TPF : The Essence (Simulation)

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/693880
Nick Bostrom & Ludwig Wittgenstein

From a Wittgensteinian standpoint there's no essence to either illusions/simulations or reality that could aid us in telling them apart. — Agent Smith

Actually, there is an "essence" underlying perceived reality : I call it "Information". Unfortunately, materialist scientists have ruthlessly dissected reality looking for its fundamental substance. The problem is that they imagined that substance as tiny balls of hard stuff. But eventually, Quantum researchers have been mystified to find that the foundation of material reality is mushy Mathematics (Fields of intangible potential ; invisible WaveForms ; mind-stuff). Their "substance" is essentially the Information necessary to describe the statistical probability of their physical existence at a particular place & time. So, it seems that Reality is based on illusory gambler's odds.

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine (149) has an article that mentions Bostrom's "simulation hypothesis". His issue is to know whether there is "a mind-independent reality". And Nozick's similar Experience Machine thought-experiment concluded that a convincing simulation of Reality would "prevent us from grasping any deeper reality". So it seems that, for all practical purposes, Reality is what you experience : the information you take-into your mind, from which to build a model of the source of those incoming bits of experience. However, speaking for most of us, Nozick said, "we want to have a genuine relationship with reality, not live a fictional life that only feels real". (a la Matrix). "This means that for many people there must be something --- perhaps reality itself -- that is valuable in addition to the feels of experience".

I suppose it's that feeling of incompleteness & imperfection in the perceived world, that caused ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato) to propose an Ideal World, of which our mundane Reality is merely a simulation. Perhaps, the felt need for "something more" is what allows the majority of people to imagine (and believe) in super-gods & heavenly homes, where Reality is closer to Ideality. So, how can we tell them apart : the mind-model of Reality from the unknown real-Reality? Does it really make any difference? Obviously, some people feel strongly that it does. Which is why Morpheus, and his crew, chose to live in a hadean underworld, instead of the "normal" matrix simulation. If only we-in-the-normal-world had magic pills, so we could tell them apart.

[Gnomon]

A small defensive word in favor of the scientist... Quantum mechanics is the same small hard ball approach. — Hillary

I wasn't denigrating quantum scientists. They're doing the best they can with the counter-intuitive feedback they get from sub-atomic experiments. Since such concepts as "Superposition" and "Wave-Particle Duality" don't make sense to our classically-trained brains, the pioneers of Weird Science were forced to resort to conventional physical metaphors, that made them seem somewhat less meta-physical, but still quite strange. In my thesis, I encapsulate those paradoxical dualities in the coined term "BothAnd", as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol.
yinyang%20heart.gif
"This picture of quantum mechanics is said to be ontic, from 'ontology' . . . . the alternative view is that the wavefunction is epistemic . . . . our state of knowledge".
____Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird

It could even be argued that the wavefunction constitutes space. It's the notion of the particle being a point that is problematic. — Hillary

I don't know if the wavefunction "constitutes space", but it potentially fills all of space, until forced to "collapse" to a specific location. Even the math of Schrodinger's Equation is weird, in that it requires "imaginary numbers, which is not something that has a physical meaning". (ibid) Since the physical foundation of our reality can only be described in mathematical terms, it fits neatly into my thesis that everything in the world is a form of Information (the potential to enform, both physically and mentally).

So, if mind is part of matter, can there even be a reality independent of mind? — Hillary

The "correct" answer to that question depends on how you look at it. Just as Einstein was forced by the facts to conclude that macro (space-time) reality is relative, it now seems that quantum reality is also relative to the observer. If you look within, your world-model is integral with your-self, but if you look without, it seems independent of your mind.

[Gnomon]

In most films on the simulation theory the real is depicted as less glamorous, more drab than the simulation itself. — Agent Smith

That may be why humans have always imagined that there must be something better, something more, than this "vale of tears". Our advanced animal brains are not limited to the here & now, but can create alternative possible worlds, such as Plato's Ideal, and the Christian Heaven, or somewhat more mundane, a Garden of Eden, where grass-fed lions lay-down with their fellow vegetarian lambs. :joke:

[Gnomon]

Yet, the attitude which I recommend is one that's common knowledge: If life gives ya lemons, make lemonade! — Agent Smith

Yes! Animals have no choice, but to grimly gulp the lemons, while making a lemon-face. But humans can add a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. :joke:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Da-6FH0WkAA ... name=small

https://www.antarcticajournal.com/wp-co ... monade.jpg

[Gnomon]

Do you think the red pill that Mr. Anderson took was sour (or bitter)? It couldn't have been sweet, he didn't look like he was enjoying the experience all that much. — Agent Smith

Perhaps it was bittersweet, like reality itself.

Bittersweet :
1 : being at once bitter and sweet especially : pleasant but including or marked by elements of suffering or regret a bittersweet ballad bittersweet memories.

[Gnomon]

BothAnd? — Agent Smith

Yes. In his book on quantum physics, Phillip Ball addressed the paradoxes inherent in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Scientists now accept QM as the foundation*1 of macro reality. However, such concepts as Wave-Particle Duality and Superposition are counter-intuitive, so for pragmatic purposes, they can only trust the numbers : "shut up and calculate". "They generally arrange quantum outcomes in such a way as to apparently permit the answers Yes and No simultaneously". Therefore, I have come to accept that the superstructure built upon such a squishy foundation is both Real & Ideal, Physical & Meta-physical. That's why I labeled my personal philosophy as BothAnd.

*1. One way to look at it is to consider everything down to atomic scale as classical Reality, and anything below that as imaginary : Ideal. For example, when Gell-Mann coined the term "quork" for the constituent "building blocks" of subatomic particles, he seemed to have tongue-in-cheek. It was a made-up word for a mythical particle. The James Joyce term "quark" seemed to imply "non-sense". :joke:

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
BothAnd Glossary

[Gnomon]

Hence, from where I stand, your BothAnd principle has to either modify/discard/other the law of noncontradiction. What do, or rather what did, you do to the law of noncontradiction? — Agent Smith

I follow the pragmatic suggestion of Richard Feynman : "shut-up and calculate"! That's not ideal, it's a real-world compromise. Non-contradiction is not a law of nature, it's a philosophical rule-of-thumb. If you think you see a contradiction, first re-examine your own premises, then look at the conflicting parts in perspective of the Big Picture (the Whole System).

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ___Ayn Rand

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
BothAnd Blog Glossary