@@ParkersPensees Parker this topic touches on a niche intersection of interests of mine and judging by your shirt and the book that I see in the background I'm guessing it's a shared interest. And that is the theology and philosophy of Philip K dick. I was actually really drawn in by his work when I was a very immature Christian and probably was a little too into it but I still have a very soft spot in my heart for his work and his visionary. His views are essentially gnostic and I'm not sure he even tried to hide that but he conflated it with Christianity it seems. Absolutely fascinating writer. It's impossible to mention simulation theory without mentioning Philip k dick I think
Watched the first 10 minutes of this video, and immrdiately called my dad and talked to my friends. This is too fascinating of a topic to ignore. Will watch the rest later.
Excellent discussion. I liked the apologetics focus. My biggest points of contention with simulation hypothesis are the implications on incarnation and the atonement. I subbed to Parker. As someone who appreciates facial hair, I gotta say NICE STACH! 🤩
Since it is based on the materialist dogma that matter is primary, the Simulation Hypothesis simply assumes that simulated beings could "become" conscious, no valid arguments given for that. If you want to run a simulation with conscious NPCs, you need a provider of consciousness, and so far we only know God, who knows how to do that and has kept it a secret.
At about minute 51:00, a question about “the image of God” comes up and what it is. It is probably a statement of purpose, ie we are image bearers and our job (role) is to reflect God so that He might be known. A “conscious” being we create (ie one that is aware of its own existence and it’s role in reality) wouldn’t be a image bearer by default. Only God can assign that purpose.
If the universe is a simulation, then it must stand that the information (code) for the simulation exists somewhere (on a cosmic hard-drive). If the information (code) for the simulation must be stored somewhere, then there is limited amount of data available for programing the simulation. Every simulation that a simulation creates within itself (simulation within a simulation) would add more information to the code of the higher simulation. For the information of the simulation's simulation must take up space in the simulation, and must be maintained orderly in order to keep the simulation's simulation running. If every sub-simulation requires extra code on the parent simulation, then this would limit the number of simulations possible. For Simulation A needs extra storage to hold Simulation B within Simulation A, but Simulation B needs extra storage to hold Simulation C, then Simulation A needs additional storage to hold a greater amount of storage within Simulation B. Therefore, there is decreased room for storage with each successive simulation. Therefore, base reality must have infinite storage, or else there is a finite number of possible simulations within simulations.
Yeah, the realities would degrade and become more simplistic the further down you went, because there would be less room for processing power to run it. Heck, some of the "evidence" for simulation theory (such as space becoming "pixelated" once you zoom in enough) relies on the presumption these are processing shortcuts that wouldn't be needed in "base" reality (even though we have no examples to prove that isn't simply how base reality works anyway).
This is so fun! You always make the best videos. I am so glad you are not afraid to talk about topics like these that the young generation is believing at the moment
😂 me too.......but i was thinking if im a simulated being, someone had to create the simulation of pain and there are soooo many levels of pain that it would need lots of thought and effort......small things like stubibng my toe seems to be useless effort to simulate 😊😅
Thanks for having Nietzsche on the podcast Gavin. Also, you made a comment in passing that seems to be very revealing and evidence for a biblical worldview. Around 32 in, you said “[regarding our hypothetical restraint from creating conscious beings if we had the ability] we’d be able to, but we wouldn’t do this…Restraint at the use of our technology is not our defining characteristic…If we can do something, we will, even if it destroys us”…..Doesn’t that sound like an accurate summation of the fall? We were even told disobedience would destroy us and we chose it anyway. The fact that history is replete with examples of this human proclivity is great evidence of the fall and man’s sinful nature.
If we lived in a simulation, why would the simulators make us such that we believe in religion? Why is Religion and other “myths” part of this simulation?
The digital physics argument that was presented by Mike Jones of Inspiring Philosophy actually played a large role in my coming to faith and so I don't think the simulation hypothesis is really at odds with theism. P1. We live in a simulation. P2. Simulations exist either in a computer or a mind. P3. A computer simulation still requires a mind. P4. If we need to posit a mind, it's simpler to posit that we exist as a simulation in a mind. P5. It's simpler to posit that we exist as a simulation in a mind (from P3 and P4). C1. We exist as a simulation in a mind (from P1, P2, and p5) C2. This mind we call God.
Jacob, what would be the difference between a "real" world and one that is a simulation in God's mind? If God upholds matter at any time (as the letter of Hebrews says), it seems to not matter whether you call that which he upholds "matter" or "mind".
In order to have consciousness, one needs a soul. A computer program may simulate a landscape in 3D and high resolution, but it cannot create separate beings with self-awareness.
