I'm simply pointing out that there's a huge logic gap in the simulation arguments. What we mean by simulation is something like programming the players in a video game. Then we say, "Could we be a simulation?" But that's a completely different meaning of the word "simulation." In the latter usage, we mean a video game whose characters are self-aware and can conduct physics experiments. I'm not taking a position on the ultimate answer to existence. I'm simply pointing out a gaping hole in the simulation argument. And what does "simulation" mean, anyway, if all you mean is a higher level of consciousness programs self-awareness into beings one level down? By that definition, God is the programmer and we are the program. So in the end, the simulation argument is meaningless metaphysics.
Who knows? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the article, physicists are trying to turn this metaphysical question into an experimental one.
Fading Past)( Dawning Future both going forward->->-> Physical/energy ergo "-awareness" = otherness = twoness = consciousness is set of feedback relationships/interrerlationships within a closed system we call Universe, that we experience as time/motion/frequencies even tho, the NOW is eternally at most cross section plane of the greater 3D whole ergo a scenario of infinite set of 2D snapshots. See Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" for more visualization of how I see the above. Metapysical-1 = "self-" is the mind/intelligence resultant of above cause and effect scenario snapshots, ergo we have access to mind/intelligence abstracts as considered sets of the any of the above. My apologies for in past refering mistakenly to Brian Greens The Elegant Universe in this thread or others. past)(future....where 2D NOW is the place of awarness between the tangental "fading past and dawning future". This latter in quotes as that is a R.B Fuller
