Exactly the same thing can be ambiguously understood as a base reality (when considered by itself) and a simulation (when considered in the identical form of a simulation of that base reality). So the ground truth with these concepts doesn’t make the distinction in general, the distinction only exists sometimes, or else you need different concepts to formulate the distinction you are considering.
Concepts often have a scope of central examples that clearly fit them, as opposed to borderline examples that only technically or arguably fit. For a simulated reality, one class of central examples is realities that experience noticeable interventions. This is not a reformulation of the concept of being a simulation, instead it’s an area within the original vague concept that I’m gesturing at as being central.
Interventions might be more subtle, I think a lot of it has to do with respect for autonomy. This concept applies more centrally to agents, but a reality might be a borderline example for it. Thus a base reality on its own would tend to develop without interventions in a certain way, compared to results of interventions that change that shape of self-development. In this case, interventions can remain unnoticed, but that is still distinct from lack of intervention.
I see what you mean, another thing is you could take the whole class of nested simulations and regard it as base, or simulated, ad infinitum. Maybe the term simulation is systematically ambiguous
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
I still think it’s an infintely nested simulation with no base
Exactly the same thing can be ambiguously understood as a base reality (when considered by itself) and a simulation (when considered in the identical form of a simulation of that base reality). So the ground truth with these concepts doesn’t make the distinction in general, the distinction only exists sometimes, or else you need different concepts to formulate the distinction you are considering.
Concepts often have a scope of central examples that clearly fit them, as opposed to borderline examples that only technically or arguably fit. For a simulated reality, one class of central examples is realities that experience noticeable interventions. This is not a reformulation of the concept of being a simulation, instead it’s an area within the original vague concept that I’m gesturing at as being central.
Interventions might be more subtle, I think a lot of it has to do with respect for autonomy. This concept applies more centrally to agents, but a reality might be a borderline example for it. Thus a base reality on its own would tend to develop without interventions in a certain way, compared to results of interventions that change that shape of self-development. In this case, interventions can remain unnoticed, but that is still distinct from lack of intervention.
I see what you mean, another thing is you could take the whole class of nested simulations and regard it as base, or simulated, ad infinitum. Maybe the term simulation is systematically ambiguous
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
I still think it’s an infintely nested simulation with no base