There are hard numerical problems to the simulation hypothesis. As long as the simulation is done in numbers with finite precision, the simulation will always degrade such that there are a finite number of possible simulations with a given "resolution."
We could estimate an upper bound on how many nested simulations we could create (there would probably be efficiency losses each step in), but not the other way around.
@@dougrattmann1 Well, here's the thing. If there is a chain of simulations, it has a finite number of links. It's already established that there is a lower bound due to finite numerical precision. There is an upper bound as well. If there are infinite possible simulators, then there is one such simulator that chose not to simulate (utilizing a Barkan Sentence). Therefore, we would exist as one link in the finite chain. But then, we suddenly lose some of the necessity of the argument. We don't know how large our chain is, but it certainly doesn't have the weight of infinite probability standing on its side. There's an additional problem. If we accept the simulation hypothesis, then we have to accept that nature is discretized. However, time appears to be continuous. We can have no simulator in that case. So, the continuity of time disappears if we accept the hypothesis. That's a very steep price to pay.
@D Costello I can't think of a way to get around the idea that the "next level up" couldn't simply have N+1 resources needed to simulate base layers. Now, I don't think a hypothetical chain above us could be infinite -- due to casual first-mover concerns -- but I do think there is no way to constrain or place a bound on how large such a stack could be. Going down from our reality, we can suppose that we can at best simulate a universe of conscious minds slightly smaller than our own; and from there, a slightly smaller one, and so forth. Eventually there would be a limit on how low-resolution the bottom-most sim could be, at least going down from our reality. So, the chain is finite, and we can estimate a hypothetical max nesting depth from our POV, just not how many layers *we* may be away from base reality.
I think there is a modern bias that assumes information technology is a natural progression and not just a recent fluke, which it likely is. However as a metaphor for how God renders reality from the base reality I could accept 'simulation.'
Much depends on what you think consciousness really is. I personally hold that consciousness is not emergent and certainly not computationally based. If am right, then consciousness can never be created inside a computer simulation, no matter how sophisticated or technically advanced. On this assumption, point #1 of Nick Bostrom's trilema holds true, i.e., we will never achieve a simulated world in which conscious life exists, independent of our own. Not because we will never become technically advanced enough to do so, but because doing so is not a technological problem. (See Roger Penrose for a discussion of whether consciousness can be achieved by computational means. Not that I believe consciousness is a quantum phenomenon as he does, but I like his arguments that it can't reduced to computation.)
A lot of people have taken issue with the Lucas-Penrose appropriation of Gödel's incompleteness args to argue against computationalism, citing the fact that while we might not have the same Gödel sentence as a modern computer under view, that doesn't mean we aren't a computational system with our own Gödel sentence. I don't think computationalism is correct, but I'm not sure Penrose (or Lucas who first applied Gödel to the mind) get us there. I'm a substance dualist, but I also am tempted to think there are psycho-physical laws. If there are, then it's possible, in principle, to 'hack' those laws and get a mind to attach to a different substrate than a carbon based brain. If that's possible then we can have digital conscious sims. 😅 what a mouthful.
Tower of Babel II, descent into Hell, sinthetic "reality", which is make-believe. The "next step in spiritual "evolution" will be the mark of the beast, conforming to the image of the destroyer and Abbadon. The talmudic philosophers know this and are hiding the truth (Lk 11.52) behind hifalutin, very engaging language, meant to entrap the soul and leave the body to burn in hell apart from God, for eternity (Genesis 14.21)
To me the primary problem of simulation theory is its often appealed to in order to simplify or reduce explanations of the world, but in fact it multiplies causality and complexity since you now have placed the grounding for our world outside it... you now need another, larger, older, higher resolution world. Its the opposite of Okkams Razor. The second issue is computational, but some argumebta against that problem may be able to explain that to some extent.
I think perhaps the best argument against simulation argument is the fact that consciousness/soul/rationality is an immaterial aspect. At best AI or robots are a type of artifact that can perhaps mimic consciousness to a degree but not truly be conscious because we know that software/hardware (artifacts in a philosophical sense) cannot achieve consciousness. Just as how a camera cannot actually "see" no matter how advanced or complex it becomes. There is nothing that is a part or aspect of it, no individual person, ego, self which can have both the experience of seeing and knowing it is seeing.
40:36 How do you square a statement like, "The Nature of the love of God is such, that it would encompass not just base reality, but it would encompass every conscious creature" with the Doctrine of Limited Atonement? Keeping in mind that the question was pertaining to the extent of the Atonement.
