# 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:** 8
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/141 "2016-11-02T19:16:25Z")
> [@Carleas](#):
>
> Is my “simple minded BS” so simple you can’t rebut the specific case of a process that 1) scales linearly with the number of minds and 2) defeats detection by flipping at most one bit per mind?
When you ignore, seemingly everything I have said in order to merely repeat what I have refuted, yes … that is too “simple minded”.
I have explained away your position several times.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/142 "2016-11-02T19:22:10Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> Are you sure that by saying what reality is is no different then saying how it is described?
Yes. It is described with words denoting categories and quanta. But it is not those words, categories, nor quanta. The mind cannot perceive reality directly and thus words, symbols, and such are used in a cartoon type fashion to sufficiently relay as much information about reality as can be handled.
Reality is what is being described. It is not the description.
Don’t confuse the map with the terrain.
---
### Author:  [@Arminius](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arminius)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/143 "2016-11-02T19:41:41Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@jerkey](#):
> >
> > Are you sure that by saying what reality is is no different then saying how it is described?
>
> Yes. It is described with words denoting categories and quanta. But it is not those words, categories, nor quanta. The mind cannot perceive reality directly and thus words, symbols, and such are used in a cartoon type fashion to sufficiently relay as much information about reality as can be handled.
>
> Reality is what is being described. It is not the description.
> Don’t confuse the map with the terrain.
Agreed.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/144 "2016-11-02T20:00:50Z")
Exactly. Nietzsche had the crucial historically relevant problem in genealogy, when he used ‘herkunft’ and ‘ursprung’ at times differently, as contradictive.
What this says about the Positivist school, later in
Wittgenstein is foretelling. This foretelling was made manifest by Monk, who saw the lineage between Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. This presents an effort
by Nietzche to keep a back door open for another
alternative to genealogical possibility. Therefore the ex-post facto reduction has not particularly denied such a link to an original perception.
So there exists particular ambiguity, to the present day.
My point is that perception are ambiguous, simply because of this link between the totally overlapping
and encompassing meaning structure attached to
reality, to the modern version, where detachment challenges this. But what we are becoming detached from, is the lack of interest in original meaning.
No wonder, we can not revert to the more identifiable logic which prescribes to the birth of the tragedy of simulation
: the simulation of implicit use of mask, or
the well defined role making such drama real.
The simulated drama of modern times is no longer easily recognized for what IT IS, because IS has ceased to recognize IT. It has lost the original, and
has instead become simulated without really
recognizing the similarity. This is why Wittgenstein fails, along with the positivist school.
A difference without recognizing what IT is that it is different, and more importantly, how IT IS similarly different.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/145 "2016-11-02T20:46:38Z")
We’ve covered this in basic philosophy.
Yet what a nice way to bring it up! 
---
### Author:  [@Carleas](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Carleas)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/146 "2016-11-02T20:48:30Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> I have explained away your position several times.
Better stop thinking and discussing about it then, quick before you risk realizing that you haven’t.
What you’ve claimed, without evidence or argument, is that as the complexity of a simulation increases, the amount of additional intervention necessary to intervene without the minds being simulated realizing that something is amiss grows exponentially, and at some point the growth is so exponential (?) that it’s infinite.
I pointed out that that’s not true. To say more on that point, 1) exponentially increasing interventions may go towards infinity, but for any finite amount of complexity, the required intervention is finite, 2) you didn’t, and I suspect can’t, point to a simulation that exhibits this behavior; I don’t doubt that there are systems and ways if intervening where exponentially increasing intervention is necessary, but not one in which infinite intervention is necessary (and you’ve pointed to neither), and 3) I’ve provided a mechanism by which an intervention could scale linearly with complexity, and which would only require as many interventions per cycle, and flipping only as many bits, as there are processes capable of detecting a flaw.
You haven’t responded to this. You have: misinterpreted and snarkily dismissed your own invocation of infinity when I referenced it in my rebuttal; quoted me a rhyming truism (which even as such is irrelevant because it’s about minds in the simulation lying to each other, and not about a mind outside the simulation manipulating the minds inside); and repeatedly insulted my position without backing up your insults with examples or argumentation. None of these amount to explaining anything, much less “explain[ing it] away”.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/147 "2016-11-02T20:51:13Z")
Are we gonna get into quantum theory next or possibly matrices ???
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/148 "2016-11-02T21:05:32Z")
> [@Pneumatic-Coma](#):
>
> We’ve covered this in basic philosophy.
>
> Yet what a nice way to bring it up! 
What in particular?
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/149 "2016-11-02T21:09:35Z")
> [@Pneumatic-Coma](#):
>
> > [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
> >
> > Scientists prefer safety and that makes them stupid, closed off, and small minded.
>
> Has it ever occurred to anyone else that maybe MM is actually maniacal… ?
 How rude is your intent! Geniuses are maniacal, duh! 
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/150 "2016-11-02T21:15:39Z")
> [@Carleas](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > That is your presumption.
>
> Or is it [memory modifications](http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191571&start=100#p2636019)? The former is a consequence of things like the latter, namely that a simulation of a mind is made of the medium on which it is running.
