Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The simulation argument presupposes that non-deterministic computation is reducible to deterministic processes without epistemic loss.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Genuine non-determinism produces epistemic novelty—outcomes not derivable from prior states—which deterministic reduction necessarily eliminates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables, suggesting quantum indeterminism is ontologically real, not reducible to deterministic processes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If simulation requires deterministic reduction of non-determinism, this assumption itself needs justification and isn't presupposed by the argument.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
All observable physical phenomena are deterministically predictable from prior states, suggesting non-determinism is merely epistemic ignorance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If simulators use deterministic computation, simulated beings' subjective experience of randomness requires no ontological indeterminism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quantum indeterminism may be reducible to hidden deterministic variables, as suggested by pilot-wave theory and similar interpretations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.