I thought if this jokingly with a buddy if mine. We're both believers. I was like, the spirit world IS the real world and this physical world is the simulated reality to test the souls of mankind. Etc. Etc. Something like that. It was a fun conversation.
As said, all arguments for Theism shoot us right back to Base Reality, at which point you need to ask, would an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Benevolent God allow sims to exist who think they are real, when they're not? I'm not convinced that He would. I'm also not convinced that sims will ever achieve consciousness like we have.
Could someone kindly explain to me please what the difference would be between believing that we live in a simulation and believing that "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"?
OK, good stuff. I might suggest something I'm certain Parker has thought of lol: 1.) We can get past simulations by thinking through the nature of consciousness. Chinese-Room style arguments rule out the emergence of consciousness from code, which is the "stuff" of AI. 2.) Strong emergence in general seems incoherent or a violation of any plausible explanatory principle. Consider an ordered set of bricks that constitute a wall. Insofar as A can never be more than A, and thus an ordered wall can never be more than an ordered wall (or an ordered brain). Thus, an ordered brain can never be more than an ordered brain. Now a strong emergentist might say, "ah but consciousness is an entirely different thing! Hence strong emergence." OK, but then the "stuff" of consciousness--it's material cause (in the classical sense)--comes out of nowhere. It's stuff just "pops" into being ag a certain level of base complexity. And that violates any explanatory principle. It would literally emerge with *no* ontological connection to its alleged base.
Yeah I agree with you on the args against emergence but I'm thinking simulated conscious beings might be even more plausible on some versions idealism. Also, I think any view that posits psycho-physical laws to explain psycho-physical harmony is view in which conscious sims can, in principle, exist
@Parker's Pensées Good thoughts here. So I agree with the second half; if there are psycho-physical laws that regulate psycho-physical harmony, then perhaps a Sims world could exist. But the argument against emergence would go to show that there aren't such governing laws, and an analysis of scientific law (I think) shows law to be a description of Order, not a governor at all. But does idealism open up the way for simulated consciousness? I don't think so--at least, not if by "simulated" we mean generated by a program, since programs just facilitate output-input systems. So "simulation" (e.g. consciousness emerging from inputs and outputs) would still be ruled out, to my lights. In fact, on idealism, information itself emerges from consciousness as base reality, not the other way around. Do you see something here differently?
@@ParkersPensees Is this what you are taught in theological seminary? Are you sure you can "think God´s thoughts after Him"? or are you referring to a different "Jesus"?
A couple of thoughts on the trilemma. The first option presented, ie that it is impossible for us to create a simulation with conscious beings, probably depends on how you define consciousness. I would argue that consciousness DEPENDS on self-awareness, and not just the bland awareness that “you exist” but some awareness of (a) what existence is and (b) your place in it, ie what you are. Both of those things are impossible without some GROUNDING in ultimate reality. So, apart from the technical requirements of creating simulated beings that can think… is the philosophical problem that mankind cannot make self conscious beings without GROUNDING their ability to think in an ultimate reality so that they have an awareness of what they are ultimately. Whatever this ultimate reality “is”, is what we call God.
Do you need to be aware to be conscious? As far as I’m concerned you just need to be having some type of first person experience. Being aware of having it helps, but we have experiences we aren’t aware of all the time, and we can shine awareness onto them when they’re called to our attention.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 - As you indicated, we have experienced all of the time we are not “aware of” (type A experiences), but that we become aware of those experiences when called to our attention (type B experiences). If all of your existence was a type A experience (ie an experience of which you were totally unaware) how could you consider yourself conscious?
There are only two ways I can think of to argue against the basics of the simulation hypothesis. #1) Show that simulating consciousness will never be possible. or #2) Show that aliens exist. It should be clear that if simulating consciousness is technically possible-- which those who are persuaded by the simulation argument take as an unquestioned presupposition-- the truth of the simulation hypothesis seems to logically follow. Showing that aliens exist would be evidence against the simulation hypothesis because there would be no reason for the Simulator(s) to waste processing power simulating the aliens if they are interested in an ancestor simulation.
How about be normal and do your research in reading early church history/Reformation instead leaving something as important as faith to people debating to decide.
@@sandromnator chill out with the "be normal" comment man, i keep my faith in God alone, men error all the time, but i think that listening to people who have read more books on a topic then i ever will is a good thing to do when deciding on an issue like this. I believe its smart to listen to people who are smarter then me.
@@sandromnator some people benefit from hearing others express ideas in ways that oneself might not have ever articulated them. More perspectives, more data. It is a way of learning about the issues.
Everyone was a panpsychist before. Of course they didn't have a name for it, is was just how reality was. But they felt soul in everything, and everything was an emanation of spirit, not as a theory, but just as how their consciousness worked. Our consciousness feels itself more isolated, stuck in our brains, cut off.
