The redneck strike again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Think I found a simpler way to express my last post. When we find a baseball, we see that it has mass - one of the characteristics of what we might call "the universe" Why do we then not say to ourselves "Hmn, how curious, perhaps the universe is like a baseball?" Don't we make the much stronger claim - this baseball has characteristics consistent with something "of this universe"? If you could explain to me why this is true for a baseball but not a computer simulation, or if you could explain to me why we might have a rational justification for considering -the universe- as having some quality that belongs to a baseball, rather than the baseball having some quality better described as "belonging to the universe" - I'd be a little closer to convinced.

[Angrboda]

The physicists who think we might be in a computer simulation do have a rational reason for thinking it.

Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation

If such an investigation does look consistent with a simulator lattice, then that could mean several things. It could show us that there's a boundary out there consistent with Beane et al's hypothesis, and it works a bit like the one we'd expect if we were living inside a simulator based on the same principles as one we would also build. It could be, though, that we're incorrectly interpreting evidence of certain fundamental laws we are as yet unfamiliar with. It could even be that this isn't evidence at all for a simulator, as a real lattice might work in a different way to how we would envision it.

"If"

The problem I find with digital philosophy is that it suggests that a higher level reality would be constrained by how things work in a lower level reality when there's no reason to make that assumption. That our computational models have these limits is no reason to suppose that if the universe were a simulation, those running the simulation would be under similar constraints. It's like imagining that the "creator" of the universe must be like a bearded white guy because that is the model creators follow within the creation. Even if the behavior of our universe were consistent with the hypothesis, that wouldn't be evidence the universe behaves this way because the hypothesis is true. That would require either falsifiable predictions, or some insight into the reason why the laws of this simulation are the way they are, and, if we're a simulation, there's no reason to believe we'd have access to those reasons.

In a sense, digital philosophy is similar to where cognitive science was a few decades ago. The computer was the best model we had for a "thinking engine," and so, it was projected that the thinking brain would have features in common with computers. This was a reasoning, based on analogy, that turned out not to be fruitful. Even in respects to the way the brain behaves like a computer, it is only an analogy, not the reality. The brain isn't a computer (in the traditional, von Neuman sense), and the speculation that it was "like" a computer was fueled by relying too heavily on reasoning from known models of computation to the unknown. In the same way, digital philosophy is reasoning from known models to the unknown, the underlying reasons for the laws of nature. It's not likely to be more fruitful than, say, as a scaffold for speculation and hypothesis.

[Confused Ape]

When we find a baseball, we see that it has mass - one of the characteristics of what we might call "the universe" Why do we then not say to ourselves "Hmn, how curious, perhaps the universe is like a baseball?" Don't we make the much stronger claim - this baseball has characteristics consistent with something "of this universe"? If you could explain to me why this is true for a baseball but not a computer simulation, or if you could explain to me why we might have a rational justification for considering -the universe- as having some quality that belongs to a baseball, rather than the usual order in which we might place those objects in relation to each other - I'd be a little closer to convinced.

It's no good asking me. I'm not a physicist. These physicists think their idea is a possibility for reasons which only physicists understand so it's rational to them.

"If"

Well, there's this on the Cornell University Library Website which seems to be as far as they've got - Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

---

Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage

(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

---

I then discovered a general audience presentation of the above on the Washington University Dept Of Physics website - General Audience Presentation

The problem I find with digital philosophy is that it suggests that a higher level reality would be constrained by how things work in a lower level reality when there's no reason to make that assumption. That our computational models have these limits is no reason to suppose that if the universe were a simulation, those running the simulation would be under similar constraints

It sounds like Nick Bostrom could have got carried away with his stacked levels of reality but it's a fun idea to play around with. I've done a lot of googling to see if other physicists are saying that Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage are barking mad but no results so far. It appears that mainstream scientists think they're being rational for hoping to test their numerical simulation idea.

[Little Rik]

You don;t think that we've been solving any human problems these last few thousand years by physical means alone? 2 hands working are better than a thousand clasped in prayer after all. Howsabout you pick up a shovel and solve the human hunger problem? Or, if you prefer - you could solve it "non-physically"...whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I want that gold coat, by the way, or is that just another empty promise from the magic-man? Honestly though, this last bit baffles the hell out of me. You know when we really started solving "human problems"? When we got off our lazy asses.... and stopped trying to pray them away. We did the work.

