A soul can be glued to a videogame in the same manner a soul can be glued to the horror that is planet earth.
This is a complex idea, and worthy of Descartes evil genius , of which, if retro-actively were possible to find relevance in terms of yesteryear’s intention and understanding, to literally get the crux of the problem of either/or. The levels of metaphor given is disputed exactly as the contributor has expressed it, and that is how it works. How real or simulated is this so called contraption? Was it intended purely in the manner described as merely a thought experiment, or was it infinitely more?
The later is ever so more likely, in a probabilistic layering process, and it has come to be thought as THE premier signifiers of all problems before, and after. It’s genius self prescribed and postscubed SN hand all philosophical investigations.
Th
ere is no argument there
, apart of the conflicting values as determinative of interpretation of horror.
=D> Just here to spin our wheels, right? 
Fact of the matter is, bottom line is, I’d rate this here thing 2 out of 5 stars.
Fact is an evil genius could be sitting in the Universe designing simulations, this is one of the simulations and a Multiplayer game (some people have souls, others are soulless unconscious npcs.) But then we have another paradox - the paradox of multiple souls - information sets which do not intersect in eternities, thus invalidate each other’s validation.
Carleas,
Rainy parades do happen and there aren’t decades left folks. The soul processes emotions and houses memories without any emotional context. Whereas, the brain processes the 5 perceptual senses. When the brain is damaged so that it is unable to process sensory input, the soul travels to different dimensions/astral planes which may be just the tip of the iceberg as far as what else exists. The Simulator would not be able to make you think that you’re thinking? What?
Trixie wrote
More of the all or nothing thing? Can AIs not be turned on and off repeatedly? Can AI’s virtual link with The Simulator? Why do souls not intersect?
Fact is, there are 2 options, either there is 1 soul, that reincarnates into every life that has ever lived, which I’d say is Hell itself unsuspecting of its own horrors.
Or option 2, there are multiple souls, that never intersect and thus do not experience all lives that have ever lived.
Option 2 is a paradox.
Adding NPCs to the mix of Option 1 would make Option 1 less hellish.
Far as AI, first of all that word is a misnomer. The English language is a lie full of lies. AI are made by a natural process.
Specifically I should use the word Metal Brain vs. Tree Net Life Brain. Typically AI’s are generally associated with emotionless states, not consciousless states. Theoretically it is possible to get souls trapped in an AI which is what I think to be anhedonia and a living hell. Can you turn off an AI most certainly.
As for the Simulator, I believe it was created out of boredom, to cause some sort of feeling. Surfing through procedural generated nebula gets rather dull.
A soul would not relocate to an entity (AI debatable) that was incompatible with its functioning regarding emotions. Consciousness is based on emotional processes occurring in the soul that result from a brains intake of sensory input.
What do you mean by intersect: share, merge, what? The Simulator is everything to exist.
There are days where I don’t have any emotions in me at all. And yet, Consciousness stays in me.
Presumably, your theory is that Consciousness will refuse to migrate into emotionless babies, but once the baby loses it’s emotions it is stuck.
The Simulator is not everything to exist, it is everything within our Conscious perception, a Simulator by definition requires an information set besides it’s own information set. Though it is technically true that things only exist when they are remembered and percieved, for the purpose of this discussion let us use the other definition of existence.
No. I was giving merely a simple minded example.
Well certainly if you define the situation as being unsolvable, then it is unsolvable. But we are talking about any potentially real situation, not merely a fantasy hypothetical situation. And that means that practicalities are involved and relevant.
In the very simple minded case that I presented, do you agree that the manipulation could be reasonably detected?
If you are actually going to manipulate the bookkeeper, you can’t merely manipulate a single number, but rather many interconnected numbers. And if the entire scene is to be manipulated, ALL of the numbers will have to be manipulated. If anyone is going to manipulate all such numbers so as to fool the accountant, why not more simply just be the accountant?
That was the point of my prior explanation concerning RM:AO’s metaspace. It takes, much, much more effort to try to programmatically describe (or manipulate) each event concerning a scene than it does to simply enact the scene. It is not merely a little impractical, it is hellaciously impractical.
