Her good will.  Again, we only experience one level in the reality stack.  I don't see any evidence there are others though I can't preclude the possibility.  It is a matter of laziness and parsimony that I don't seek evidence of more. No one has presented me with an acceptable argument as to why God would not be the next level in the stack and for ultimate reality, we'd have to continue to seek .  Hence my sig.

I don't think it is a matter of laziness or parsimony, or, at least, it should not be.  The story does not do anything, and so it is a useless story.  (It is equally useless to deny the story, as discussed above.)

It all has a resemblance to some of the works of Lewis Carroll, except that Lewis Carroll is more entertaining.

---

---

These stories are also similar to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the dispute about whether the holy ghost proceeds from the father and son, or just from the father.  (It is one of the big divisions between Christianity in the east and west, which keeps them from being able to be united.  That fact is bizarre, but nevertheless true.)  Saying that the holy ghost (or holy spirit) proceeds from the father and not the son is as problematic as saying that it proceeds from both.  (This example, though, has an easy "out," in that one can simply deny the existence of all of the things being discussed, which is a dissimilarity with the other stories, and one of the reasons why I did not previously use it.  It does, however, help illustrate the point, that there is a problem with the story, and so one ought not simply select an option within the story.)

Once one is dealing with a problematic story, saying the story is false is problematic in a manner similar to the problem of saying it is true.  The story of my wife not loving me is not false in the same way (if,  indeed, it is false at all) that an ordinary contingent falsehood is false.  Right now, it is false to say that I am in Denmark.  But that is very different from the story being false.  What, in fact, would it mean to say that the story is false?  How is its falsehood any different from it being true?  In the case of me possibly being in Denmark, the difference between me being there and me being somewhere else is fairly clear.   We know what it means for the statement, "Pyrrho is in Denmark" to be true, and we know what it means for it to be false.

(A smartass can bring up the issue of me standing on the boarder, with one foot in and one foot out of Denmark, but that is easily dealt with by making the issue be about whether I am entirely in Denmark, or about whether I am at least partially in Denmark.  In other words, it is a matter of clarifying the meaning of "in" Denmark, whether we mean entirely in or partially in.  And if there is some ambiguity about where the border is, that, too, is something that is merely a matter of clarification, not a fundamental problem with the issue.)

If we wanted an example seemingly closer to this thread in subject matter, suppose there are two people arguing about light.  They both agree that light behaves like a particle in some ways, and light behaves like a wave in some ways.  However, the first person says that light is really particles.  The second person says that light is really waves.  Siding with either one of them does not strike me as a good idea, and both seem to have the same problem.  And the problem seems very much like the problems with the stories I have been discussing.  And it does not help to say to these two people, light is not really particles, or light is not really waves.  My guess is, you are going to complain about the way that they are talking about light, rather than to assert that their statements are false in the usual sense of the term. Of course, you may speak for yourself on that point, if you wish.  I am suggesting that the correct response does not involve saying what light really is.  I don't think it is helpful to science (or anything else) to say what light really is.

---