by Brokeback Watchtower 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Elon Musk believes we are and he's a pretty smart guy that runs SpaceX, A lot Black Hole physics may seem to present the 3 dimentional space as a hologram of a 2 dimentional sphere.
I think this is open for serious debate. What are the pros and cons?
As soon as Matt Dillahunty has a solution for hard solipsism, I'll let you know.
If I recall the interviews correctly, Elon didn't say we are in a computer simulation, rather he said he considers it to be statistically more probable than not that our reality is some sort of computer simulation based on the idea that the capability of our own technology is increasing at such a rate that it could someday reach the point of creating a simulation that is indistinguishable from "reality."
That is perhaps a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important one.
Plato proposed a situation, where long term prisoners chained to a cave's wall could only see shadows, and surmised this was the reality of the world out there. Upon release they realized the true grand reality.
With Mathematicians, way out cosmologists dabbling in higher and lower dimensions, Scientific American's fall edition "Cosmos" has an article on it.
If correct, the beyond, the past would not be simpler but more complex. interesting novel thought.
Yes we are in a computer simulation ruining in a cube on Captain Picards desk
Brokey - It's a pretty crap simulation if it's true. I want a different one!
I wonder, if we call reality a simulation what difference does it make other than changing one word for another?
In my mind(!) it's one of the best arguments for God.
The more we learn about reality the more completely mysterious it seems to be.
and he's a pretty smart guy..
Worse possible argument for any position.
Unless it's a technical question that we can't best answer for ourselves.
We can't understand everything or come to our own conclusions about every topic. If I want to know the best way to build a bridge, make a cake, draw up a contract, treat a fracture, or whatever else it is probably best to rely on expert advice. In principle I could study engineering, cooking, law, medicine and so on myself, to the best of my ability, and find the best possible answers myself. But at a certain point (very quickly in fact) it becomes far too much. We simply need to rely on expert opinion to exist in the modern world.
Some seem to regard philosophy as exempt from this principle. As if expertise doesn't or shouldn't carry the same authority in this area as it does in say engineering or law or academic subjects like physics or biology. That our opinion is as good as a philosophy professor. Dawkins seems to have this view of philosophy, which is quite odd when you think about it. He wouldn't accept that someone who hasn't studied biology has views on evolution that are as valid as his own. Yet he thinks that his own views on philosophy deserve a hearing. He can only do this by denigrating the entire discipline he is engaging with.
To make a long story short, I am perfectly open to the possibility that a philosopher or a computer scientist may have insights into the nature of reality that I am not able to grasp because I do not have their training. In principle I could scrutinise their reasoning down to the basics, but this would be a very lengthy undertaking and may require a lifetime of study. Truly understanding something is not the same as simply following an argument closely. Because understanding requires huge background knowledge of various subjects, not simply acquaintance with the grammar and select vocabulary or a topic.
I think it is reasonable to defer to a "smart" person. In fact it's a key skill to learn when to defer to the knowledge of others and working out who is expert and who is not. We all made the mistake of thinking JW leaders were experts on the Bible, life and everything. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't defer to anyone about such matters. It means we should be more discriminating about who we defer to.
Are we in a computer simulation?
I am programmed to respond: "No".