But you hit the limitations of physics. It's impossible to simulate something as complex as our "simulation" from within our "simulation". Sure, we could probably fool a few individuals, if we put all our resources towards that, but not more.
I agree, author is a better analogy than programmer, but can you get jokes like this? A surgeon, an engineer, and a programmer were arguing who had the oldest profession. The surgeon says "Look at when Got pulled the rib out of Adam, that is the first surgery. Clearly my profession is oldest." The engineer says, "Look at creation, when out of chaos God engineered this amazing creation. Clearly my profession is oldest." The programmer says with a smirk, "Where do you think the chaos came from?"
I don't see how the simulators possibility of erasing the evidence means they would and that we therefore couldn't have any evidence. But, I also can't imagine any evidence I could give inhabitants of a simulation, that would necessarily convince everyone. I could give hints I guess, but I imagine they would refute out of hand unless I tailored it to their specific knowledge and beliefs at the time such that it would both appeal to them, and at the same time not simply be a word game. I guess they would be stuck inside a frame of reference I would be hard pressed to even imagine, I couldn't really relate. I can't see how a random simulator would be remotely all knowing in any meaningful way. Sure he could see how my bits were arranged, but have no idea of what that entail, how that makes me feel, what kind of meaning I perceive. As opposed to God, I hold his all knowingness to be exactly that, and not all that other stuff, which is secondary. I think God knows my internal state. But I also think the visible universe is a consequence of those states, and not vice versa, so there really is no dichotomy there. God is my ground, the stuff I'm made of, and by, and in, and He is in me, and though He is in a special way in Christians, He for sure is present in all, just not in an intrusive way. He is specially present to us in a personal manner to the extent we pray for it.
I think we’ve already had an experience of people outside the “simulation” creating consciousnesses outside the God-ordained system: the Nephilim in Genesis 6. And God did NOT like that one bit. I don’t think the spirits of the nephilim are saved… I think the same would be said for any simulated consciousnesses.
I'm Tweeting that you have seen the message in PI with the key in John 21 and your suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is not only bizarre and ridiculous it's fighting Christ.
@@TruthUnites without bringing in the pi code discussion you leave this as an open question, and I can't think of any reason you guys would do that except to make money. It's like the UFO industry it banks on it being unproven. You do the same thing with Christ, if you have absolute proof your industry built on debate is finished. The pi code destroys the simulation hypothesis because it demonstrates that God is directly in control of the P v NP Problem in computer science that a computer cannot solve. What algorithm can write a message into Pi? So by not showing the public the message in PI with the key in John 21 YOU AND PARKER directly contribute to doubt and unbelief. Ask Parker. I don't see how you two can live with yourselves or call yourselves "ministers" when you are literally "disgracing" those who may be saved if they had the information.
@@TruthUnites look at how well Parker makes his arguments. That is the effect of knowing that there is a message in PI with the key in John 21. If you don't give that same information to the person you're trying to defend your faith to you cannot expect them to come to the conclusion you wish.
That’s gotta be the nicest mustache ever seen on this channel. God bless it.
H his
Love this stuff. It’s helpful for evangelism. We need to think this through before we encounter the questions.
That's what I thought
Fascinating discussion Dr. Ortlund.
Man I love when you have Parker on.
😁
@@ParkersPensees Parker this topic touches on a niche intersection of interests of mine and judging by your shirt and the book that I see in the background I'm guessing it's a shared interest. And that is the theology and philosophy of Philip K dick. I was actually really drawn in by his work when I was a very immature Christian and probably was a little too into it but I still have a very soft spot in my heart for his work and his visionary. His views are essentially gnostic and I'm not sure he even tried to hide that but he conflated it with Christianity it seems. Absolutely fascinating writer. It's impossible to mention simulation theory without mentioning Philip k dick I think
Watched the first 10 minutes of this video, and immrdiately called my dad and talked to my friends. This is too fascinating of a topic to ignore. Will watch the rest later.
PARKER IS AWESOME.
😊
Excellent discussion. I liked the apologetics focus. My biggest points of contention with simulation hypothesis are the implications on incarnation and the atonement. I subbed to Parker.
As someone who appreciates facial hair, I gotta say NICE STACH! 🤩
Wow, definitely gonna be listening to this while at work tonight!!!
Parker's a beast!
Those TEDS guys are pretty cool
This was fun!
