Timeline for Can we know anything about the "outside", if we are in a simulation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27 at 15:24 | comment | added | 8Mad0Manc8 | From a practical point of view is there a distiction between a base reality and an augmented simulation of reality within that base reality or is there an infinite regress and that is reality. Even a base reality might have been determined by a God and that begs the question is our reality an augmentation of God reality? It's a never ending story. | |
| Jun 27 at 9:23 | answer | added | alanf | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 26 at 22:54 | answer | added | Darrell | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 31, 2022 at 2:02 | answer | added | Joshua | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 2:38 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 10, 2020 at 20:00 | answer | added | Otar Magaldadze | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 2, 2019 at 6:56 | comment | added | christo183 | @GershomMaes The speculative idea behind this question is that similar information may exist on both sides of the "insulator", and the such information may be identified. | |
| Nov 1, 2019 at 18:42 | comment | added | Gershy | From the perspective of physics, wouldn't it require a perfect insulator to prevent information about the external world from propagating into the simulation? | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 13:44 | answer | added | present | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 5:43 | history | edited | christo183 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 31, 2019 at 21:28 | answer | added | virtore | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 18, 2019 at 8:12 | history | edited | christo183 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 151 characters in body
|
| Jul 17, 2019 at 8:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 23, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2019 at 8:13 | comment | added | alanf | No philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/56796/… | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 8:00 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | You’re assuming that simulation is a philosophically coherent category. It’s not. Few philosophers have taken up Bostroms notion of a simulation as a philosophically coherent thought. It’s science-fiction dressed up as philosophy, and for we know, that’s where Bostrom got the idea from. | |
| S Jul 16, 2019 at 12:57 | history | suggested | curiousdannii |
Add simulated universe tag
|
|
| Jul 16, 2019 at 12:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 16, 2019 at 12:57 | |||||
| Jul 16, 2019 at 12:52 | history | edited | christo183 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2019 at 7:35 | comment | added | christo183 | @Conifold That's it! "the simulators' conceptual apparatus" must be intrinsic in the simulation to some extent. Whether the sims could detect any of that is another matter. But if we, from our perspective, take note of our conceptual apparatus while creating simulations, then there is some thread of a line of inquiry into the whole Simulation business? | |
| Jul 16, 2019 at 6:35 | comment | added | Conifold | Bostrom originally imagined our distant descendants running a simulation of their ancestors, us. This still gives us little on what capabilities our descendants might have, how they might view us, and what they would choose to simulate. One would expect simulations "indistinguishable from physical reality", as Bostrom has it, if it weren't for the example of current virtual designers who choose to spice things up at every turn, even when their theme is historical. One could say that simulations are bound by the simulators' conceptual apparatus, but I haven't seen an exploration of this. | |
| Jul 16, 2019 at 6:06 | comment | added | christo183 | @Conifold Given your answer to the related question I assume your are looking at this as seeking for physical explanation, and in that context I'm more or less fully in agreement with your answer. But foregoing physical(ism) reality's solid footing, what are we left with? Could we think what thoughts the simulators must have had when creating our world? - Yes, I know this comes back to: "What's the purpose of life, the Universe, etc." But maybe there are some interesting steps in between. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 23:40 | comment | added | Conifold | The answer is no (unless our designers let us know in a way that induces us to trust them), which is why simulation speculations are not taken very seriously outside of pop-culture. Their authors simply assume the laws of physics like ours, perhaps with minor modifications, and would have nothing to go on and talk about otherwise. Related If we live in a simulated world, doesn't there have to be a first world that's real? | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 9:34 | comment | added | christo183 | @MauroALLEGRANZA As far as I can see both noumena and phenomena are candidates for objects necessarily shared between upper and lower ontologies. A relation between the noumenal world and an upper ontology world seem enticing. However one may just as easily assert it is the phenomenal that is inheritable to the sentience inside a simulation. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 7:34 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | It sounds like a copy of kantian noumenon-phenomen distiction. | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 7:25 | history | asked | christo183 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |