Simple, Unambigous Evidence We Do Not Live In An Objective, External Material World

_{William Murray

October 9, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When how I choose to observe a photon at a particular time and place can (1) instantaneously affect a photon a billion light years away and (2) retroactively changes the history of that photon (delayed choice quantum eraser), and when we have searched far, wide and deep and have not found any “matter,” we have comprehensive, conclusive evidence that we do not live in an objective, external, material world.

At some point, if your views are guided by reason and evidence, you will have to accept that whatever “experience” is, it is not caused by an objective, external, material world.

Comments

It's also profoundly astonishing that our free-will choice of whether to observe something can result in the instantaneous appearance of an electron out of nothing physical. Our ability to collapse wave functions or to prevent radioactive fission from occurring (aka the quantum Zeno effect) is a God-like power. There's also a quantum effect called a Von Neumann chain that's a sort of domino effect involving a series of wave function collapses. Whether animals or just humans can initiate a wave function collapse is not known and might be determined with an experiment using "Schrödinger's second cat." -QQuerius_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, To begin with, I think the documentary linked above provides a good introduction for any discussion on this subject. We do program alternate realities in computer games, of which some are very realistic (VR or virtual reality). We also program NPCs (Non-Player Characters) in games that have remarkable AI (artificial intelligence) built in. Practically speaking, I recently read about jet fighters controlled by AI defeating human combat pilots. There are also chatbots, some of which pass the Turing test. But no, none of these have consciousness or "free will" as far as I'm concerned. The matter of free will is being vigorously debated with B.F. Skinner being among the first to popularize the concept. I believe humans do have free will. Someone famous once said, "I have free will because I think I have free will." This is similar to the assertion by René Descartes of Cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am. Regarding the Simulation Hypothesis, Yes, I believe we exist as part of a simulation in an information substrate that links us to our primate bodies but does not include our consciousness or essential being in this reality. Thus, I believe our brains are more like cell phones communicating with our conscious spirit. I'm not basing this belief on ancestor simulations or computers all the way down (yes, I got the reference). I base this belief on several statements made in the Bible. Let me start with the mind-blowing introduction in the Gospel of John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. - John 1:1-3
But what is meant by "the Word"? In the original Greek it's logos, a term that can mean a word, a communication, logic, or a concept. in other words, information. So this passage in the Bible asserts that our universe is fundamentally information. Jesus once asked his disciples, if you can't be trusted with the world's money, who will trust you with true wealth? There are a number of other astonishing passages throughout the Bible that reinforce the concept that this world is a simulation and not the ultimate reality. So, as you can see, my belief is not based on a scientific conclusion, but on a profound and challenging ancient document that seems to line up with current scientific thinking. -QQuerius_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Sure, I've heard of the Matrix. It's been referenced a number of times in this discussion. My main point is that I don't think robots (i.e. programmed beings) can have consciousness or free will. Irrespective of whether a conscious being (such as Bornagain77 posits as God) can actually program a reality, if we are the beings in a programmed reality, we wouldn't have free will. Do you agree with that? Up at 86 you said you'd explain some about your own position if I explained mine first. I've posted a number of times on the subject, including answering your questions. Could you now answer my question, at least about free will. Thanks (P.S. My remark about "computers all the way down" was a joke, based on the old "turtles all the way down" story. Of course we can't have an infinite regress of programs writing more programs. Again, as several have pointed out, one conclusion would be that the ultimate programmer is a god of some sort. )Viola Lee_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Even assuming a succession of computer simulations, a mind with free will must have programmed the first simulation. Massive online computer games actually do have both robotic (aka NPCs with AI) and intelligent agencies (players with free will) behind the action. Your conception of the simulation hypothesis isn't correct as a result. Have you ever watched or heard of the movie, The Matrix? It's more like that. Here's an excellent and entertaining, 50-minute documentary on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG-E6WJNeEE -QQuerius_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Who knows whether Q will be back, but I'm still here, so I'll respond to his questions at 82.
You’ve probably heard of online computer games and perhaps even played them. [Sure I have]. Would you say that the conscious minds behind every on-screen character must also be robotic?
I don't think a robot can have a conscious mind. So obviously my answer is "no".
Do you believe that a person’s consciousness derives from an arrangement [of] organic molecules?
No. I don't know where consciousness comes from. I just accept it as part of being a human being. But, as I said above, I don't think robots will ever be conscious. People are conscious, with all that entails. That's a main reason why I think the simulation hypothesis is not a realistic possibility.Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

I hope Q comes back to respond to 87. However, I read the SciAm article he mentioned in 81, and I agree with the conclusion:
Kipping, despite his own study, worries that further work on the simulation hypothesis is on thin ice. “It’s arguably not testable as to whether we live in a simulation or not,” he says. “If it’s not falsifiable, then how can you claim it’s really science? For him, there is a more obvious answer: Occam’s razor, which says that in the absence of other evidence, the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct. The simulation hypothesis is elaborate, presuming realities nested upon realities, as well as simulated entities that can never tell that they are inside a simulation. “Because it is such an overly complicated, elaborate model in the first place, by Occam’s razor, it really should be disfavored, compared to the simple natural explanation,” Kipping says. Maybe we are living in base reality after all—The Matrix, Musk and weird quantum physics notwithstanding.
Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

