Dear Israel,
Thank you for your comments, which I find interesting but surprising, giving me the feeling that you misunderstood my essay.
You say that I discuss the idea of simulated reality, and you seem to believe even that this occupy the first half of the essay: "After discussing the simulation you move on to other quite different topic ... " and you refer to something in page 5. Of course to you it appears that I move to other quite different topic, because you thought that I discussed about simulated reality, which I wasn't. In the essay, I refer to simulation as part of various arguments, which are not for or against the idea of simulation, but about totally different ideas. You say "...remind me of the philosopher Nick Bostrom". Did you already read some of my ideas in his works? If so, you could tell me which, so that I can give the proper references. Otherwise your statement is misleading. Also, although he proposed the idea of simulated reality a decade ago, I did not claim to propose it. Moreover, I say that Descartes, and before him, there were others, especially in Eastern philosophy, who discussed this idea.
Now I will reply to the discussion about simulated reality, which you opened. You say "In my view this possibility leads to inconsistencies since we have to ask: who made the simulation and so on ad infinitum." It is true that the idea of simulated reality leads to infinite regress, but this doesn't mean it is inconsistent. It would be inconsistent if it would lead to a contradiction, and this is not the case.
> On the other hand, if we humans are not able to discover that we are simulated, then that would be our reality and there is no reason to speak of simulation.
This is partially correct. I agree that odds are that "humans are not able to discover that we are simulated". But there may be plenty of reasons to speak of simulations. I agree that we can't use it as an explanation for our world, but not discussing about it, this is a totally different story. For instance, why are you discussing it here? You may say that because half of my essay is about it, but this would not be true. I discussed it to prove other points, and not as an explanation of how the world is. Just like you are discussing it here trying to prove a point.
> On the other hand, if we are able to discover that we are simulated, then we would be more intelligent than the designer and we may be able to create a simulation of a designer who thinks he created a simulation of reality.
No. If "are able to discover that we are simulated", this doesn't mean that "we would be more intelligent than the designer". And it doesn't mean that "we may be able to create a simulation of a designer who thinks he created a simulation of reality".
To clear the air: I don't claim that the world is simulated, and I don't claim to have a proof that it can't be simulated. In the essay I discussed other issues, and the idea of simulation came handy in some arguments. One of these points is whether the sense of "I" can be simulated.
> Something that also drew my attention is that it appears that you believe that humans have soul. Is this correct?
First, it is not clear to me what you mean by "soul". Second, for some reasons, some people tend to focus, instead of arguments, on what those bringing the arguments may believe, what hidden agendas they have etc. In my experience, when somebody asks me if I believe in God or in the immortality of soul etc, sometimes that person holds such a belief in the existence or nonexistence of that thing, and tends to judge others for their belief. In many cases the tendency of judgment becomes evident, because in problems where I declare myself neutral or agnostic, such people conclude that I am on the "wrong" side, or at least I have to make a choice. Now, I don't imply that you are such a person, but you realize that if I give an answer, I put myself in the position to be judged for my belief, rather than for my argument, by such persons. And while I don't think they will burn me for my beliefs, my worry is that they will misunderstand what I say :)
However, I think I made clear my position about this in my essay. I am discussing about the sense I have, that "I" exist, that "I" am here writing this message etc. I have this sense of "I", and this may be the only thing I am sure of. Now, this "I" may be real, as I feel, in which case I don't know what is it. Or it may be an illusion, that our mind is like a computer program programmed to believe it exists, as some philosophers, including Dan Dennet, claim. But again, there is no known program that would do this. So, no matter what the answer would be, we don't know it. This is why in my essay I propose a science of the subjective. And many of the arguments presented there are about this problem. But I don't have an irrefutable proof for the reality of "I", neither for it being an illusion.
> you state that the most important things in the world are: life, consciousness and happiness. I agree although I would replace life for healthiness, because, it is assumed that we already have life; otherwise we would not be discussing here.
I only used these three words, but in broader sense. I think increasing health increases happiness too. But I don't think that being healthy and dying at 20 is the same as being healthy and dying at 90, so I would not replace life, even in the narrow sense of duration which you are using, with health. And we could be discussing here, even if one of us would have 20 and the other 90 :)
> You also discuss about freedom and information. I agree that internet should not be controlled, but, unfortunately, the government has access to our facebook accounts, cellphones, computers, etc. The government can control what is allowed in the internet and what is not. This already occurs in many countries.
Shush, they may be reading this ... and you are asking me about my personal beliefs here... how can I be sure this is you, and not the government accessing your FQXi account? You may very well be simulated by "them" ... :)
Best regards,
Cristi