Lets go i love parker man
Very interesting and thought provoking! I listened to this at the gym on 2x speed :D
At around 8:30 ..”Our future ancestors” lol
This is so fascinating.....and very needful
I better take some notes because i feel like my kids will one day ask me abt this😅
Since it is based on the materialist dogma that matter is primary, the Simulation Hypothesis simply assumes that simulated beings could "become" conscious, no valid arguments given for that. If you want to run a simulation with conscious NPCs, you need a provider of consciousness, and so far we only know God, who knows how to do that and has kept it a secret.
At about minute 51:00, a question about “the image of God” comes up and what it is. It is probably a statement of purpose, ie we are image bearers and our job (role) is to reflect God so that He might be known. A “conscious” being we create (ie one that is aware of its own existence and it’s role in reality) wouldn’t be a image bearer by default. Only God can assign that purpose.
If the universe is a simulation, then it must stand that the information (code) for the simulation exists somewhere (on a cosmic hard-drive). If the information (code) for the simulation must be stored somewhere, then there is limited amount of data available for programing the simulation.
Every simulation that a simulation creates within itself (simulation within a simulation) would add more information to the code of the higher simulation. For the information of the simulation's simulation must take up space in the simulation, and must be maintained orderly in order to keep the simulation's simulation running.
If every sub-simulation requires extra code on the parent simulation, then this would limit the number of simulations possible. For Simulation A needs extra storage to hold Simulation B within Simulation A, but Simulation B needs extra storage to hold Simulation C, then Simulation A needs additional storage to hold a greater amount of storage within Simulation B. Therefore, there is decreased room for storage with each successive simulation. Therefore, base reality must have infinite storage, or else there is a finite number of possible simulations within simulations.
Yeah, the realities would degrade and become more simplistic the further down you went, because there would be less room for processing power to run it. Heck, some of the "evidence" for simulation theory (such as space becoming "pixelated" once you zoom in enough) relies on the presumption these are processing shortcuts that wouldn't be needed in "base" reality (even though we have no examples to prove that isn't simply how base reality works anyway).
love this collab!
🦾
Attempt 3 at asking Gavin to do a video on the history of Marian veneration
Off to watch Parker's video on frogs
Everyone of the gen z'rs know that Harambe is when the simulation began
F
@@ParkersPensees 👏 👏 👏
This is so fun! You always make the best videos. I am so glad you are not afraid to talk about topics like these that the young generation is believing at the moment
This links really well with JRR Tolkien's essay on Fairy stories.
You know the sore muscle thing after first time in the gym? That's my brain after this one 😂 (but I love it!)
💪
😂 me too.......but i was thinking if im a simulated being, someone had to create the simulation of pain and there are soooo many levels of pain that it would need lots of thought and effort......small things like stubibng my toe seems to be useless effort to simulate 😊😅
Thanks for having Nietzsche on the podcast Gavin.
Also, you made a comment in passing that seems to be very revealing and evidence for a biblical worldview. Around 32 in, you said “[regarding our hypothetical restraint from creating conscious beings if we had the ability] we’d be able to, but we wouldn’t do this…Restraint at the use of our technology is not our defining characteristic…If we can do something, we will, even if it destroys us”…..Doesn’t that sound like an accurate summation of the fall? We were even told disobedience would destroy us and we chose it anyway. The fact that history is replete with examples of this human proclivity is great evidence of the fall and man’s sinful nature.
If we lived in a simulation, why would the simulators make us such that we believe in religion? Why is Religion and other “myths” part of this simulation?
Yes we are living in God's bilogical simulation
The digital physics argument that was presented by Mike Jones of Inspiring Philosophy actually played a large role in my coming to faith and so I don't think the simulation hypothesis is really at odds with theism.
P1. We live in a simulation.
P2. Simulations exist either in a computer or a mind.
P3. A computer simulation still requires a mind.
P4. If we need to posit a mind, it's simpler to posit that we exist as a simulation in a mind.
P5. It's simpler to posit that we exist as a simulation in a mind (from P3 and P4).
C1. We exist as a simulation in a mind (from P1, P2, and p5)
C2. This mind we call God.
Jacob, what would be the difference between a "real" world and one that is a simulation in God's mind?
If God upholds matter at any time (as the letter of Hebrews says), it seems to not matter whether you call that which he upholds "matter" or "mind".
Wish God would “reset the game” to like 2 years ago for me :D
In order to have consciousness, one needs a soul.
A computer program may simulate a landscape in 3D and high resolution, but it cannot create separate beings with self-awareness.
There are hard numerical problems to the simulation hypothesis. As long as the simulation is done in numbers with finite precision, the simulation will always degrade such that there are a finite number of possible simulations with a given "resolution."
interesting point
We could estimate an upper bound on how many nested simulations we could create (there would probably be efficiency losses each step in), but not the other way around.
