Monte Carlo, here we come! - Update 1

[malkie]

Following on from a thought I expressed in another thread:

I’m not a scientist but I enjoyed reading through these. I think the examples align more with Huck’s way of looking at the issue than MG’s. The biology indicates straight intent arrives through fallible agents—if carefully translated, that means the crookedness shows up in execution rather than in the command itself. MG tends to locate crookedness at the level of commands, where Huck leaves the command straight and puts the crookedness in human execution.

[memory from 60+ years ago + a couple of google searches] Apparent mathematical randomness is also useful in fields like game theory, and simulation - anywhere that you would like to have a variable that takes unpredictable values within bounds for a series of "turns". War games, financial market simulations, bio research, etc.

Are we just an iteration of a Monte Carlo simulation that some god-like entity is running?

If you were in charge of the simulation:

• which "parameters" would you choose?
  You can have binary, continuous, and discontinuous/enumerated parameter types
  You can have independent parameters - or at least you can declare some to be such, and see if it is possible **
• what limits would you set?
• what would it take for an iteration to create a world/universe like this one we inhabit?
• how would you "tune" the model to your "perfect" situation?
• anything else?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.

My First Summer in the Sierra

======= UPDATE 1 ==========

For my simulation, I'm declaring a "universal" parameter: "Real Things Are Fully Defined".
This parameter/switch has 4 values:

• Real things are always fully defined
• Real things are fully defined only if necessary to satisfy an observer
• Real things may be partially defined if that is sufficient to maintain the simulation
• Real things are never fully defined

"If necessary" means that real things become fully defined when lack of full definition would cause the simulation to fail. With this setting, real things have a default state of "not defined", but are capable of full definition as required.

So, for example, as long as the material that a chair is made of (thanks, PG!) can safely be ignored as at least temporarily irrelevant, no energy or information need be spent on fully defining it. However, it can be fully defined during such times as it is required, and then, when the need has passed, can revert to a non-defined state. Close examination of the chair by an observer would trigger the state change to fully defined; later turning away from the chair allows the chair to revert to its base state.

Partial definition inserts a state between full definition and not defined to accommodate cases where it satisfies a casual observer.

[Limnor]

If I were to become a Mormon-type god, I think the world I create would have to be a world in which my creation could house perfection without that perfection breaking the creation. But I also think it’s important that if you were to create that world as a game you’d have to be careful not to impose your morality into it—otherwise it wouldn’t be real.

Ironically, I think the moral imposition is in itself a risk when exploring and explaining the world as we live in it vs the game we think it ought to look like.

Removing suffering and consequence also risks removing the need for courage, or sacrifice, or forgiveness. Those things we admired in Lord of the Rings.

So I’d want the game to include risk, choices, and consequences for those choices.

[Physics Guy]

I heard an interesting question once from an inspirational professor that I had for a junior year English lit course. The question was, "What is the ontological status of a fiction?" The question was beyond our level and we didn't discuss it, but I thought about it afterwards.

The best interpretation of the question that I could find was to translate it as, "Are stories real? Obviously fictional stories aren't real in the sense of really happening in real life, but could they be real in some other way that could still reasonably count as a way of being real?"

I decided that I could answer that question with, "No." The reason I found was that, in a story, a character can sit in a chair made of no particular material. The story can just refrain from describing the chair in which Xavier sits down to write the fateful letter to Hildegard, or whatever. The story kind of has to do that, in fact. Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.

In a story, a chair can and usually should be a perfectly functional chair without being made of anything in particular, or having any features at all. Reality isn't like that, however. Every doggone thing, no matter how trivial, has to exist in some particular way, down to subatomic detail. I think that degree of detail is the real distinction between fiction and reality—and between simulation and reality.

I often suspect that quantum mechanics may exist because not even God was willing to invest infinite information in trivia, and so on small enough scales things are digital. I still also think, though, that the sheer volume of information needed to specify the real universe is so vast that it kind of breaks the concept of a simulation, in sort of the way that the concept of a heavy weight breaks when you talk about a weight with the mass of a planet.

It's not just that the universe is too detailed to be a simulation: it's that a simulation that detailed wouldn't be a simulation. It would be a reality.

