Kent Forbes, Does the Simulation Hypothesis Defeat Materialism |323|

iPsoFacTo said:
I'm not sure that a technology so far advanced as to create simulations such as we may exist would in any way shape or form be hampered by how we'd define what an algorithm is.

Ya know.... any advanced technology would appear as magic and all that, lol
Click to expand...

This is a good point. You could have a simulation using, say, field effects or even a brain in a vat soaked in chemicals.
 
I listened to the whole show again while out on a walk to try to avoid distractions, and I am now pretty certain Kent is talking about something close to Idealism, and not to massive computers or brains in vats! I think that is why Alex obviously warmed to him, and also why he is working on something with Bernardo (mentioned near the end of the interview). I guess the best analogy to technology would be a multi-player VR setup - so everything is fake except the consciousness and the emotions.

Alex and Kent were more or less gloating over the fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson had taken simulation on board without realising what the concept really entailed. I guess Tyson imagines that in this scenario consciousness arises out of the simulation of the brain, but that isn't really the idea!

If the simulation hypothesis is accepted as a valid scientific conjecture, it opens the way to accepting ID, and explains the fortunate coincidences in the values of the various physical constants that make life possible, etc etc. It sneaks Idealism in by the back door!

That was a great podcast, Alex!

David
 
David Bailey said:
I listened to the whole show again while out on a walk to try to avoid distractions, and I am now pretty certain Kent is talking about something close to Idealism, and not to massive computers or brains in vats! I think that is why Alex obviously warmed to him, and also why he is working on something with Bernardo (mentioned near the end of the interview).
Click to expand...
I agree with you that he and Bernardo probably share a lot of common ground. Perhaps Kent's presentation is more relatable and sellable to technically literate wider population, who haven't given much thought to philosophical models of reality?

However, I think the simulation hypothesis might resolve some of the objections to most other models (eg dualism, neutral monism and panpsychism to name but 3). Kent does at one point remark on how closely mind and matter appear to be intertwined. But that seems uncontroversial in any model, even physicalism.
 
Alex said:
thx. I'm open to this, but a little skeptical as well. Does anyone know if Sheldrake has weighted in... he's very skeptical of the whole DNA is everything idea.
Click to expand...

From memory, I think Rupert's point about DNA is that it is not a blueprint or an instruction set for building an organism. That DNA is a protein factory (a hugely complex and efficient one) but nothing more. It is the first of many mysteries on how a complex living entity such as a tree or a chimp is put together and operates. His morphogenetic field is one way of attempting to answer part of that conundrum.

The familiar refrain "it's in my DNA" is ubiquitous these days - as if it explains everything from their good looks to their taste for Belgian chocolate.
 
Last edited:
malf said:
I agree with you that he and Bernardo probably share a lot of common ground. Perhaps Kent's presentation is more relatable and sellable to technically literate wider population, who haven't given much thought to philosophical models of reality?

However, I think the simulation hypothesis might resolve some of the objections to most other models (eg dualism, neutral monism and panpsychism to name but 3). Kent does at one point remark on how closely mind and matter appear to be intertwined. But that seems uncontroversial in any model, even physicalism.
Click to expand...

I agree that the fact that mind and matter interact is not controversial (although assuming that mind and matter are different "stuff" might be) but surely the real controversy arises when we discuss causality. The delayed choice quantum eraser, described in the video, takes a bit of explaining in physicalist terms, does it not?
 
Enjoyed the interview. With respect to Alex's discussion of love as a feeling experienced by travelers to the "other side", my experience of love "over there" was of a particularly heightened form of energy which was fully absorbed by my being. Analogous to ecstatic joy but more than that.
 
Last edited:
Haven't watched the documentary yet, but off the top of my head...the simulation theory seems like a creation myth for the digital age. I found Kent's response to Alex's question about having 'pushed the hypothesis too far' to be unsatisfying.... if not a total cop-out. My impression from Alex's question was that Kent promotes the premise in the film. But he essentially answers the question by saying that he is indifferent to the actual objective truth of the theory... because as an artist he's only concerned with eliciting an emotional response or connection from his audience.

But again... I haven't seen the film yet. Perhaps I'll have a different impression after watching it.
 
Kamarling said:
Sometimes that computer metaphor gets spookily close, though. I'm thinking specifically about DNA coding, even down to the appearance of Error Correction Codes (ECC). Michael, you would probably be able to comment on that better than I could.
Click to expand...

