mirrorandloom

I'm not a big believer in the "we're living in a simulation" version of reality. 

In a sense, it seems, well, immaterial, because we are already living in the simulation in our heads.

But if I someone had built a simulation of the universe, it would make sense that the lowest layer that we can find is literally just very precise math, until it is forced into a "real" value by an interaction. 

And that's pretty much what quantum mechanics is.

Moderate-to-severe symptoms.


Writing a book /mirror-loom : https://paragraph.xyz/@mirrorandloom/

Ehhh. The reason this seems plausible is that the simulation would need to be written down just like our math. The problem is that Gödel Incompleteness actually describes all of language - Borges’ “On Exactitude in Science” being one really perfect literary example

building, spreading good vibes, having fun

tipping $.05 with likes via @tipn and 10k $EMARK via @noice

/evermark

math is just relationships, relationships exist without math though. It's just a description, as are words.

Indeed! The way Aristotle put it was to say that the unity precedes the analytical divisions we produce through speech acts, experience is one and analysis is destructive

yeah we are stuck with objectivity. It's been very useful. It's served as well, but eventually you can't get away from the fact that every perspective is necessarily from the inside somewhere, so it's all relational, how "I" interact with "that over there."  Fractions in relation to other fractions of the whole.

Exactly! So the simulation theory is only possible because language doesn’t give us direct access to reality. I like the ecological psychology view because it eliminates the false dichotomies and starts metaphysics from what is real (dynamism), sidestepping all of these problems that come up when you try to use static language to build a representation of the world