Is Simulation Theory Naturalistic?

[Eddi]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

I do not understand this simulation theory you speak of, but i have a few questions.

1: where is the computer that run the simulation?
2: Who is maintaining it?
3: If something goes wrong in the simulation, what or whom is fixing it?

 

[Eddi]

I do not understand this simulation theory you speak of, but i have a few questions.

1: where is the computer that run the simulation?
2: Who is maintaining it?
3: If something goes wrong in the simulation, what or whom is fixing it?

I put a link to its wikipedia page in my OP: Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

According to my understanding:

1) Nobody knows - I should think probably on a planet that orbits a star. But maybe on some kind of spaceship or orbital installation? For all we know it could be anywhere. I don't think it really matters.

2) I think it was created and maintained by intelligent beings who have advanced technology - I call the people who maintain it "The Over-Seers". I think some are computer specialists who do all the technical stuff (programers, perhaps) and that others are academics who learn from what goes on within The Simulation. So I think it is most likely in some kind of university. I think that's what makes most sense!

3) I believe the Over-Seers who are programmers resolve any errors and I think they have the auto-save function on so if anything terrible happens they can effectively wind back time to the time when The Simulation was saved. And nobody would ever know!

 

[Spirit of Light]

I put a link to its wikipedia page in my OP: Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

According to my understanding:

1) Nobody knows - I should think probably on a planet that orbits a star. But maybe on some kind of spaceship or orbital installation? For all we know it could be anywhere. I don't think it really matters.

2) I think it was created and maintained by intelligent beings who have advanced technology - I call the people who maintain it "The Over-Seers". I think some are computer specialists who do all the technical stuff (programers, perhaps) and that others are academics who learn from what goes on within The Simulation. So I think it is most likely in some kind of university. I think that's what makes most sense!

3) I believe the Over-Seers who are programmers resolve any errors and I think they have the auto-save function on so if anything terrible happens they can effectively wind back time to the time when The Simulation was saved. And nobody would ever know!

So if i understand youcorrectly (i may not understand it correctly) You speak of Aliens and that they have control over humans?

 

[George-ananda]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

It seems to me though that at least the 'simulator source' would not be naturalistic in that definition.

 

[Eddi]

So if i understand youcorrectly (i may not understand it correctly) You speak of Aliens and that they have control over humans?

I think the term "Alien" is very relative - to people who live on another planet we humans are the Aliens

But yes, I don't believe that the Over-Seers of The Simulation are humans - humanoid maybe, but not Homo Sapiens

So yes, I'm saying I believe that non-Homo Sapiens have a degree of control over us Homo Sapiens

 

[osgart]

Well if the simulation is generating very real causes and effects, generating very real physical attributes then what does the information consist of. To say that we are not experiencing anything but illusion is not something anyone can prove. It's on the contrary disproven.

A video game simulation can't generate touch, and pain in a living program.

So if this is a simulation then information is the manipulation of physical stuff from a base reality.

A simulation isn't a creation ex nihilo. There must be actual physical resources that are used to encode information to our reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

Well a simulation still is reality. The reality of a simulation.

I can see it as naturalism.

 

[Nimos]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

Hmm..

Im not sure what you would call it to be honest. Because if its all a simulation, how would we know that these are natural laws, as we would clearly measure and observe the simulation and not reality Which would mean that we would have no clue what a natural world really is, only what the simulation tells us it is. Atoms etc. in theory could not exist at all in reality but is merely a form of mathematics, like some advanced binary code 00110110. But to us they appear as something that makes up our natural world.

Imagine a computer game, where you are a superhero and you push an enemy which fly through a wall or whatever, because that is the setting of the "force" by which the player should interact with an enemy. But that force does not represent the natural laws, so even forces in the Universe might simply be a setting set in the simulation because the creators thought that it would be cool

Also I think I mentioned this in another thread also about simulation theory, is the amount of energy needed to run such simulation. If the simulation is following our understanding of natural laws, that means that we (the human race) could potentially create our own simulation, and that simulation could make their own which could go on to infinity. But the first simulation would have to run all of them, because it's the only true one, which actually have any energy at all. Which means that you would require an infinite amount of energy and computer power to run all these potential simulations. And I don't see how that could work. Because I think that, in itself would break with our understanding of natural laws, so for this to be possible there would need to be other natural laws at work that we don't know, and therefore the simulation theory as I see it, can't be a naturalistic view. I think that I would probably draw that conclusion if I had to answer yes or no to the question

 

[Heyo]

Wikipedia says, on its page about naturalism:

In philosophy naturalism is the idea or belief that only naturallaws and forces (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual ones) operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws.

If this is the case then I think Simulation Theory is a naturalistic world view.

I don't think one can say that the notion of a futuristic super-computer beyond what we are currently capable of designing is at all supernatural.

Neither do I think that a computer simulation in which the regular laws of the universe can be changed is supernatural either.

The Simulation Hypothesis is not scientific (and not naturalistic) because it contradicts the first axiom of science (and naturalism).

1. Reality is real.

 

[Eddi]

The Simulation Hypothesis is not scientific (and not naturalistic) because it contradicts the first axiom of science (and naturalism).

1. Reality is real.

But Sim Theory says that the reality as in "base reality" is real, that the world outside of The Simulation is "real"

So I disagree with you there

 

[Heyo]

But Sim Theory says that the reality as in "base reality" is real, that the world outside of The Simulation is "real"

So I disagree with you there

Even if that were an argument (it isn't), it would still violate Axiom 3.

3. The universe is knowable.

 

[night912]

1) Nobody knows - I should think probably on a planet that orbits a star. But maybe on some kind of spaceship or orbital installation? For all we know it could be anywhere. I don't think it really matters.

No, it's located in Machine City. Apparently you did not do your homework on The Matrix Lore. I suggest you get started on it, especially since the Matrix 4 is coming out soon.