Well, the link to the DNA controversy on Sheldrake's site you pointed to stresses that DNA coding only specifies the production of proteins. According to Lewis Wolpert:

Animals develop from a single cell, a fertilised egg, which divides to produce cells that will form the embryo. How that egg develops into an embryo and newborn animal is controlled by genes in the chromosomes. These genes are passive: they do nothing, just provide the code for proteins. It is proteins that determine how cells behave. While the DNA in every cell contains the code for all the proteins in all the cells, it is the particular proteins produced in particular cells that determine how those cells behave.​

This seems to point to a higher level of coordination and control than the DNA code itself, for which, as David has pointed out, there are repair mechanisms in place that seem to largely obviate the need for error correction since it takes place before copying occurs.

While DNA coding is fairly close in concept to computer programming, there could be something at a higher level of control which as yet hasn't been figured out and which might not be explicable in terms of coding. If that level isn't mediated by apparently solid objects, but is in fact a capability of purposive intention, then the computer analogy becomes somewhat strained.

At some point, there appears to be a vacuum where materialistic explanations fail. Will we discover new principles and new "physical" entities to at least partially fill the gaps? Maybe, but my guess is that we'll always be left with something inexplicable in terms of deterministic, matter-mediated processes.
 
Alex made a point of asking Kent if we are not taking the new technology that we're currently obsessed with and projecting it onto reality to provide an explanatory paradigm.

As Alex pointed out, we have done this historically - when clocks and mechanisation were novel inventions for example. One could argue that even paradigms centred on myths arose from the same human compulsion to view reality as an analogue of whatever was at the forefront of society's awareness.... even if all that was available for projection was the imagination itself.

So here are a couple of thoughts after watching the documentary: The phenomena described in the film certainly appear to be contrary to the conventional materialist worldview. But is the simulation theory the only or even best theory to account for them? Or is this more a matter of a very specific class of folks - I believe Bernardo Kastrup used the term 'nerds' - perhaps unconsciously allowing a deep interest and fondness for all things related to computer technology to overly influence their work?
 
Michael Harris said:
Alex made a point of asking Kent if we are not taking the new technology that we're currently obsessed with and projecting it onto reality to provide an explanatory paradigm.

As Alex pointed out, we have done this historically - when clocks and mechanisation were novel inventions for example. One could argue that even paradigms centred on myths arose from the same human compulsion to view reality as an analogue of whatever was at the forefront of society's awareness.... even if all that was available for projection was the imagination itself.

So here are a couple of thoughts after watching the documentary: The phenomena described in the film certainly appear to be contrary to the conventional materialist worldview. But is the simulation theory the only or even best theory to account for them? Or is this more a matter of a very specific class of folks - I believe Bernardo Kastrup used the term 'nerds' - perhaps unconsciously allowing a deep interest and fondness for all things related to computer technology to overly influence their work?
Click to expand...

This was, kind of, my first response on listening to this.

However, after listening again without distractions, I'd really like to know whether the Simulation Hypothesis is, in effect, a statement of Idealism.

David
 
Here is my 2 cents worth. I beleve the simulation hypothesis and the case against materialism can best be defended by theoretical physics. Theoretical physics does not rule out the possibility of an afterlife (multiverse) or the survival of brain function after death (quantum immortality). Through quantum decoherence and quantum superposition, the idea of parallel universes offers the best possibility for the existence of a parallel universe acting as a person's afterlife universe when death occurs. As derived from the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is theoretically possible a living person to exist in superposition in a parallel universe (including their mental states and electrical discharges occurring throughout their brain and nervous system). Many-Worlds views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realized including the possibility of branches to universes that doesn't lead to a living person's death. Theoretically, this makes it possible for a living person to continue living in a parallel universe when the person dies in this current universe.

Quantum mechanics provides undeniable, mathematical proof that everything we know and experience works in fundamentally bizarre ways. Matter is 99% empty space and quantum particles are zero-dimensional points. Time travel into the future is possible at high speeds. Quantum information can teleport through impenetrable walls. Quantum particles can exist in two places at the same time and change their behavior when there is a conscious observer. "Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments" performed in 2000 (and afterward) strongly demonstrates mental observation and choice is deeply rooted in quantum mechanics. Without mental observation, all matter exists in an undetermined state of probability, time has no real existence, and space is just a concept we use to make sense of things. We experience time as obvious and straightforward; but each moment of mental function contains a different set of memories and experiences and it wouldn’t matter if our timeline is completely scrambled.

Rather than a constant flow of experience, mental states can be broken up in intervals or time-quanta of 0.042 seconds, each of which make up one moment of neural substrate. Each state consists of a certain amount of quantum information which can theoretically be stored on a hard drive for example; and there is much progress ongoing this technology. But the current string theory interpretation of the holographic principle defines our universe existing as a hologram -- a two-dimensional structure where all the quantum information we perceive in three dimensions is stored. First proposed by the emminent physicist David Bohm (author of Bohmian mechanics and the holonomic brain theory), a holographic universe can theoretically encode every quantized moment of our existence and experiences from the universe. This holographic model of reality allows for phenomena considered "paranormal" such as near-death experiences, other phenomena involving life after death, and mental telepathy for example. The universe as a single hologram also solves the mystery of quantum entanglement which Einstein called "spooky actions from a distance."

The materialist model of conventional science is based on the old paradigm of Newtonian classical mechanics and is fundamentally flawed. At its core, it intentionally ignores the fundamental component of existence - the nature of consciousness -- even though the pioneers of quantum mechanics demonstrated and believed that consciousness has a definite role in creating reality. Mainstream materialist theories of consciousness use classical mechanics in assuming consciousness is produced from "goo". So they focus particularly on complex computation at synapses in the brain allowing communication between neurons. But because quantum vibrations have been discovered in microtubules in the brain, a theory developed by the emminent physicist Roger Penrose known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), which allows for a person's quantum consciousness to exist in the multiverse, has garnered significant support. At death, the quantum information processed inside these microtubules doesn’t disappear. Instead, is retained on the edge of the event horizon of the singularity from which our universe projected; thereby allowing the information to be retrieved after death.

One of the fundamental laws in physics, the first law of thermodynamics, states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - only transformed. This law supports all these theories (Many-Worlds, a holographic universe, and quantum consciousness) that a person and their quantum energy cannot be destroyed and is immortal. These theories, including the simulation hypothesis, demonstrate how the old materialist paradigm will someday soon be on its way out.
 
malf said:
Working my way through it... :eek: but does this help?

http://jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/EllermanDavid2012Man_QuantumEraser2.pdf
Click to expand...

I thought I had seen that before and it turns out that Arouet posted a link to it in a similar discussion here in 2013. I've just had a bit of a scan through the googleverse and can't find many others citing the paper though it does appear in other discussion groups. He claims that Zeilinger is one of the prominent physicists who make the fallacy but I can't find any acknowledgement that Zeilinger has read or commented on the Ellerman paper. Meanwhile, Zeilinger and his team have continued with the quantum eraser experiments.

I certainly don't have the technical expertise to comment on either view but I would have expected more acknowledgement of Ellerman since 2011 if he had a case. If you work it all out, Malf, let us know. :)
 
Last edited:
If you read Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Immortality" it would appear you can argue for the simulation hypothesis - and even something like a theological "God" - starting from a set of purely materialistic assumptions. Of course many argue that Tipler's views are pseudo-science but plenty of so-called scientific disciplines including Cognitive Science, Cognitive Neuroscience and even Psychiatry are not too far removed from a similar accusation of pseudoscience, at least in my opinion. A materialist notion of the simulation hypothesis takes the position that certain physical structures have consciousness by virtue of their information bearing states and that the simulation of those "information bearing states" by another physical system may also produce consciousness. Boy, this idea has so many philosophical questions to unpack it's hard to know where to begin. What the hell are "information bearing states" you ask? "Information bearing states" is the kind of jargon philosophers use, it sounds intelligent but it may not be saying anything concrete or operational in a scientific sense. To be honest, I'm not even sure if my definition of the "materialist notion of the simulation hypothesis" could even act as a legitimate "scientific hypothesis" - most likely not. Yep, I think that if Neil Degrasse Tyson believes in the "simulation hypothesis" he may not really know what it is he is really believing in. Judging by this episode of Skeptiko, perhaps it's just the "love" of an idea such as "the simulation hypothesis" that matters and we can all believe in that.
 
David Bailey said:
This was, kind of, my first response on listening to this.

However, after listening again without distractions, I'd really like to know whether the Simulation Hypothesis is, in effect, a statement of Idealism.

David
Click to expand...

I suspect inappropriate words are being used. What does "simulation" mean? One dictionary definition that seems to be applicable here is: "a representation of a problem, situation, etc, in mathematical terms, esp using a computer".

The word in this sense implies that the simulation is representation of a real situation occurring somewhere else. It isn't real here, but is real there. What puzzles me is that if it's real there, why bother representing it here? To my mind, there are Machiavellian undertones here that imply some sort of entity that's almost Abrahamic in nature; one that is rather cynically manipulating our apparent reality for its own entertainment.