It seems to me obvious. If I am a product of a simulation, then everything I feel, think, or do is a product of being programmed to be that way: I would have no actual free will to make choices or otherwise direct my own actions. That's my reasoning.Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @85, I'm just responding to your assertion:
If true, one would just be a robot. There would be no free will. You,d have to give up your belief in God. (Except you might be programmed to think you had free will or that God existed.) in fact, you would be programmed to believe that you were programmed. Totally pointless to consider as a possibility, although maybe I just think that because I was programmed that way!
What I'd like to learn is how you came to your above conclusions. I think it's important for me to understand the foundations of your reasoning first. I'd be happy to share my views after I understand yours first. -QQuerius_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

I'm interested in your clarifying your perspective. Do you agree that if the world, including each of us, is a programmed simulation, that we are just robots, with no free will?Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @83, Yes, that's why I posted my questions at 81 and 82. I think that will clarify your perspective in your posts. -QQuerius_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Q, what do you think of my comments at 77?Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @77, You've probably heard of online computer games and perhaps even played them. Would you say that the conscious minds behind every on-screen character must also be robotic? Do you believe that a person's consciousness derives from an arrangement organic molecules? -QQuerius_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @76, Regarding probabilities, what do you think of this Scientific American article? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/ -QQuerius_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

KF said:
I suggest that generally speaking, any hypothesis that implies actual or probable grand, across the board delusion or want of freedom required to credibly think, decide, reason and judge is self-defeating.
I'm not sure what else, from the external world perspective, one could call complete faith in the existence of an entire domain of reality one cannot access even in principle, much less verify to be in accordance with their mental experiences.
Next, yes our consciousness is the carrier through which we access experience of ourselves and our common world, but in itself that does not undermine veridicality of key aspects of such. Yes, we may err, but even that implies knowledge of our common world and of ourselves in it. KF
One such avenue of verdical experience is logic. When logic dictates that there is zero possible support for a hypothesis, what would logic dictate one do?William J Murray_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

I agree with Kairosfocus on both points.Viola Lee_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

I suggest that generally speaking, any hypothesis that implies actual or probable grand, across the board delusion or want of freedom required to credibly think, decide, reason and judge is self-defeating. Next, yes our consciousness is the carrier through which we access experience of ourselves and our common world, but in itself that does not undermine veridicality of key aspects of such. Yes, we may err, but even that implies knowledge of our common world and of ourselves in it. KFkairosfocus_{October 14, 2020
October
10
Oct
14
14
2020
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

If true, one would just be a robot. There would be no free will. You,d have to give up your belief in God. (Except you might be programmed to think you had free will or that God existed.) in fact, you would be programmed to believe that you were programmed. Totally pointless to consider as a possibility, although maybe I just think that because I was programmed that way! :-)Viola Lee_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Because it seems so utterly improbable, and certainly, by Occam's Razor fails miserably. I have no idea why someone would take it seriously. Yes, our world could be the evening project of some 4-d hyper-space teenager, but the number of such hypotheses is huge. This is just sci-fi stuff. Not worth my time to think about.Viola Lee_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, Tyson eloquently expressed the rationale for the Simulation Hypothesis. How did you come to your conclusion that Tyson's rationale is not worth taking seriously? -QQuerius_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

I don't disagree that it would be impossible to prove that we're not part of a simulation. I disagree about it being worth taking seriously to any extent whatsoever.Viola Lee_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @71, So do you disagree with the rationale that Tyson is describing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U -QQuerius_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

A bit like the different levels of dreams in the movie InceptionSeversky_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Or maybe it's just computers all the way down! :-)Viola Lee_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Or, you can take the red pill. -QQuerius_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

I agree with William on this point.Viola Lee_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Tyson just assumes you can get to the point where programming in a computer can have self-awareness and experiences. That is, even in principle, impossible. Anyone with self-awareness and experiences is necessarily an original user and not a simulation.William J Murray_{October 13, 2020
October
10
Oct
13
13
2020
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Ok, so why do you think that many secular quantum physicists believe it’s likely that we’re living in a simulation? I don't know whether you respect Neil Degrasse Tyson, but here's a short 2-1/2 minute clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U A conference with some of the world foremost physicists hosted by Tyson is where his mind was first blown by this concept when a physicist introduced it to Tyson. It was amazing to see his mind being blown live! -QQuerius_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

I didn't say I was leaving, Querius: just that I was withdrawing from discussing William's ideas. I've enjoyed the discussions here about the quantum nature of the physical world.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Goodbye, Viola Lee. But if you see this message, consider researching why many secular quantum physicists believe it's likely that we're living in a simulation. -QQuerius_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

I retract and resign from poking holes in his argument. I made that clear in 62. I apologize for getting involved, and will be more careful in the future as to what I do and don't comment on.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply