If reality can be simulated via logic, then shouldn't all Platonist's necessarily be logicians too?

Platonic epistemology doesn't terminate with the knowledge of numbers and geometrical forms. According to The Analogy of the Divided Line, that is the type of knowledge that is called 'dianoia'. However the apprehension of the Ideas and the Form of the Good are in the domain of noesis which is higher again than dianoia.

Noesis, a land only granted to those with superior intelligence.

No luck here, man.

Try here.

Please explain the distinction between "Platonist" and "Logician".

Quoting Question

Reality can be simulated via logical computers,

... is equivalent to "We all exist in the mind of God."

Because either these logical computers 'really' exist as simulations inside themselves, or they are imaginary, in which case who cares, or they exist 'beyond reality' in 'real reality'. in which case they can be simulated via logical computers, whatever the fuck they are.

Alternatively and intuitively - Reality cannot be simulated via logical computers. Then logic is subordinate to reality and is merely a tool for modelling, not simulating.

Computer logic is 2-D. It is based on cause and affect (x,y). Reason is a curve drawn on a 2-D logic plane. Nature, such as an ecosystem, is 3-D, or is spatially integrated. It is not based on a 2-D logic plane. Its logic also has a z-axis. Computers are not programmed to do this.

As a practical example of the contrast between 2-D and 3-D logic, consider political views. Each political view looks at the social data and presents a logical analysis based on their chosen premises. Since more than one political view exists, shows that each view may expresses truth, but no one view expresses the whole truth.

The whole truth is 3-D. While the partial truth in each political POV is analogous to a 2-D rational plane. All the planes have the same center; social data, but each approaches the data at different angles. The sum of all the views; angles, approximate the 3-D truth. All the views together approximate 3-D.

Since the various views often express conflicting logic with respect to each other, it is not easy to merge them all into 3-D, using 2-D logic. One needs 3-D logic; affect, cause and affect, or cause, affect, cause. The (x,y,z) reflects an integration of logic planes that take into account how separate things; 2-D logic planes impacts things outside itself. It shows up as an affect before cause and effect, or a cause from cause and affect.

For example, Progressives think in terms of social services, while Conservatives think in terms of economic growth. Each path is part of the whole and each has an impact on the other path. Too much social spending can impact economic prosperity, while too much free market can impact social spending; affect, cause and affect. Each political party will push for its POV, at the expense of the other, even though this will lead to an unbalanced ecosystem. Both assume the other will push back and each will constraint the other; cause, affect, cause. This ebbs and flows back and forth as time moves on.

3-D logic would see this and reason out the sweet spot, instead of depending on competing 2-D logic planes to approximate the sweet spot, through long term ebb and flow. An ecosystem finds the sweet spot and if there is disturbance, find the new 3-D spot.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Reality can be simulated via logical computers,

Where do you get that belief?

Yes there's a complex logical system that models the events and relations of your experience of this physical world (I call that system an experience-story), and there's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that, or that this physical world is other than the hypothetical setting in that hypothetical story.

But are you really sure that this physical world is all of Reality? ...or that logic covers all of Reality?

Michael Ossipoff