# Against the Simulation Hypothesis
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 28, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334 "2016-10-28T14:11:42Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 10
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/181 "2016-11-03T14:15:19Z")
I asked a question to get an answer. Are you asking me to answer my own question? Why is deserve a strange word in your opinion?
_humming_ “And the wheels on the bus go round and round…”
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/182 "2016-11-03T15:15:49Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> But the slicing of the words, is redeemed by him in identifying both as having a resembling commonality, in the same sense as ‘IS’ is also ambiguous, or rather only different in a variable sense of resemblance.
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> In fact they are not spliced at all, in the same sense of having resemblance, only as much as it is logically prescribed. If IT IS not, then it’s only because the genealogical derivation has veered out of relevance.
T h e f u l l v e r b " I S " i s N O T a m b i g u o u s .
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/183 "2016-11-03T15:33:48Z")
Arm,
A is A is ambiguous say if it is a reflection of A or is that a lack of advanced distinction?
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 3:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/184 "2016-11-03T15:46:38Z")
A = A is the principle of identity.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/185 "2016-11-03T15:49:23Z")
The IS can be wrong, right? Misused and downright abused. It’s tossed around too much (my opinion).
Wiki
In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.[5] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify different senses or meanings – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. In everyday language, violations of the LOI introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity.
How do you correct poor judgement?
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/186 "2016-11-03T16:42:38Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> The IS can be wrong, right?
No. The “is” itself can never be wrong, because it stands for the principle of identity. What can be wrong is the use of the “is”.
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Misused and downright abused. It’s tossed around too much (my opinion).
Several people use the language in several ways, so some people even use the verb “is” in a false way.
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Wiki
> In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.[5] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify different senses or meanings – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. In everyday language, violations of the LOI introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity.
>
> How do you correct poor judgement?
Normally, poor or incorrect judgement is and should be corrected by teaching the correct judgement. But the next question follows immediately: “What is the correct judgement?”. The only possibility we have is to keep on referring to logic, because all other possibilities can and often do lead to the misuse.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/187 "2016-11-03T17:07:25Z")
Arm wrote
> [@](#):
>
> What can be wrong is the use of the “is”.
Exactly.
What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as poor judgement?
---
### Author:  [@surreptitious57](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/surreptitious57)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/188 "2016-11-03T17:17:09Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> I asked a question to get an answer. Are you asking me to answer my own question? Why is deserve a strange word in your opinion?
Are you talking about all human beings or merely those who can handle the truth? Ultimately it all boils down to what that truth is and what those
who have it will do with it. But do we deserve it? I honestly do not know. Maybe if we could at some point be trusted to use it for the greater good
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/189 "2016-11-03T17:24:51Z")
Truth for all human beings. If it wasn’t for all it wouldn’t be a truth.
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/190 "2016-11-03T18:19:51Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Arm wrote
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > What can be wrong is the use of the “is”.
>
> Exactly.
>
> What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as poor judgement?
It would be a logic that is very much reduced for most of the people. “Less is more”, “black is white”, “male is female”, “left is right”, “right is wrong”, “war is peace” … and all the other uncountable examples of the misuse of words would boom (like in Orwell’s “1984”, for example). It would be like it almost already is. 😉
---
### Author:  [@surreptitious57](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/surreptitious57)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/191 "2016-11-03T18:24:32Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> Truth for all human beings. If it wasnt for all it wouldnt be a truth
The problem with that is that what some think is objective truth is not what everybody else thinks it is
This can make the entire notion of what is and is not objective truth to say the least a tad problematic
I my self tend to be sceptical of any thing pertaining to such truth not grounded in logic or empiricism
And so if emotional reasoning is essentially all you have then it is a very inadequate substitute indeed
Therefore if that is it you really ought to know that the easiest person to fool is of course yours truly
I seek truth because it is true and not because it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside
So if that is what it makes you feel then it is in all probability the wrong sort of truth
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/192 "2016-11-03T18:26:19Z")
> [@Arminius](#):
>
> A = A is the principle of identity.
