Kent Forbes, Does the Simulation Hypothesis Defeat Materialism |323|

I'm afraid it looks like our points of view are irreconcilable. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, only that I'm attempting to grope towards an explanation from my perspective as someone inclined towards Idealism.

You don't seem to get my point that most physical theories perform a role at a particular time in the development of science, and then become obsolete.

Imagine how useless it would have been if Newton had come out with GR! Nobody could have calculated with it - it would have looked like pure mysticism (maybe it still does :) ) - and physics would have stagnated.

Rather, it actively engages with the world -- with us and through us in a participatory fashion -- in a sense knowing no more than the sum total of what we know about what's going to happen.

You see - even you find it impossible not to think in Dualist terms - under Idealism "the world" is just another part of its imagination. Even if Idealism is the ultimate explanation, it is no use as a theory right now - doing so is like trying to use Schroedinger's equation to understand car mechanics - yes, in theory it applies to everything including cars, but that doesn't mean it would be of any use!

To me science is currently massively lopsided. The physical side is well developed, the mental side is hardly developed at all. To advance on the mental front, science needs to think less globally - just take small tentative steps. The grand theories can come later.

David
 
To me science is currently massively lopsided. The physical side is well developed, the mental side is hardly developed at all. To advance on the mental front, science needs to think less globally - just take small tentative steps. The grand theories can come later.

David

But is the physical really that developed? Maybe compared to the mental.....I think in 50-100 years people who look back and laugh at all of this. We need a more holistic approach to science, this old conservative materialistic miracle science is crumbling....slowly but crumbling
 
You don't seem to get my point that most physical theories perform a role at a particular time in the development of science, and then become obsolete.

Imagine how useless it would have been if Newton had come out with GR! Nobody could have calculated with it - it would have looked like pure mysticism (maybe it still does :) ) - and physics would have stagnated.



You see - even you find it impossible not to think in Dualist terms - under Idealism "the world" is just another part of its imagination. Even if Idealism is the ultimate explanation, it is no use as a theory right now - doing so is like trying to use Schroedinger's equation to understand car mechanics - yes, in theory it applies to everything including cars, but that doesn't mean it would be of any use!

To me science is currently massively lopsided. The physical side is well developed, the mental side is hardly developed at all. To advance on the mental front, science needs to think less globally - just take small tentative steps. The grand theories can come later.

David

Naturally, I respect anything you have to say, David, and generally we agree on so many issues, like your point about physical theories having a limited shelf life; but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say by that. Idealism isn't a theory of physics but of metaphysics, which in essence also applies to Materialism and Dualism.

It's not so much that I find it impossible not to think in dualistic terms (though that's admittedly a daunting task), as that I find it as difficult as anyone else to express myself in non-dualistic terms. Language is embedded in the materialistic/dualistic paradigm.

There's no such thing as (Idealist) monistic language; we can't completely avoid any linkage with concepts of matter, space and time in language. There's no idealistic alternative to the word thing, for example. As soon as one utters the word, one is implying the idea of separation and distinction, but what choice does one have? One can try putting words in quotes, but with limited success. One can try using mathematics (which unfortunately I have little facility with), but again, in physics at least, that is built around assumptions of concreteness. Is there such a thing as pure mathematics, completely divorced from human perception? I don't know: you tell me.

We experience the world through perception of apparent objects, which is why we have nouns to name and distinguish them. A truly Idealist, monistic language wouldn't have any nouns. It wouldn't talk in terms of things, so much as ideas, amongst which there can more legitimately be distinctions. Although MAL would be One, perhaps there could be said to be distinctions in its thoughts, one of which is that of something that can be perceived as a human being. The nearest one can get, I suppose, is by thinking in Platonic terms: of things as more or less imperfect instantiations of eternal and perfect Platonic Ideas.

