Michael

So there will be an observable difference between a simulated circle and square and a real circle and square?

It doesn't need to "store" Pi. That's the bit that doesn't make sense. It only needs to draw a circle, which computers are quite capable of doing. We ...

So I think you're just begging the question by saying that Pi is transcendental in our world but not in a simulated world. As I said before, I propose...

Why would the value of Pi need to be "stored" anywhere? That doesn't make any sense. Maybe this is just me not being a mathematical realist, but as fa...

I might as well say that Lindemann's proof isn't valid in our world because the conclusion is false, and that we live in a simulated world. And your a...

Why would it be false? They start with the same axioms and perform the same calculations, coming to the same conclusions. That's all it means to be a ...

Why are we assuming this? What I don't understand is why the person in the simulated universe can't use the same proof that we use (the Lindemann–Weie...

So what happens when a simulated person draws this circle and this square? If it is empirically indistinguishable from a real person drawing a circle ...

Yes, and it mentioned drawing a circle and a square, so I asked you if a simulated person would see something different when they try and you said tha...

So whether or not we can square a circle isn't open to empirical investigation? Then how do we determine that we can't?

It wouldn't have to generate the whole universe, though. It would only have to generate the things that you will actually see.

So you're saying that if a simulated person used a simulated compass and straightedge to draw a circle and a square then there would be a perceptible ...

It would only need to be the size of your immediate surroundings.

I'm not a mathematician, so most of this is going over my head. Perhaps you could explain how we can show that a circle isn't square-able, and why thi...

So why is that a problem? The simulation runs the same program that we run to calculate the value of Pi. The simulation only needs to simulate what we...

The human technology is part of the simulation, too. I'm not sure what you mean about fooling the math.

Actually, I don't understand this. Assuming we live in the real world, how is it that we determine the digits of Pi? Don't we have some computer runni...

Although I wonder if your floating point number example even works for the computer simulation. The precision only needs to be high enough to fool the...

Instead of seeing a circle because some circular object has directed light onto our eyes which in turn stimulates the relevant areas of the brain, an ...

That might work against the computer simulation hypothesis, but not the brain-in-a-vat or evil demon hypotheses, as those are concerned with stimulate...

Sure, but making sense doesn't depend on obeying physical laws. The notion of defying gravity à la Superman is coherent, even if not able to be done.

I didn't mean "reason" in these sense of "purpose". I meant it in the sense of "cause"/"explanation".

I believe the hypothesis trades on logical possibility, not physical possibility. I suppose the best you could show is that if a simulation is impossi...

I think @"Thorongil" meant "the more important question is not what objects are, but why they exist." We are not responsible for the reason of a thing...

I don't think even that would work, as it could be that the "real" world operates according to different physical laws, and the ones we're familiar wi...

I suppose if you could show that we can't be brains in a vat even if metaphysical realism is the case then you can argue that realism doesn't entail r...

Is this redundancy theory or correspondence theory? Ramsey or Tarski? So do you mean that "P" and "'P' is true" mean the same thing, or do you mean th...

If people are comparing him to Hitler then it'll be because of some authoritarian tendencies he might be showing as President, which is obviously not ...

Some people are so strange.

Yes, it's pretty nonsense. Page had been the subject of a FISA warrant since 2013, and this latest renewal was after he'd left the Trump campaign, so ...

Although could you clarify which occasions you mean? As far as I can remember, I've only commented on Trump trying to have Mueller fired and the Trump...

I don't think the viewpoints are biased at all. I think it's just that the facts reflect badly on Trump and his campaign.

I don't believe them because I dislike Trump. I believe that the accusations have credibility given that there's clearly enough evidence to warrant th...

How so?

I don't know what you mean by this. We argued over Donald Trump's campaign to be President long before any talk of collusion with Russia and obstructi...

Perhaps it's worth noting that inductive arguments are invalid by definition. Validity is defined as the conclusion following from the premises, which...

His most recent lie: "This memo totally vindicates 'Trump' in probe."

>:O

There are 167 lies there. 75 more for "Pants on Fire" and 112 more for "Mostly False". Are you just going to cherry pick a few and defend them by sayi...

Well that's fake news. Here are Trump's approval ratings. The highest he's had among Republicans is 89%. Here are Bush's approval ratings. His highest...

I'm not creating any fuss. I'm reporting on the fuss that the media, the intelligence community, and the Congressional investigations are making. Also...

I'm not sure if you're using the term "doubt" the same way that MU and others are. What they mean by it is "not certain". Are you saying that "you can...

Last I checked I was down to £87 (from £100).

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. One doesn't need to believe that one's experiences are eternal to believe that one's experiences are ...

Is there a difference between doubting that 2 + 2 = 4 and doubting that "4" is the numeral that refers to the sum of 2 and 2?

Where's that come from?

The claim is that we have no access to the parts of the objective world that aren't our own subjectivity, so there is no contradiction.

Augustine (100%) Kant (100%) Protagoras (50%) Sextus Empiricus (50%) Aquinas (25%) Aristotle (25%) Hume (25%) Nietzsche (25%) Plato (0%) Hmm.

Nietzsche. Terrible questions, though.

I don't think the claim is that it follows. I think the claim is either that it being there when you weren't looking (best) explains why you see it wh...