Brain-in-a-vat debates / Συζητήσεις επί των εγκεφάλων σε δοχείο

## Would a brain-in-a-vat understand its condition?

Theoretically it would be possible for a brain-in-a-vat person to understand her condition (if our theory is course grained and not analytical enough), but we don't have realistic enough simulations. It would work better with people born in that situation, thus digital bugs, pixels, rough and smooth angles erroneously put would seem normal to someone born into this meta-world (world between worlds).

watch this video: How To Build The Universe in a Computer - PBS Space Time - YouTube (it's impossible to simulate exactly the universe; even for a future civilization [search more on the subject]). We cannot predict what a person originated from a brain in a vat would do. Each personality is different. Even if we create a perfect nearby world to the person, with superior graphics of the future, we'll not be able to simulate the whole universe. Simulating an atom with all its possible states would require an enormous computer. We cannot use magic. A person created by a brain in a vat might seek to test science, and she might fight discrepancies; except if we use drugs to pause her thoughts (like the rape pill; read about it) in order we have time to design what she wants to search, but drugs don't act perfectly and she will understand that something goes wrong. We cannot predict human behaviour. We might pause her with drugs (but victims usually understand it) to design her future venture, but she might change her mind, and discover an ill-designed border section. If she had read about brains in vats, she might understand her condition. If she's born in that situation, she still will see the bad designs, and if she doesn't have proper education in her world, she might believe in impossible unprocedural fallacies like religion (ghosts causing weird phenomena).

You didn't mention people of our cosmos which erroneously claim they are brains-in-vats. Some will do the same in a brain-in-a-vat condition. That is theoretically a trivial case, because these people don't correctly collect facts. They usually are conspiracy theorists. But it might be hard to dismiss a person who is a brain-in-a-vat simply because she used conspiracy theory false data. In some cases it might be difficult to discern between the good scientist and the conspiracy theorist who got by chance the correct answer. We'll have to carefully collect data from the simulation; but due to causopermeability, any interaction creates entropy (delays, even miscalculations when the calculations are very complex). Good brains-in-vats scientists would be able to detect the extra entropy, but they might have a hard time finding its cause; except if they have many books in their world without censorship. They they might understand their situation. If we allow a brain-in-a-vat society to evolve, they will write by themselves the necessary books.

## How to discern 'truth' from 'simulation'

Anything smoothly procedural is true. But no natural procedure is perfectly smooth. On the other hand, simulations are even more unsmooth, because different proceduralities interact. A well evolved brain-in-a-vat society, will have the science to understand that (they for sure will have books about the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, because it's not a very complex thought experiment; and brains are a common matter of debate thus people create many hypothesis on them). A brain-in-a-vat scientific community of an evolved brain-in-a-vat society will surely understand that something goes wrong. Scientists have debates. They might not all agree on the correct description, but surely they will understand that something goes wrong, because mathematical and allomathematical logic is hypernymic to any ontoaxiomatic substantiality = physical world. A brain-in-a-vat world would have extra entropy because due to causopermeability, the deeper causal stratum world which controls the vat, cannot hide itself from careful observers and good scientists.

## Anything smoothly procedural is true. But no natural procedure is perfectly smooth.

If the ontoaxiomatics = ontological physics = the exact way a substantial world works = the full causal connectome and procedurality (= procedures and natural laws) of a specific cosmos were totally defined, that world would not meet the axiomatic criteria for substantiality/substantial worlds. No natural world can be based on magic/unprocedurality/the supernatural/divine immaterial something/etc. Natural worlds are based on ontological axiomatic algorithms which have to deal with axiomatic incompleteness and/or inconsistency, in our universe the grand-scale entropy is the expansion of the universe (the expansion of its substantiality) and also the Heisenberg uncertainty principle plays an ontological role dealing with the limitations of axiomaticity (how to make axiomatic system based on axiomatic lists or in this case interactive algorithms) (but it has to include all the alternatives if we don't merely want to focus on a specific observer). Thus for an observer the universe cannot seem perfectly smooth = of a rationality totally revealing the full exact causality.

Also the Hubble volume and its wider visible universe can be hypernymised (being observed in a thought [impossible] experiment from larger and larger macrostates). Thus the manyworlded noun "the Entire Universe" is incalculable. Is the Entire Universe infinite or does it loop again and again? Is the Entire Universe a universe of the same nature or does it include infinite natures thus infinite different physics when observed (in a thorough experiment) in ever hypernymic orders of magnitude? We cannot have rigorous answers on things relating to the ontologically open regions of the ontoaxiomaticity of the universe itself (if the axiomatics of our universe wasn't open [not strictly defined to the full] our universe wouldn't be self-caused (it wouldn't exist). The God hypothesis transfers the problem of self-causality to God, and it is doubly useless, because personhood and personal ethics aren't ontoaxiomatic[al] prerequisites. (We cannot expose the extra entropy between simulated and fundamental worlds before we define the entropy of ontoaxiomatics.)

## Simulations have limitations

Simulations have limitations.

see: How To Simulate The Universe With DFT - PBS Space Time - YouTube

A simulated society evolved enough, would understand that any universe has a foundational theory (ontoaxiomatics) and it has a specific degree of entropy. More entropy and other weird phenomena would be measurable. Why creating a world based on an other world creates additional noise? See: information theory, and information entropy. At the interface between worlds, some states are expressed as entropy and not as the desired conversion. Why CD players heat, why even the best computers have bugs? Connecting two different worlds creates extra entropy, conversion noise and other measurable phenomena. If the brain-in-a-vat society is well educated, they'll be able to understand that something goes really wrong. If they have a free society without censorship (like China), they will even have books about brain-in-a-vat analyses, because it's a subject that re-emerges to free thinkers, without someone teaching them the original hypothesis (brain and free will debates are important and can re-emerge without being taught).

## Intelligence requires enough informational degrees of freedom

Any procedural simulation (mechanical, computational, etc. their hypernym is 'procedural') would introduce entropy, noise, compatibility issues, etc.

Non-simulated worlds have entropy, but if we place another world on top of them entropy increases, and other compatibility mistakes appear. If we don't have a single simulated person but a well evolved simulated society, they will probably understand that the ontoaxiomatic foundations of their universe-like world is problematic. They will for sure be able to mathematically describe what goes wrong. Nowadays technology cannot life-support and create realistic enough experiencing for a full brain-in-a-vat society, neither that will happen in the future (too energy consuming and controversial; the tormentors/controllers should be very indifferent for not creating true bodies to the brains, and too careful to produce realistic simulations.).

Allowing education, allowing the evolution of a society, not being born as a brain-in-a-vat in order one has comparative criteria, non-censorship to books; all these are crucial criteria. For a very damaged uneducated brain-in-a-vat born in that state and with censored books to read, it wouldn't make a big difference because she/he would have too few degrees of freedom in the first place. Intelligence requires enough informational degrees of freedom.

## Videos

* How To Build The Universe in a Computer - PBS Space Time - YouTube
* How To Simulate The Universe With DFT - PBS Space Time - YouTube