Arminius: how about A= -(-A)? That would imply something else. What would it imply? That the negation of a negation is also an identity.But it is not. Any negation is based on absence, and it is absence of options, which marked induction different. The - signe, was not available to ancients way way back, the could only FORM identity by comparing characteristics of objects. So in this sense 1=1 never really existed as an absolute. It is a conceptual simulation, a retrospective, and one can never be for it or against it, except applying the principle of negation, or contradiction, which are again not the same thing.
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/193 "2016-11-03T18:37:34Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> > [@Arminius](#):
> >
> > A = A is the principle of identity.
>
> Arminius: how about A= -(-A)? That would imply something else. What would it imply? That the negation of a negation is also an identity.But it is not. Any negation is based on absence, and it is absence of options, which marked induction different. The - signe, was not available to ancients way way back, the could only FORM identity by comparing characteristics of objects. So in this sense 1=1 never really existed as an absolute. It is a conceptual simulation, a retrospective, and one can never be for it or against it, except applying the principle of negation, or contradiction, which are again not the same thing.
All mathematics is logical, but not all logic is mathematical.
---
### Author:  [@surreptitious57](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/surreptitious57)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/194 "2016-11-03T18:46:25Z")
Mathematics is an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic
But not all logic is maths and so maths is therefore a subset of logic
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/195 "2016-11-03T18:52:02Z")
> [@surreptitious57](#):
>
> Mathematics is an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic
> But not all logic is maths and so maths is therefore a subset of logic
That is what I said before, yes, and in earlier posts too:
> [@Arminius](#):
>
> There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
>
> Mathematics is a subset of logic.
>
> 
Source: [viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506).
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/196 "2016-11-03T20:19:14Z")
jerkey
A reflection would be what? A negation? A contradition? Or something else?
Math blows, let’s try to ditch it!
---
### Author:  [@attano](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/attano)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/197 "2016-11-03T21:16:56Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> Attano: Sorry about my usage, I guess I will always be a hybrid product, of semantic duplicity, having not the good fortune of English being my mother tongue.
> […]
> So a perceptual logic is similar to a logic of perception, and my point is, that such a difference at a certain stage creates an identity between them.
>
> The Kantian ‘should’, is such an emotive element, begging the logical hiddenness of such an equality between them. From this point on,the rejection becomes preponderant, suggesting the overwhelming need for a verification of perceptual connections in terms of established logical linkages.
>
> The later rejection of pre existing logical linkages produced what has come to be variant but compelling trends which modern philosophy has effected on logic.
>
> Attano: Hoping this is an improvement on the preceding.
Jerkey, ok… Thank-you for laying that for me.
I am not actually entering into your argument. I guess you are onto something, possibly quite dense and foundational, yet not really related to my position.
I guess that by logic we do not mean the same thing. You seemingly focus on the way perception is processed, assembled into representations, how representation ‘configure’ perception and how they are linked to each other. I am not looking into that - although the subject is surely worth of consideration.
‘My’ logic is (simply) a formal discipline that can be seen as a branch of mathematics, and even something more elementary like that ((A–\>B) & A) → B is a tautology (and a simulation cannot fool anyone into thinking that it is not). Nor I care here about the way a theory is formed inasmuch as that means the actual making of the theory, I consider only the de jure (talking Kantian) aspects of it.
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/198 "2016-11-03T21:44:41Z")
Logic is not a branch of mathematics. It is just the other way around. Mathematics is a branch of logic.
> [@Arminius](#):
>
> There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
>
> Mathematics is a subset of logic.
>
> 
Source: [viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506).
[/quote]
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/199 "2016-11-03T21:58:39Z")
jerkey
> [@](#):
>
> So a perceptual logic is similar to a logic of perception, and my point is, that such a difference at a certain stage creates an identity between them.
I call it perceptual intelligence, but JSS dismissed it.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/200 "2016-11-03T22:03:41Z")
> [@Arminius](#):
>
> Logic is not a branch of mathematics. It is just the other way around. Mathematics is a branch of logic.
>
> > [@Arminius](#):
> >
> > There is logic, and there is mathematics. All mathematics must be logical, but not all logic must be mathematical.
> >
> > Mathematics is a subset of logic.
> >
> > 
>
> Source: [ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 4#p2618506](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2619024#p2618506).
[/quote]
The middleman (literally in the pic) let’s cut it out. If logic is gutted of math, what’s left? Too much dependency on it, abandon its’ crutchiness.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=9)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=11)