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > But as the system gets more complex, with each additional intervention, more intervention will become necessary in order to remove all detectable traces. […] You end up with an exponentially increasing requirement to adjust the situation with each adjustment that you attempt. […] With a system that is complex enough, the intervention requirements become infinite and thus truly impossible to achieve, regardless of what technology you develop in the future.
>
> That last step is unfounded. Yes, increasing complexity increases the complexity of intervention. But we have no simulation for which the complexity of intervention would be infinite.
>
> Moreover, for the type of intervention I’m talking about, the complexity would scale linearly. Let’s say every simulated mind has a “simulation error detection” (SED) process, which would notice the error and become aware that it is in a simulation. Every time the Simulators see that the process returns a positive answer, they can just rewind the clock, flip the value between when it is detected and when the answer is returned, and set the simulation in motion again. The SED is effectively disabled, and, because the SED is the only thing that could notice anything amiss about that, no one notices that anything is amiss.
>
> More generally, detecting incongruity must involve comparing an expected result with an actual result. And a Simulator that can manipulate the memory in a simulation could intervene to change the expected or actual result so that no incongruity is detected.
>
> These should scale linearly with complexity, not exponentially, because at most interventions that will be necessary in each CPU cycle where the process could be triggered is equal to the number of minds in the simulation (i.e., the number of SEDs that could be triggered). That’s a hard cap on the number of interventions, and it scales linearly with the number of minds.
Guys, in re: intervention:
This is what Wittgenstein has been implying from Nietzsche’s allusion, albeit as per quanta of the propositional value of power.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/151 "2016-11-02T21:19:36Z")
> [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
>
> > [@Pneumatic-Coma](#):
> >
> > > [@Maniacal Mongoose](#):
> > >
> > > Scientists prefer safety and that makes them stupid, closed off, and small minded.
> >
> > Has it ever occurred to anyone else that maybe MM is actually maniacal… ?
>
>  How rude is your intent! Geniuses are maniacal, duh! 
Hahaha well that’s not NOT true… Can’t cut the rope of madness loose before you have a personal experience with madness.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/152 "2016-11-02T21:22:39Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> > [@Pneumatic-Coma](#):
> >
> > We’ve covered this in basic philosophy.
> >
> > Yet what a nice way to bring it up! 
>
> What in particular?
Just the whole Ursprung & herkunft thing really…
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/153 "2016-11-02T21:25:22Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> > [@Carleas](#):
> >
> > > [@James S Saint](#):
> > >
> > > That is your presumption.
> >
> > Or is it [memory modifications](http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191571&start=100#p2636019)? The former is a consequence of things like the latter, namely that a simulation of a mind is made of the medium on which it is running.
> >
> > > [@James S Saint](#):
> > >
> > > But as the system gets more complex, with each additional intervention, more intervention will become necessary in order to remove all detectable traces. […] You end up with an exponentially increasing requirement to adjust the situation with each adjustment that you attempt. […] With a system that is complex enough, the intervention requirements become infinite and thus truly impossible to achieve, regardless of what technology you develop in the future.
> >
> > That last step is unfounded. Yes, increasing complexity increases the complexity of intervention. But we have no simulation for which the complexity of intervention would be infinite.
> >
> > Moreover, for the type of intervention I’m talking about, the complexity would scale linearly. Let’s say every simulated mind has a “simulation error detection” (SED) process, which would notice the error and become aware that it is in a simulation. Every time the Simulators see that the process returns a positive answer, they can just rewind the clock, flip the value between when it is detected and when the answer is returned, and set the simulation in motion again. The SED is effectively disabled, and, because the SED is the only thing that could notice anything amiss about that, no one notices that anything is amiss.
> >
> > More generally, detecting incongruity must involve comparing an expected result with an actual result. And a Simulator that can manipulate the memory in a simulation could intervene to change the expected or actual result so that no incongruity is detected.
> >
> > These should scale linearly with complexity, not exponentially, because at most interventions that will be necessary in each CPU cycle where the process could be triggered is equal to the number of minds in the simulation (i.e., the number of SEDs that could be triggered). That’s a hard cap on the number of interventions, and it scales linearly with the number of minds.
>
> Guys, in re: intervention:
>
> This is what Wittgenstein has been implying from Nietzsche’s allusion, albeit as per quanta of the propositional value of power.
Are you talking about “West World”???
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/154 "2016-11-02T21:31:35Z")
Did it ever occur to anyone, that just like we have decompilers and game genies…
That you have this massive thriving variety of gamers that have different motivations, and as such, many would let the “sims” know?
I’m going to use this tack to debate the point rather than others right now …
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/155 "2016-11-02T21:35:09Z")
Arrange a table for the neophytes. Pull up a chair and become laypeople to the cutting edge of physics.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/156 "2016-11-02T21:38:29Z")
Ec,
One created the others.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/157 "2016-11-02T21:39:31Z")
…depending on the intent, the capacity and the foresight of the simulator.(that one)
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/158 "2016-11-02T21:43:16Z")
The one.
---
### Author:  [@Pneumatic-Coma](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pneumatic-Coma)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 10:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/159 "2016-11-02T22:06:30Z")
This one…
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334/160 "2016-11-02T22:20:34Z")
??
There’s only ONE being who can make simulations??!!
I thought this whole thread was about a more advanced SPECIES
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/against-the-simulation-hypothesis/43334.md?page=9)