@@dougrattmann1 Well, here's the thing. If there is a chain of simulations, it has a finite number of links. It's already established that there is a lower bound due to finite numerical precision. There is an upper bound as well. If there are infinite possible simulators, then there is one such simulator that chose not to simulate (utilizing a Barkan Sentence). Therefore, we would exist as one link in the finite chain. But then, we suddenly lose some of the necessity of the argument. We don't know how large our chain is, but it certainly doesn't have the weight of infinite probability standing on its side.
There's an additional problem. If we accept the simulation hypothesis, then we have to accept that nature is discretized. However, time appears to be continuous. We can have no simulator in that case. So, the continuity of time disappears if we accept the hypothesis. That's a very steep price to pay.
@D Costello I can't think of a way to get around the idea that the "next level up" couldn't simply have N+1 resources needed to simulate base layers.
Now, I don't think a hypothetical chain above us could be infinite -- due to casual first-mover concerns -- but I do think there is no way to constrain or place a bound on how large such a stack could be. Going down from our reality, we can suppose that we can at best simulate a universe of conscious minds slightly smaller than our own; and from there, a slightly smaller one, and so forth. Eventually there would be a limit on how low-resolution the bottom-most sim could be, at least going down from our reality. So, the chain is finite, and we can estimate a hypothetical max nesting depth from our POV, just not how many layers *we* may be away from base reality.
@@dougrattmann1 I added the problem of the continuity of time.
Seriously, though, that frog video is pretty amazing...
Giant African Bullfrogs eating everything in sight (including mice)
I think there is a modern bias that assumes information technology is a natural progression and not just a recent fluke, which it likely is. However as a metaphor for how God renders reality from the base reality I could accept 'simulation.'
Taken captive by vain philosophies, according to the traditions of men.
Yeah, im going to watch all of Parker's videos except the frogs one 😊
Much depends on what you think consciousness really is. I personally hold that consciousness is not emergent and certainly not computationally based. If am right, then consciousness can never be created inside a computer simulation, no matter how sophisticated or technically advanced. On this assumption, point #1 of Nick Bostrom's trilema holds true, i.e., we will never achieve a simulated world in which conscious life exists, independent of our own. Not because we will never become technically advanced enough to do so, but because doing so is not a technological problem. (See Roger Penrose for a discussion of whether consciousness can be achieved by computational means. Not that I believe consciousness is a quantum phenomenon as he does, but I like his arguments that it can't reduced to computation.)
A lot of people have taken issue with the Lucas-Penrose appropriation of Gödel's incompleteness args to argue against computationalism, citing the fact that while we might not have the same Gödel sentence as a modern computer under view, that doesn't mean we aren't a computational system with our own Gödel sentence. I don't think computationalism is correct, but I'm not sure Penrose (or Lucas who first applied Gödel to the mind) get us there. I'm a substance dualist, but I also am tempted to think there are psycho-physical laws. If there are, then it's possible, in principle, to 'hack' those laws and get a mind to attach to a different substrate than a carbon based brain. If that's possible then we can have digital conscious sims. 😅 what a mouthful.
Tower of Babel II, descent into Hell, sinthetic "reality", which is make-believe. The "next step in spiritual "evolution" will be the mark of the beast, conforming to the image of the destroyer and Abbadon. The talmudic philosophers know this and are hiding the truth (Lk 11.52) behind hifalutin, very engaging language, meant to entrap the soul and leave the body to burn in hell apart from God, for eternity (Genesis 14.21)
To me the primary problem of simulation theory is its often appealed to in order to simplify or reduce explanations of the world, but in fact it multiplies causality and complexity since you now have placed the grounding for our world outside it... you now need another, larger, older, higher resolution world.
Its the opposite of Okkams Razor.
The second issue is computational, but some argumebta against that problem may be able to explain that to some extent.
I think perhaps the best argument against simulation argument is the fact that consciousness/soul/rationality is an immaterial aspect. At best AI or robots are a type of artifact that can perhaps mimic consciousness to a degree but not truly be conscious because we know that software/hardware (artifacts in a philosophical sense) cannot achieve consciousness. Just as how a camera cannot actually "see" no matter how advanced or complex it becomes. There is nothing that is a part or aspect of it, no individual person, ego, self which can have both the experience of seeing and knowing it is seeing.
40:36 How do you square a statement like, "The Nature of the love of God is such, that it would encompass not just base reality, but it would encompass every conscious creature" with the Doctrine of Limited Atonement? Keeping in mind that the question was pertaining to the extent of the Atonement.
