Comment

Comment on Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation

lung@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

This is such a boring take, I wonder how anyone gets funding or publication making a statement as useless as “see godels incompleteness theorem that proves that there’s more truth than what mathematics can prove, therefore reality is not a simulation”. Yes, we know, you don’t need a PhD to know the major theorem that took down the entire school of logical positivism. The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical. Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep

source

Sort:hotnew top

magic_lobster_party@fedia.io ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep

Dreams are an approximation of reality at best. It’s not a perfect simulation.

source
- fodor@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Prove it.
  
  source
  - magic_lobster_party@fedia.io ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    My bad. Of course you’re right.
    
    I’ve dreamt that levitation is possible. Therefore, levitation is possible in reality. QED
    
    source
    Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The question is rather What is “reality”: the dream (et al.) or the physical world (what you describe as reality). See Descartes first two meditations (and note that he relies fully on the existence of God to prove the existence of reality later). In this case, us experiencing a “dream” just serves to outline the point; Descartes, for example, also suggests that we are being fooled by an evil daemon. If it’s a dream or an evil daemon — doesn’t matter; it would likely be something entirely beyond our comprehension anyway. But genuinely proving the physical world as being reality is very difficult.
    
    source
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical.

Uh... that's literally what a simulation is.

Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep

But dreams aren't simulating reality as we observe it; they just kinda do their own thing. Your brain isn't consistently simulating quantum mechanics (or, hell, even simple things like clocks) while you're dreaming so this is a moot point.

source
- lung@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  People who are lucid dreaming simulate a full reality that’s nearly indistinguishable from the one they find themselves in during waking time. If your brain can’t tell the difference during this time, how can you be sure you’re not dreaming right now reading this?
  
  The scope of what a simulation is has always been limited by the technology we know. It is only a failing of imagination and knowledge to assume that algorithmic computation is the only valid form of simulation in the future, these have existed for barely 100 years, but even Plato’s cave was talking about the larger philosophical problem
  
  source
  - yakko@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    A lucid dream does not fully simulate anything, it is an altered state that includes the subjective apprehension of verisimilitude. Perceptions and apprehensions, even outside of altered states, do not constitute proof of anything.
    
    source
  - TheFogan@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    While I’m far from an expert on it… at best the dream simulations are still, extremely rudimentary. To the point that’s usually how you can tell it isn’t real by doing something like reading a book. IE it’s largely believable, but only because you are put in a gullible state. Like watching 2 year old AI videos, while stoned.
    
    source
  - FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    People who are lucid dreaming simulate a full reality that’s nearly indistinguishable from the one they find themselves in during waking time.
    
    You’re not describing a simulation, you’re describing a perception. A person perceives that they’re seeing an indistinguishable reality, but we know that people’s brains do not have the computational power to simulate molecular motion in even a cubic centimeter of air.
    
    Or, if they look at the stars, are they then simulating an infinite space with infinite mass and all of the associated interactions inside of their finite brain? Of course not, that would be impossible.
    
    Dreams are perceptions, not simulations.
    
    source
    lung@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The mind while lucid dreaming is creating a whole environment, which for some people has incredible level of detail. Your “consciousness” is experiencing a whole video game or whatever, which must be simulated to be percieved. Imagine you had some kind of really advanced VR setup and body suit that could touch your senses very richly - something must be feeding that perception, a simulation
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - henfredemars@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I take issue with completeness in a very similar way. For example, imagine for some reason that in the simulation it’s impossible to think about penguins. Let’s say that penguins are so logically incomprehensible that we cannot implement this.
    
    The implementation of the simulation could simply trap any attempt to think about penguins and replace it with something else. We would be none the wiser. The simulation still works even if there are states that we can’t get to or are undefined.
    
    It could be that reality itself isn’t entirely complete and defined everywhere. Who’s to say this isn’t one big dream and that the sky isn’t there if we all stopped looking?
    
    source