RE: Exploring The Simulation Hypothesis: Violence, Video Games, Vegetarians and Psychopaths
There is no "real elephant" in my understanding of the simulation hypothesis. These "actual biological organisms" are not actually material, but rather detailed information. We haven't yet found a convincing unifying theory to explain our reality (the big and the small) as material, whereas the simulation hypothesis unifies our reality perfectly. It seems a lot more likely to me that all reality could be broken down into 1s and 0s, positive and negative, thesis and antithesis, love and fear. But that's not proof to me, it's just icing on the cake.
What I find convincing is the probability of the following scenario: If humans get to the point where they can keep a brain alive in a jar and the consciousness associated with that brain is hooked into a 5 senses virtual experience, while simultaneously blocking any conscious memory from outside of that experience, then you basically have to assume that we are not the first ones to figures this out.
Any of the specifics of our current simulated reality (ie. are humans the focus of the simulation or are we a byproduct) are pure speculation at this point, and not crucial to taking the first step toward acceptance of the theory.
The first step would be to run experiments based on the assumption that digital information is not something other than material or a way of describing material, but rather actually gives birth to the material.
For instance, I wonder whether at some point in the future, instead of genetically modifying an apple, we will just digitally reprogram the apple. What "genetically modifying" is under acceptance of a material-based universe, could be what "digitally reprogramming" is under acceptance of an information-based universe. Metaphorically... I'm suggesting that we may be viewing the world right now like a cassette tape when actually it's a CD.
the elephant i was referring to is us, within the sim. if you are saying that we are naught but, rather detailed information, that is what i meant, when i said we need not be real for the purpose of simulation. i'm still not sure how the lack of "a convincing unifying theory to explain our reality" makes simulation hypothesis a forgone conclusion. it would be easier if we could break down all of reality to 1s and 0s but easy never won a nobel physics prize or elucidated a natural law. i am almost certain that i can't make any assumption about the creative thought processes of sentient sapients other than myself, even within my own species. this seems another attempt to address the origin problem without actually addressing it. i call this, "getting lost in the weeds" show me evidence of the simulation base program, beyond the internal logical assumptions required for the hypothesis and based on a desire for ease, and i will concede the possibility. that is still far from the deluge of assumptions required to make this hypothesis go. i do love speculation but i try to keep it separate from assumptions that are safe to be made about the natural world.