Comment by kaashif
6 days ago
Why does whether we're in a simulation or not matter for whether anything is explorable?
You can explore how the simulation works, there's just some other layer you can't explore. Or maybe you can somehow.
When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain? Does that mean you can't explore them?
> When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain?
This is unknowable.
It is knowable isn’t it? We know our brains play a variety of tricks to get a cohesive view out of two wildly complicated but deeply flawed meat sensors.
That fits the definition of a simulation.
Not into modern philosophy at all, but I do believe, simulated or not, that this is indeed mostly quibbling.
An engineer would ask what a simulation would simulate. This is the core of the meaning behind that word. And if the answer is reality and it hints to the fact you cannot perceive everything and you conscience tries to construct a cohesive understanding from limited perception, than I would dispute the fact. The only one who tries to do that are philosophers. Going back to my objective, not-simulated ignorance now.
3 replies →
Part of the argument is that you can only know what you experience. But, if this is a simulation, "you" could be a program running on a computer and your every experience is just piped directly into your consciousness without any underlying physical reality. You might even not be interacting with other people in the simulation, it could be just you and everything else is simulated without being similar to whatever existence you have.
I don't agree with this argument, but it circulates occasionally.
5 replies →
What's unknowable is whether or not there are real stars that correspond with what you seem to observe; not whether or not your observations themselves are the real stars.
3 replies →