I thought if this jokingly with a buddy if mine. We're both believers. I was like, the spirit world IS the real world and this physical world is the simulated reality to test the souls of mankind. Etc. Etc. Something like that. It was a fun conversation.
As said, all arguments for Theism shoot us right back to Base Reality, at which point you need to ask, would an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Benevolent God allow sims to exist who think they are real, when they're not? I'm not convinced that He would. I'm also not convinced that sims will ever achieve consciousness like we have.
God allows a lot. I don't think that would be worse then for example the Holocaust.
Could someone kindly explain to me please what the difference would be between believing that we live in a simulation and believing that "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"?
OK, good stuff. I might suggest something I'm certain Parker has thought of lol:
1.) We can get past simulations by thinking through the nature of consciousness. Chinese-Room style arguments rule out the emergence of consciousness from code, which is the "stuff" of AI.
2.) Strong emergence in general seems incoherent or a violation of any plausible explanatory principle. Consider an ordered set of bricks that constitute a wall. Insofar as A can never be more than A, and thus an ordered wall can never be more than an ordered wall (or an ordered brain). Thus, an ordered brain can never be more than an ordered brain. Now a strong emergentist might say, "ah but consciousness is an entirely different thing! Hence strong emergence." OK, but then the "stuff" of consciousness--it's material cause (in the classical sense)--comes out of nowhere. It's stuff just "pops" into being ag a certain level of base complexity. And that violates any explanatory principle. It would literally emerge with *no* ontological connection to its alleged base.
Yeah I agree with you on the args against emergence but I'm thinking simulated conscious beings might be even more plausible on some versions idealism. Also, I think any view that posits psycho-physical laws to explain psycho-physical harmony is view in which conscious sims can, in principle, exist
@Parker's Pensées Good thoughts here. So I agree with the second half; if there are psycho-physical laws that regulate psycho-physical harmony, then perhaps a Sims world could exist. But the argument against emergence would go to show that there aren't such governing laws, and an analysis of scientific law (I think) shows law to be a description of Order, not a governor at all.
But does idealism open up the way for simulated consciousness? I don't think so--at least, not if by "simulated" we mean generated by a program, since programs just facilitate output-input systems. So "simulation" (e.g. consciousness emerging from inputs and outputs) would still be ruled out, to my lights. In fact, on idealism, information itself emerges from consciousness as base reality, not the other way around. Do you see something here differently?
@@ParkersPensees Is this what you are taught in theological seminary? Are you sure you can "think God´s thoughts after Him"? or are you referring to a different "Jesus"?
If you are watching this, you should read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. Great story. So fun.
That one’s a classic along, with The Billion Names of God.
A couple of thoughts on the trilemma. The first option presented, ie that it is impossible for us to create a simulation with conscious beings, probably depends on how you define consciousness. I would argue that consciousness DEPENDS on self-awareness, and not just the bland awareness that “you exist” but some awareness of (a) what existence is and (b) your place in it, ie what you are. Both of those things are impossible without some GROUNDING in ultimate reality. So, apart from the technical requirements of creating simulated beings that can think… is the philosophical problem that mankind cannot make self conscious beings without GROUNDING their ability to think in an ultimate reality so that they have an awareness of what they are ultimately. Whatever this ultimate reality “is”, is what we call God.
Do you need to be aware to be conscious?
As far as I’m concerned you just need to be having some type of first person experience. Being aware of having it helps, but we have experiences we aren’t aware of all the time, and we can shine awareness onto them when they’re called to our attention.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 - As you indicated, we have experienced all of the time we are not “aware of” (type A experiences), but that we become aware of those experiences when called to our attention (type B experiences). If all of your existence was a type A experience (ie an experience of which you were totally unaware) how could you consider yourself conscious?
@@martyfromnebraska1045 - by the way, where in Nebraska are you from? I grew up in Bellevue.
We are in a simulation of what happens when absolute self giving meets absolute emptiness. Also known as creation.
There are only two ways I can think of to argue against the basics of the simulation hypothesis. #1) Show that simulating consciousness will never be possible. or #2) Show that aliens exist. It should be clear that if simulating consciousness is technically possible-- which those who are persuaded by the simulation argument take as an unquestioned presupposition-- the truth of the simulation hypothesis seems to logically follow. Showing that aliens exist would be evidence against the simulation hypothesis because there would be no reason for the Simulator(s) to waste processing power simulating the aliens if they are interested in an ancestor simulation.
Hi, Gavin, I was wondering if you could make a video giving your take on the Marian Apparitions.
Gavin, i don’t think his channel link is working right - at least for me
He's a Van Tillian!