[Limnor]

Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.

I just want to pause and thank you for this line.

It's not just that the universe is too detailed to be a simulation: it's that a simulation that detailed wouldn't be a simulation. It would be a reality.

This also—good point.

[malkie]

I heard an interesting question once from an inspirational professor that I had for a junior year English lit course. The question was, "What is the ontological status of a fiction?" The question was beyond our level and we didn't discuss it, but I thought about it afterwards.

The best interpretation of the question that I could find was to translate it as, "Are stories real? Obviously fictional stories aren't real in the sense of really happening in real life, but could they be real in some other way that could still reasonably count as a way of being real?"

I decided that I could answer that question with, "No." The reason I found was that, in a story, a character can sit in a chair made of no particular material. The story can just refrain from describing the chair in which Xavier sits down to write the fateful letter to Hildegard, or whatever. The story kind of has to do that, in fact. Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.

In a story, a chair can and usually should be a perfectly functional chair without being made of anything in particular, or having any features at all. Reality isn't like that, however. Every doggone thing, no matter how trivial, has to exist in some particular way, down to subatomic detail. I think that degree of detail is the real distinction between fiction and reality—and between simulation and reality.

I often suspect that quantum mechanics may exist because not even God was willing to invest infinite information in trivia, and so on small enough scales things are digital. I still also think, though, that the sheer volume of information needed to specify the real universe is so vast that it kind of breaks the concept of a simulation, in sort of the way that the concept of a heavy weight breaks when you talk about a weight with the mass of a planet.

It's not just that the universe is too detailed to be a simulation: it's that a simulation that detailed wouldn't be a simulation. It would be a reality.

Would this be similar to saying that a story may consist of Platonic forms, but reality may only use non-ideal concrete instances of the forms?

Or that a story can have every element in a state of quantum superposition, but in reality there must be detailed objects in which the waveform has been collapsed? (or am I talking pseudo-scientific nonsense here?)

[malkie]

...
Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.
...

In a story, as in real life, it's not predictable in advance what might be the significance of velour vs. faux leather. The upholstery type may hold the clue to a mystery yet to be discussed.

[Philo Sofee]

I heard an interesting question once from an inspirational professor that I had for a junior year English lit course. The question was, "What is the ontological status of a fiction?" The question was beyond our level and we didn't discuss it, but I thought about it afterwards.

The best interpretation of the question that I could find was to translate it as, "Are stories real? Obviously fictional stories aren't real in the sense of really happening in real life, but could they be real in some other way that could still reasonably count as a way of being real?"

I decided that I could answer that question with, "No." The reason I found was that, in a story, a character can sit in a chair made of no particular material. The story can just refrain from describing the chair in which Xavier sits down to write the fateful letter to Hildegard, or whatever. The story kind of has to do that, in fact. Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.

In a story, a chair can and usually should be a perfectly functional chair without being made of anything in particular, or having any features at all. Reality isn't like that, however. Every doggone thing, no matter how trivial, has to exist in some particular way, down to subatomic detail. I think that degree of detail is the real distinction between fiction and reality—and between simulation and reality.

I often suspect that quantum mechanics may exist because not even God was willing to invest infinite information in trivia, and so on small enough scales things are digital. I still also think, though, that the sheer volume of information needed to specify the real universe is so vast that it kind of breaks the concept of a simulation, in sort of the way that the concept of a heavy weight breaks when you talk about a weight with the mass of a planet.

It's not just that the universe is too detailed to be a simulation: it's that a simulation that detailed wouldn't be a simulation. It would be a reality.

Your conclusion I don't quite follow all the way. Here's why. Stories aren't real, O.K. But what you actually demonstrated is that fictional entities are not fully determinate physical objects. Yet that doesn't exhaust the question of ontology so far or little as I understand it.

It's true that fictional objects are not physical substances, anymore than they are spatiotemporally complete and exhaustively specified. But since ontology is broader than physicalism, that's not the end of the matter I don't think. After all, numbers are not physical anymore than there is a physical aspect of the laws of logic itself. Meaning is not a physical thing either. Possibilities are not physical also. But these aren't nothing. Rather than saying these fictional entities are nonexistent, we could say they are ontologically incomplete rather than nonexistent. Sure, fictional objects don't exist as substances, yet they do exist as intention objects. So, they exist in relation to minds, right? Matter isn't their base, they are structured by meaning, so their mode of being is semantic, not material. Gandalf's chair exists as a narrative support, as a placeholder for action with a meaningful absence of detail. That is a mode of being, even if it's not a physical one.