I'd rather not think in terms of a simulation. The situation here isn't a representation of anything elsewhere, but more how we're perceiving our current situation here; there's a compelling perception of separate objects that give an overwhelming impression of physicality, but that perception is just a representation of reality in our minds. We only have words like physical and solid on account of our perceptions, which tend to force us into a certain interpretation of reality: an interpretation which is very useful for survival purposes -- which sane person would jump from what appears to be a tall building or stand in front of what appears to be a moving train? Tall buildings and trains represent something real in the situation we're perceiving here. We can, as a matter of fact, create models built on those perceptions that work to greater or lesser extents: the process of modelling is called physics.

It wouldn't so much be a simulation projected by something else somewhere else, as a representation of reality in our minds; minds that according to Bernardo Kastrup are dissociated aspects of Mind At Large able to view itself from those minds' perspective. The driving impulse would be the desire to come to know more and more from that perspective, to improve our models to the point, ideally, where MAL can experience itself perfectly from that perspective. This implies that MAL in and of itself isn't omniscient: it's coming to know itself in a way new to it through us; through us, it could be staving off a kind of cosmic boredom. This isn't the same as cynical manipulation for entertainment purposes, because in the end MAL isn't a distinct and separate entity: it actually invests itself in us, enjoying and suffering everything that we enjoy or suffer.

I don't know in the end whether Kent Forbes equates simulation with Idealism; I suppose his position might be clearer as and when his collaboration with Bernardo comes to fruition. But as I say, I'm not a great fan of the term simulation as I see it as a subtle form of dualism.
 
Here's something I posted at Bernardo's blog in The linguistic demon of space time thread back in April of this year. It seems to relate to what we've been discussing:

I've been attempting myself recently to talk in language free of time, space and objects. I didn't alight on the idea of the cognitive big bang, however, so much as the idea of dissociation. The One's dissociation is what causes the impression of space, time, and separate objects.

Of those three, the most important is the concept of oneself as a separate object: around that, the concepts of space and time coalesce. When an apparent other is psychologically close, that can be experienced as either a "mental" or a "physical" closeness. "Physical" parting from someone not particularly psychologically close is experienced as their retreating--becoming smaller, and they may eventually disappear. Their apparent or inferred size is able to be mathematically calculated, and the smaller they apparently become, the longer it will take them to return at any given "rate of travel". Time and space aren't two separate things so much as one thing thought of in two different ways, each implying the other. We may express this in units such as the light year or light second or light millisecond, which is a measure of apparent distance even though it has an inbuilt notion of time.

What does "closeness" signify? Possibly, the degree of knowledge of apparent other. The more we know an apparent other, the closer it may seem regardless of apparent distance. This can apply to objects we think of as inanimate--such as the sun. The more we have come to know it, the larger it has come to appear to us. At one time, it was experienced as a bright and warm light in the sky with a particular daily behaviour, but now we think of it as being very large and much further away than we formerly thought. We've always known and appreciated it as a life-supporter, but now we know (or at least have accepted theories) about what it is, and paradoxically that brings with it a sense of increased propinquity. When we know the sun completely in more detail, it will be that much closer still, even though we'll continue to think of it as being 93,000,000 miles away.

But the sun needn't actually be *any* "distance" away, and nor need any apparent other. All things could be at the same locus, just being experienced as if they were at various distances according to how much we know of them. Apparently very small apparent objects may seem very close physically, e.g. the mosquito biting us, or gut bacteria, or our constituent elementary particles, but they all give the impression of a certain size and a certain distance from us according to how much we know of them: and that knowledge isn't necessarily just academic, but experiential.

All the universe, big as it seems, could in fact occupy no space at all; all the apparent distances could just be expressions of how much we know apparent others, and the way they communicate with us could be interpreted as what gives the impression of time. Apparently very distant objects we think of as sending us signals very fast: light speed in fact, and we take that speed, or some reasonable fraction of it, and may apply it to very small objects. "Fast" and "slow" are just concepts that express how "quickly" or "slowly" an apparent other can apparently communicate with us, where "communicate" is used in its widest sense of being able to register itself on our consciousness.

In a universe where there were no apparent other, there wouldn't be the apparent sensation of time or distance: but as soon as the One dissociates, such sensations necessarily follow.

I'm not sure if I'm getting this across, and I'm sure it's still a bit fuzzy and quite possibly inaccurate. However, we have a tendency to think in terms of causation, which is what lies behind all of our science. We are forever trying to discover the *mechanisms* behind phenomena, which rely on notions of space, time and objects; but there may be no such thing as causation, so much as appearances of what we think of as causation. The Source of all isn't chaotic; it possesses its own internal logic, a part of which we characterise as universal laws; it can't help but be as it is, and present itself to (apparent) "us" as we perceive it. There is no causation, just Source behaving as it has to and appearing to us as separate objects in apparent space and time, which we don't fully understand; hence our idea of "causation" and "mechanism" arise as a way of coming to know it better.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top