But that alone is not proof. That merely implies that such simulation to any degree of perfection would be highly improbable. The actual proof comes into play by the fact that perfect simulation is truly impossible. For the reasons explained prior, a perfect simulation requires a simulated (or preferably an emulated universe) that is greater than the real universe. Is it possible to have a universe greater in size than the real universe? No, it isn’t.
A perfect simulation is truly impossible. And that means that detection of the logical errors is possible … given the afore mentioned conditions - training in logic and sufficient experience.
Not only can “they” not afford it, but it cannot be afforded. It is a physical impossibility except for very simple cases or massively confused people (modern Human Secularist America).
They can afford it, because they are bound to do it. Affordability is not even worth mentioning, without ‘IT’ we could not be here discussing it, or even think about IT.
Thought it’self is a simulation.
What does it simulate?
Reality.
To get to a pure logical simulation of reality , a suspension of it is required.
A suspension of judging reality by any preceding comparable system.
James is right, you’d have to change all of reality to program out 2+2=4!
Technically, you can say 2.5+2.5 =4 by saying it’s two units by two units…
But the actual counting process of two fingers plus two things cannot be changed unless you change the words, not the quantity!
And also, the virtual simulation, per the argument, is hyper realistic…
Meaning: they cannot be sims
The issue was one of simulation without error. Real simulation is certainly taking place, provably so by virtue of the fact that the simulations are not perfect. Carleas is suggesting that a perfect simulation could not be detected. And that would be true except for the fact that a perfect simulation is physically impossible.
The perfect simulation is not one where there is one among variably infinite numbers of them, but the hypothesized sun total of any and all possible simulations. This transcendental possibility of the concept of infinite variations, is only a conceptual possibility. It is akin to the idea of the perfect circle, where only the impercibility of approaching the limit of perfect curvature ceases to be verifiable, in its construction.
In another words, a deconstruction of the ideal circle into various increasingly shorter straight segments is impossible, because there are no absolutely straight segments.
So curvature and straightness are never absolute concepts, and for that token, perfect simulation looses even its conceptual possibility.
So, if Carley’s’ suggestion is that there are no ideal simulations, the proposition looses nothing by arguing either from the point of view of wheather simulation is ground to reality or vice versa. Both become relative possibilities, mutually inclusive, but never excluding each other.
Since this infinite inclusion is binding, reciprocity is always the exhibition of variability, sort of like mirroring. The relation’s ground is the synthetic possibility of defining absolute value as the conceivability of an emergent total disassociation of one from the other.
Is this at all possible? Yes, but it goes against all sense. Leibnitz did hypothesize of two , not one spheres of ground.
Jerkey,
When you buy a cup of coffee, is it not perfect when they fill your cup with coffee??
Ideal and perfect do exist
When you zoom out, straight lines do become apparent.
The tendency is simulations to have lower complexity than the host world, and lower complexity = less particles and thus more rigid straight line manifestations.
However this could actually be an inversion pattern, and that if this is an Earth sim, the actual host-world is less complex than the simulation, and the simulation is in essence a particle soup. Of course this would require an inversion of mathematics, a set containing greater complexity than the set it is contained within.
A perfect simulation of what? We can perfectly simulate Microsoft Word. We can perfectly simulate World of Warcraft. Name anything that we know to be a simulation, and we have no trouble simulating it perfectly; why should we be any different if, by hypothesis, we are a simulation?
It seems as though you are picturing the simulation of this world as occurring within this world, and if so: quite right, such a simulation is impossible. But if our world is a simulation, by hypothesis it is being simulated by the Simulators in their much larger world, only a small part of which is being used to simulate ours. And there is no physical problem with our small universe being completely simulated within a much larger universe.
Nor does it seem we can confidently say anything about what the Simulators can “afford”.
Yes but there is perfection, then even the more perfect then that. That is the problem with the philosophy of language, it has the limitation, which has been illustrated visually. Problem, visual concepts are prior. But such a priority is a simulation, grounded on it’s opposite, by derivative logic.