[Philo Sofee]

I heard an interesting question once from an inspirational professor that I had for a junior year English lit course. The question was, "What is the ontological status of a fiction?" The question was beyond our level and we didn't discuss it, but I thought about it afterwards.

The best interpretation of the question that I could find was to translate it as, "Are stories real? Obviously fictional stories aren't real in the sense of really happening in real life, but could they be real in some other way that could still reasonably count as a way of being real?"

I decided that I could answer that question with, "No." The reason I found was that, in a story, a character can sit in a chair made of no particular material. The story can just refrain from describing the chair in which Xavier sits down to write the fateful letter to Hildegard, or whatever. The story kind of has to do that, in fact. Only a really bad story would bother the reader with upholstery in a moment like that.

In a story, a chair can and usually should be a perfectly functional chair without being made of anything in particular, or having any features at all. Reality isn't like that, however. Every doggone thing, no matter how trivial, has to exist in some particular way, down to subatomic detail. I think that degree of detail is the real distinction between fiction and reality—and between simulation and reality.

I often suspect that quantum mechanics may exist because not even God was willing to invest infinite information in trivia, and so on small enough scales things are digital. I still also think, though, that the sheer volume of information needed to specify the real universe is so vast that it kind of breaks the concept of a simulation, in sort of the way that the concept of a heavy weight breaks when you talk about a weight with the mass of a planet.

It's not just that the universe is too detailed to be a simulation: it's that a simulation that detailed wouldn't be a simulation. It would be a reality.

Would this be similar to saying that a story may consist of Platonic forms, but reality may only use non-ideal concrete instances of the forms?

Or that a story can have every element in a state of quantum superposition, but in reality there must be detailed objects in which the waveform has been collapsed? (or am I talking pseudo-scientific nonsense here?)

It seems like the key difference isn’t detail by itself, but that stories and simulations can leave things undefined, while real things can’t. In a story, a chair works as a chair without having to be made of anything in particular. In reality, every chair has to be made of something specific. Stories survive by leaving details out. Reality doesn’t get that option.

[malkie]

Would this be similar to saying that a story may consist of Platonic forms, but reality may only use non-ideal concrete instances of the forms?

Or that a story can have every element in a state of quantum superposition, but in reality there must be detailed objects in which the waveform has been collapsed? (or am I talking pseudo-scientific nonsense here?)

It seems like the key difference isn’t detail by itself, but that stories and simulations can leave things undefined, while real things can’t. In a story, a chair works as a chair without having to be made of anything in particular. In reality, every chair has to be made of something specific. Stories survive by leaving details out. Reality doesn’t get that option.

Thanks, Philo.

My reply to that is that in your universe that's true because you have accepted that as a limitation.

However, I'm declaring a "universal" parameter "Real Things Are Fully Defined" for my sims.

I haven't decided yet if it's a binary or a continuous values parameter, but in my universe simulation I have either a toggle switch or a continuously turnable knob for it. Is that going too far, or is it a conceivable choice?

[Philo Sofee]

It seems like the key difference isn’t detail by itself, but that stories and simulations can leave things undefined, while real things can’t. In a story, a chair works as a chair without having to be made of anything in particular. In reality, every chair has to be made of something specific. Stories survive by leaving details out. Reality doesn’t get that option.

Thanks, Philo.

My reply to that is that in your universe that's true because you have accepted that as a limitation.

However, I'm declaring a "universal" parameter "Real Things Are Fully Defined" for my sims.

I haven't decided yet if it's a binary or a continuous values parameter, but in my universe simulation I have either a toggle switch or a continuously turnable knob for it. Is that going too far, or is it a conceivable choice?

Well, actually, since if infinity is a verity, it would appear it is a conceivable choice...... I was not sure what you were doing, but now that I know, I might change my mind about things.....LOL!