It's all very well talking about taking baby steps, but we appear to have regressed: Plato was expounding his philosophy of Idealism over two thousand years ago, after all. I don't often quote Wikipedia, but here's what it has to say about Platonic forms:

Forms

The meaning of the term εἶδος (eidos), "visible form", and related terms μορφή (morphē), "shape",[8] and φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances", from φαίνω (phainō), "shine", Indo-European *bhā-,[9] remained stable over the centuries until the beginning of philosophy, when they became equivocal, acquiring additional specialized philosophic meanings. The pre-Socratic philosophers, starting with Thales, noted that appearances change, and began to ask what the thing that changes "really" is. The answer was substance, which stands under the changes and is the actually existing thing being seen. The status of appearances now came into question. What is the form really and how is that related to substance?

Thus, the theory of matter and form (today's hylomorphism) was born. Starting with at least Plato and possibly germinal in some of the presocratics the forms were considered as being "in" something else, which Plato called nature (physis). The latter seemed as carved "wood",[10] ὕλη (hyle) in Greek, corresponding to materia in Latin, from which the English word "matter" is derived,[11] shaped by receiving (or exchanging) forms.

The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, Parmenides states, "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed."[12]:p129 Matter is considered particular in itself.

These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.[13] Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.[14]

A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.[15] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[16] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).[17]

A Form is an objective "blueprint" of perfection.[18] The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.

You can see that describing the theory of forms necessarily employs dualistic language, but still, one can get a basic sense of what Plato's Idealism is about. A human being is an imperfect instantiation of the perfect idea of a human being. Instantiated where? It's a natural enough question given the prison of language. Everything has to exist somewhere in language, and so that sets up the idea of space, which is thereby reified in our thoughts, as is matter and time, because we perceive instantiations as enduring, solid objects.
 
Last edited:
Naturally, I respect anything you have to say, David, and generally we agree on so many issues, like your point about physical theories having a limited shelf life; but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say by that. Idealism isn't a theory of physics but of metaphysics, which in essence also applies to Materialism and Dualism.
Well if science were to take the idea at all seriously, it would be a theory of physics. However, my argument is that it would not function in any useful way - though it might some time in the future. If science took the idea of dualism and life after death at all seriously, it could test them rigorously, but can you think of any test for Idealism?

Dualism would have a limited shelf life (nice phrase), but while it was on the shelf, it would perform a vital role. For example, suddenly the fact that memories can't seem to be localised in the brain, would have an explanation. People would no longer be looking for anomalies, they would be looking for evidence for a new theory.

David
 
The exact quote from Cox as I remember taking it down from the recorded show was:


In the celebrity Night with the Stars show, Cox outlines Quantum Theory by telling us that things can be in an infinite number of places at once and "describes the world with higher precision than the laws of physics laid down by Newton."

But he adds: " It doesn't therefore allow mystical healing or ESP or any other manifestation of new-age woo woo into the pantheon of the possible. Always remember quantum theory is physics and physics is usually done by people without star signs tattooed on their bottoms."

I quoted this in a forum discussion here:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2108&f=4

(I am skysurfer in that debate)
thx. great. we live in a shut-up-and-calculate world :)
 
Well if science were to take the idea at all seriously, it would be a theory of physics. However, my argument is that it would not function in any useful way - though it might some time in the future. If science took the idea of dualism and life after death at all seriously, it could test them rigorously, but can you think of any test for Idealism?

Dualism would have a limited shelf life (nice phrase), but while it was on the shelf, it would perform a vital role. For example, suddenly the fact that memories can't seem to be localised in the brain, would have an explanation. People would no longer be looking for anomalies, they would be looking for evidence for a new theory.

David

I'm not quite sure whether you're lumping in Dualism with things like life after death, or whether you're regarding them as distinct. However, assuming you're lumping them together, how could science test rigorously whether or not there's life after death? The only way I can think of rigorously testing it would be for scientists to somehow vicariously experience life after death, so that they'd still be around to write papers about it; their experiments would have to be to be repeatable and verifiable by other scientists.

With Idealism, life after death is hardly ruled out, so such vicarious experimentation might equally as well support it as Dualism.

Thing is, neither Dualism nor Idealism are on the shelf at all as far as many scientists are concerned. For them, what's on the shelf is monistic materialism and nothing else. Because of that, the nearest thing we have to rigorous testing at the moment is being for the most part totally ignored, at least by establishment scientists.