How does God’s existence solve Bostrom’s trilemma? If his trilemma is valid, it’s valid whether or not it turns out that there is a God.
yes that seems right
Thinking requires effort, listening also requires effort, watching frogs eat …
The contingency argument does seem to be a good argument against the simulation theory.
Will you ever debate Jay Dyer on Orthodoxy?? Please, please, please. He's very convincing, so are you, so im stuck between yall lol
How about be normal and do your research in reading early church history/Reformation instead leaving something as important as faith to people debating to decide.
@@sandromnator chill out with the "be normal" comment man, i keep my faith in God alone, men error all the time, but i think that listening to people who have read more books on a topic then i ever will is a good thing to do when deciding on an issue like this. I believe its smart to listen to people who are smarter then me.
@@sandromnator some people benefit from hearing others express ideas in ways that oneself might not have ever articulated them. More perspectives, more data. It is a way of learning about the issues.
@@subzee5623 You can read from people smarter than you, I think that is what Sando means.
Is Parker trying to look like Nietzsche? 🤔 out loud
Everyone was a panpsychist before. Of course they didn't have a name for it, is was just how reality was. But they felt soul in everything, and everything was an emanation of spirit, not as a theory, but just as how their consciousness worked.
Our consciousness feels itself more isolated, stuck in our brains, cut off.
But you hit the limitations of physics. It's impossible to simulate something as complex as our "simulation" from within our "simulation". Sure, we could probably fool a few individuals, if we put all our resources towards that, but not more.
I just dont know how people AFFORD to get that many degrees.
I agree, author is a better analogy than programmer, but can you get jokes like this?
A surgeon, an engineer, and a programmer were arguing who had the oldest profession. The surgeon says "Look at when Got pulled the rib out of Adam, that is the first surgery. Clearly my profession is oldest." The engineer says, "Look at creation, when out of chaos God engineered this amazing creation. Clearly my profession is oldest." The programmer says with a smirk, "Where do you think the chaos came from?"
I don't see how the simulators possibility of erasing the evidence means they would and that we therefore couldn't have any evidence.
But, I also can't imagine any evidence I could give inhabitants of a simulation, that would necessarily convince everyone. I could give hints I guess, but I imagine they would refute out of hand unless I tailored it to their specific knowledge and beliefs at the time such that it would both appeal to them, and at the same time not simply be a word game. I guess they would be stuck inside a frame of reference I would be hard pressed to even imagine, I couldn't really relate. I can't see how a random simulator would be remotely all knowing in any meaningful way. Sure he could see how my bits were arranged, but have no idea of what that entail, how that makes me feel, what kind of meaning I perceive.
As opposed to God, I hold his all knowingness to be exactly that, and not all that other stuff, which is secondary. I think God knows my internal state. But I also think the visible universe is a consequence of those states, and not vice versa, so there really is no dichotomy there. God is my ground, the stuff I'm made of, and by, and in, and He is in me, and though He is in a special way in Christians, He for sure is present in all, just not in an intrusive way. He is specially present to us in a personal manner to the extent we pray for it.
The idea of, video game, seems so first generation Atari pong next to the unfathomable God of exciting wonder in Christian worldview
I think we’ve already had an experience of people outside the “simulation” creating consciousnesses outside the God-ordained system: the Nephilim in Genesis 6. And God did NOT like that one bit.
I don’t think the spirits of the nephilim are saved… I think the same would be said for any simulated consciousnesses.
Don't do drugs, kids. 🎮 🚭
Yikes! I loved MATRIX, but I’m not liking this…
I'm Tweeting that you have seen the message in PI with the key in John 21 and your suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is not only bizarre and ridiculous it's fighting Christ.
I have read this comment 6 times and still have no clue what it means.
@@TruthUnites 😂
@@TruthUnites 😂😂😂
@@TruthUnites without bringing in the pi code discussion you leave this as an open question, and I can't think of any reason you guys would do that except to make money. It's like the UFO industry it banks on it being unproven. You do the same thing with Christ, if you have absolute proof your industry built on debate is finished. The pi code destroys the simulation hypothesis because it demonstrates that God is directly in control of the P v NP Problem in computer science that a computer cannot solve. What algorithm can write a message into Pi? So by not showing the public the message in PI with the key in John 21 YOU AND PARKER directly contribute to doubt and unbelief. Ask Parker. I don't see how you two can live with yourselves or call yourselves "ministers" when you are literally "disgracing" those who may be saved if they had the information.
@@TruthUnites look at how well Parker makes his arguments. That is the effect of knowing that there is a message in PI with the key in John 21. If you don't give that same information to the person you're trying to defend your faith to you cannot expect them to come to the conclusion you wish.