You are in a hell of a mess.
Your cart is totally unbalanced so until you sort out this problem it is obvious that you will come up with meaningless hypothesis like the baseball and computer simulation business.
How does your cart works?
Humans got 3 particularity.
Physical-mental and spiritual.
As far as there is a balance among these 3 sides of yourself the cart will go straight along the path and sooner or later you will get to the destination but as you neglect one or two or all three then your cart will end up off the road with tragic consequences.
Just try to drive a cart pulled by three horses which only one or two are fed properly and one is left to starve and see what will happen.
According to you spirituality is something magic or does not exist so you are unbalanced in your life and in your thinking.
Humans are not happy with anything finite as peace of mind can not come within this physical-mental world so it is obvious that only in the spiritual world we can find peace of mind and solution to all problem including hunger.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thank you for gracing me with your clearly valuable thought-droppings. In response, um....no? Get back to me when spirit-food starts alleviating hunger - anywhere (really, when spirit anything...starts to alleviate anything....at all).

[Whateverist]

Riketto, you are fond of talking about ones 'car' meaning the physical body. Where do you imagine you sit in this car of yours? And who steers the spirit body that steers the physical body? Is it cars and drivers all the way down then?

[Confused Ape]

Get back to me when spirit-food starts alleviating hunger - anywhere (really, when spirit anything...starts to alleviate anything....at all).

The problem with things like spirituality and enlightenment is the idea that there's some supernatural dimension involved. Enlightenment can be seen as psychology.

Let's say Fred X had parents who made him feel that he was never good enough. He becomes driven by an unconscious desire to prove that he's superior to everyone else and ends up as a successful businessman. In the process he causes a lot of suffering to humans and other animals and damages the planet.

He never feels good enough, though, so he becomes depressed and decides to go for psychotherapy (which qualifies as a spiritual path in this context). Due to the therapy he realises what he's doing and why and how much damage his actions are causing himself and others. He then changes his lifestyle and starts working for human rights, animal welfare and the ecology.

Psychotherapy isn't the only way of waking up to negative thought and behaviour patterns, of course. I just used it as an example.

[Angrboda]

How does your cart works?
Humans got 3 particularity.
Physical-mental and spiritual.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens



This is just more bullshit assertions from you. It means nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem with things like spirituality and enlightenment is the idea that there's some supernatural dimension involved. Enlightenment can be seen as psychology.

Agreed, and if both serve the same ends - albeit in different ways...and all other things being equal - it hardly matters to me how one might choose to experience or describe that internally. Once we start to try and communicate our ideas though, the normal rules apply. We explain the unknown by reference to the known. If I have the choice of communicating something -to someone else- in terms of psychology or spirituality, I'm going to stick with psychology because it's much more proficient at making statements and drawing conclusions that can be objectively expressed and relied upon/falsified. The "spirituality" bit has embedded trash in any case, at the very least - getting in the way of doing this. If we're going to "see" it as psychology.......then why describe it by reference to "spirit" anyway? Wouldnlt that just be an unwarranted and shameless plugging ion of concepts we wanted to attach to a model we feel fits better than the one in which those concepts arise and are dependent upon? I get using them..utilizing them for an effect. But even pretending that a truth value can be assigned to them in some means similar to psychology is being very - very loose (and is implicitly invoking the authority of psychology over "spirit" anyway - so "spirit" is irrelevant).

[Little Rik]

How does your cart works?
Humans got 3 particularity.
Physical-mental and spiritual.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”― Christopher Hitchens
This is just more bullshit assertions from you. It means nothing.

That is funny.
You are not physical so how can you move your finger to type on the keyboard?
You are not mental so how your nervous system can send the message to your little finger to type on your keyboard?
You are not yourself so who give the order to initiate the typing?
Please girl help me to understand or i will go mad.

---

Riketto, you are fond of talking about ones 'car' meaning the physical body. Where do you imagine you sit in this car of yours? And who steers the spirit body that steers the physical body? Is it cars and drivers all the way down then?

We are stuck in a body dear whatever.
The only way out is when natural death occur or if we kill ourselves and that is the time that the I separate from the body.
So until this time we and the vehicle are one.
That does not mean that we are the car.

---

Thank you for gracing me with your clearly valuable thought-droppings. In response, um....no? Get back to me when spirit-food starts alleviating hunger - anywhere (really, when spirit anything...starts to alleviate anything....at all).

Easy and very hard at the same time.
Very hard if we keep on doing the same things.
Very easy if we change but change does not come easy for rednecks.
Suppose the rednecks stop eating meat.
Considering that to make 1Kg of meat it takes over 10 Kg. of veg. proteins.
In this way we would have enough food to feed the whole planet many times over.
Consider also that by growing food for animals we have to cut down forests creating so many problems including desertification which in turn prevent us from growing more food.
Consider also the policy of destroying food in order to push the prices up.
These rednecks are not spiritual minded people otherwise they wouldn't behave like assholes.
So spirituality is the best tool for alleviating hunger.
Capish?