Even QM, which presents the best evidence we have so far that consciousness influences whether or not we perceive matter, hasn't yet put either Dualism or Idealism on the shelf. The many worlds hypothesis is still popular, and this is a way of retaining materialism even when it entails an absurd degree of violation of Occam's principle and when there's no apparent way to test it. It seems some scientists will go to any length to cling on to materialism.

There are signs that panpsychism might seriously be being considered, but again, that's also a dubious way of preserving materialism:


Bernardo says:

In this video, we will see how both panpsychism and our dreams of artificial consciousness arise from a delusory interpretation of the facts of reality, as available to experience. We will see that consciousness isn’t created, but the framework wherein all creation happens. We will see that consciousness isn’t fundamentally fragmented, but fundamentally one. We will see that individual psyches don’t arise from bottom-up integration, but from top-down dissociation of a single consciousness. Finally, we will see how all this follows directly from true nondualism.

(http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/10/nondualism-and-fallacies-of-panpsychism.html)

Incidentally, Bernardo indicates some scientific evidence for Idealism in this video.
 
I'm not quite sure whether you're lumping in Dualism with things like life after death, or whether you're regarding them as distinct. However, assuming you're lumping them together, how could science test rigorously whether or not there's life after death?
You are right, there is no automatic link, but if the mind is stored elsewhere, there is no reason to expect it to die with the brain.
The only way I can think of rigorously testing it would be for scientists to somehow vicariously experience life after death, so that they'd still be around to write papers about it; their experiments would have to be to be repeatable and verifiable by other scientists.
Well they could spend some money to perform medium experiments that prove the idea give or take some outlandish Super-ψ speculations. They could certainly build up confidence that something non-material is going on.
With Idealism, life after death is hardly ruled out, so such vicarious experimentation might equally as well support it as Dualism.

Thing is, neither Dualism nor Idealism are on the shelf at all as far as many scientists are concerned. For them, what's on the shelf is monistic materialism and nothing else. Because of that, the nearest thing we have to rigorous testing at the moment is being for the most part totally ignored, at least by establishment scientists.
Right - and that is why I wish people would realise that Dualism is no more invalidated than QM+GR!
Even QM, which presents the best evidence we have so far that consciousness influences whether or not we perceive matter, hasn't yet put either Dualism or Idealism on the shelf.
Well at least it puts consciousness in an interesting position, and I think it would be great if it was tied to a resurgence of Dualism - together with an understanding that this won't be the final theory/metaphysics.
The many worlds hypothesis is still popular, and this is a way of retaining materialism even when it entails an absurd degree of violation of Occam's principle and when there's no apparent way to test it. It seems some scientists will go to any length to cling on to materialism.

There are signs that panpsychism might seriously be being considered, but again, that's also a dubious way of preserving materialism:

Incidentally, Bernardo indicates some scientific evidence for Idealism in this video.

I'll look at Bernardo's video later, but I agree, people seem to talk about panpsychism and it doesn't seem to have any practical consequences! However, I can see this also happening with Idealism/simulation hypothesis - the idea will get tentatively taken on board, but then everything will continue as before!

David
 
Michael Prescott has a blog entry on a similar theme (similar to the theme of this thread). Worth a few minutes of your time, perhaps?

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2016/07/the-vr-thing.html
This seems to be Prescott's main point, which I agree with:
This game is designed by our higher self, with which we are in only tenuous contact while embodied. The game is meant to be challenging and instructive. The stakes are, in one sense, real — we gain real wisdom and personal growth. In another sense, the stakes are illusory —Ebert's "elaborate hoax." Our physical gains and losses are of no real consequence, and even our joy and suffering are transient and ultimately trivial, no matter how powerfully they may affect us here and now.
 
Interesting interview. Thanks to Alex and Kent

My response

This notion that the universe is a simulation is a hollow or empty idea – in my view

If the universe is a simulation, then of what is it a simulation?
Is there a real universe somewhere?
Or is it just a simulated simulation of simulation?

And if the universe is a simulation, on what or in what is the simulation running or functioning?
What is its substratum?

