The Simulation Theory and the dangers of pop-science

  • #51
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,014
5,795
I wouldn’t call a CPU a G-word. Would you?
Of course not but many people seem to need a G word and a massive CPU could be treated, by many people, as one. Polytheism treats pretty much everything as a potential G word.
You seem to be implying that a CPU is a brain
I'd invert that and say that a brain can be regarded as a CPU (unspecified spec). Nervous systems of all levels exist and have a lot in common. If a nematode worm can be characterised in terms of logical functions then why not our own brains?
The philosophical question of a brain analysing itself is a difficult one if one feels there has to be an answer. Personally, I feel no shame in saying that the question is too hard for me (along with a lot of Science and Culture). Reaching for a magic word to take care of all that is one way of dealing with it.
 
  • #52
46
10
Of course not but many people seem to need a G word and a massive CPU could be treated, by many people, as one. Polytheism treats pretty much everything as a potential G word.

I'd invert that and say that a brain can be regarded as a CPU (unspecified spec). Nervous systems of all levels exist and have a lot in common. If a nematode worm can be characterised in terms of logical functions then why not our own brains?
The philosophical question of a brain analysing itself is a difficult one if one feels there has to be an answer. Personally, I feel no shame in saying that the question is too hard for me (along with a lot of Science and Culture). Reaching for a magic word to take care of all that is one way of dealing with it.
“Inversion” is just another way of saying two things are analogous, just perceived from different frames of reference.

The point being: mathematics is pure abstraction meant to reduce particular instances to more manageable logical constructions and to reverse the process into other instances of the same abstraction. That’s all the brain ever does. It converts an instance of ‘reality’ into a manageable dataset in order to create a new instance of reality.
 
  • #53
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,014
5,795
“Inversion” is just another way of saying two things are analogous, just perceived from different frames of reference.
Hang on a bit; I inverted the sentence. Draw a Venn diagram of the two statements and the difference is clear. All black objects are not cats.
 
  • #54
361
577
- anyway, the psychophysical Process of awareness is fundamental, all the rest being the outcome of its self-organizing...
 
  • #55
370
35
I'm a machine whose inputs I call reality. The context/source of this data is unknown. Does a simulation require a simulator?
 
  • #56
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,014
5,795
But isn’t a simulation an artefact, purposely built to represent something? It’s an approximation to reality (or an invented reality). If stands on its own then how is it a simulation? What is it ‘like’?
 
  • #57
Nugatory
Mentor
13,700
6,977
This thread has evolved into a convincing example of why the simulation hypothesis is on the list of topics not allowed for discussion here.

It is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk and sophiecentaur

Related Threads on The Simulation Theory and the dangers of pop-science

Replies
11
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
647
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
837
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
5K
Top