My epistemic status is extremely low, but I’ll try my best to answer. I’m saying that there was a being that the general human would describe as alive at some point in base reality.
I think my answer to “do you mean existence in a more real way than a “deterministic cellular automata universe with rules I just created in my head, but which no one has yet simulated?” is no.
That’s mostly based on my understanding of the term deterministic. I googled it and got “relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.” If so, then I don’t think I’m claiming existence wouldn’t be deterministic. It depends on how will is defined.
I think of all beings as a machine in some sense, whether it’s biological, a classical/quantum computer, or something I can’t comprehend. For example, I suspect that my genetics (which may or may not be ultimately be a product of a simulation) lead me to do whatever I do and they respond to the environment. So if I interpret having will as the ability to ignore my genetics to make my own choices, I don’t think I have will.
I guess at some point my genetics could be modified. But that would happen based on how I or someone else who wants to modify my genes makes choices based on their existing genetics.
Also, I’m interpreting cellular automata universe as a universe of beings made of biological cells generated by a computer. Is this correct? If so, I am envisioning that whatever is base reality isn’t a classical computer. But I don’t mean to say it has to have been created through a process like the big bang.
I think we have some miscommunication. My point was that if I think about rules and initial state of some deterministic cellular automata, then all events that will happen in it are predetermined whether or not I program and run it. So it’s not obvious that existence of universe it describes depends on whether or not it is actually simulated. Actually, why stop here, it may not even be necessary for someone to think about rules and initial state, why not?
I read that Stephen Wolfram thinks something similar, I think.
I’m not confident I’m understanding everything again.
I can see how a universe could only exist conceptually. I have trouble imagining how base reality would only exist conceptually. So I’m claiming I’m nearly 100% that there’s more of an existence than the concept of base reality.
My epistemic status is extremely low, but I’ll try my best to answer. I’m saying that there was a being that the general human would describe as alive at some point in base reality.
I think my answer to “do you mean existence in a more real way than a “deterministic cellular automata universe with rules I just created in my head, but which no one has yet simulated?” is no.
That’s mostly based on my understanding of the term deterministic. I googled it and got “relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.” If so, then I don’t think I’m claiming existence wouldn’t be deterministic. It depends on how will is defined.
I think of all beings as a machine in some sense, whether it’s biological, a classical/quantum computer, or something I can’t comprehend. For example, I suspect that my genetics (which may or may not be ultimately be a product of a simulation) lead me to do whatever I do and they respond to the environment. So if I interpret having will as the ability to ignore my genetics to make my own choices, I don’t think I have will.
I guess at some point my genetics could be modified. But that would happen based on how I or someone else who wants to modify my genes makes choices based on their existing genetics.
Also, I’m interpreting cellular automata universe as a universe of beings made of biological cells generated by a computer. Is this correct? If so, I am envisioning that whatever is base reality isn’t a classical computer. But I don’t mean to say it has to have been created through a process like the big bang.
I think we have some miscommunication. My point was that if I think about rules and initial state of some deterministic cellular automata, then all events that will happen in it are predetermined whether or not I program and run it. So it’s not obvious that existence of universe it describes depends on whether or not it is actually simulated. Actually, why stop here, it may not even be necessary for someone to think about rules and initial state, why not?
I read that Stephen Wolfram thinks something similar, I think.
I’m not confident I’m understanding everything again.
I can see how a universe could only exist conceptually. I have trouble imagining how base reality would only exist conceptually. So I’m claiming I’m nearly 100% that there’s more of an existence than the concept of base reality.