And who or what made or is making the simulation?
Or did it make itself?
Did the simulation simulate itself into simulated existence?

As for famous pop-physicists endorsing the notion; bear in mind that many of those jokers also endorse the notion of infinite parallel universes in which every possible permutation of events in this universe (or simulation) are actually occurring. In other words there are infinite versions of you leading infinite different lives in infinite parallel universes.

William of Occam must be spinning in his grave at the inflationary explanatory power of these ideas

Beats me how and why this sort of pseudo scientific nonsense is taken seriously, while thousands of years of evidence and testimony about spiritual realms and beings is systematically ignored

By the way guys, as you know I personally support science as our best method for knowing about our world and universe. Of course I mean true science; not the narrow parochialisms of the modern academy. But this stuff is not science; not even close. It's really a sort of speculative philosophical fiction that cherry picks scraps of scientific sounding concepts and uses them in metaphorical ways to spin intriguing and entertaining speculative hypotheses.
Which is all fine and dandy; just don’t call it science.
 
I found this from famous string theorist S J Gates, which got me reaching for the wine ... Theoretical Physicist Finds Computer Code in String Theory


And this Scientific American article (2016) where Gates says a few things, "I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry?"

And to do with the spiritual, “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

I mean, if Trump has the possibility of winning the Presidency (and he has), this also confirms the Cosmic Trickster, right?!?
 
Last edited:
I did a bit of transcribing of Dr. Gates in the above video and around 4:20 minutes he says ...

"Some of those codes are showing on the screen behind you right now. They don't look like codes but these pictures, which we call adinkras, are graphical representations of sets of equations that are based on codes. So this is in fact, to answer your question more directly, I have in my life come to a very strange place because I never expected that the movie The Matrix might be an accurate representation of the place in which I live."
 

I mean, if Trump has the possibility of winning the Presidency (and he has), this also confirms the Cosmic Trickster, right?!?

Or, it means the error-correcting code in the simulation has gone horribly wrong

And to do with the spiritual, “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”

Well, there's a well-known physicist (although I gotta admit, I never heard of him before, lol) pretty much saying exactly what Alex has been pointing out.
 
Well, there's a well-known physicist (although I gotta admit, I never heard of him before, lol) pretty much saying exactly what Alex has been pointing out.

Who or "what" is running the program and why? Is there a purpose? Is it random? Is there a set "goal" in mind?
 
I found this from famous string theorist S J Gates, which got me reaching for the wine ... Theoretical Physicist Finds Computer Code in String Theory


And this Scientific American article (2016) where Gates says a few things, "I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry?"

And to do with the spiritual, “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

I mean, if Trump has the possibility of winning the Presidency (and he has), this also confirms the Cosmic Trickster, right?!?
this is sounding more and more like bullshit... can anyone help sort this out.
 
Or, it means the error-correcting code in the simulation has gone horribly wrong



Well, there's a well-known physicist (although I gotta admit, I never heard of him before, lol) pretty much saying exactly what Alex has been pointing out.

Ha, ha! Your first point crossed my mind as well.:) But I guess it all depends on string theory being right. Some physicists love it (Witten, Susskind, Hawking). Some don't.
 
this is sounding more and more like bullshit... can anyone help sort this out.
It seems to me Gates is arguing from a materialistic view, as he talks about quarks etc., but may have uncovered (if he's right) just the materialistic parts of the simulation?

Just remember that Edward Witten (colleague of Gates) doesn't think consciousness will become part of physics so interpreting this point by Witten the way I honestly want to (i.e. there could be God - I don't know Witten's view on God) means Reality has more of a "being alive" element to it? If Reality is more of an "image in the Mind of God" is it then much more than a simulation but still somehow one?

I heard on another video about the Simulation hypothesis a part that Gates says "the universe doesn't care whether I understand or don't understand" and that "it's not all about us", "the universe doesn't care whether I exist or not exist" but that would also mean a materialistic view, right? It's at 1: 31: 40 here. But lots of evidence we talk about on Skeptiko shows that something out there does care about us.

 
Back
Top