> The notion of reality as simulation does not eliminate the old binary
> scenarios. The dichotomy remains as a result of the very concept of
> 'simulation' -- if we agree that something is a simulation then
> necessarily we are posing the existence of 'the simulated'...
>
> Or, if we assume that simulation is EVEYRTHING (i.e. there is no
> 'original', no 'simulated') then what good does the notion do us,
> apart from stressing the assumption that all beauty *IS* in the eye
> of the beholder?
>
> On the one hand, I hate to yield to reductionist, binary thinking.
> On the other, the way we make meanings is by differentiating:
> letter 'a' means nothing in itself and it can take many various
> forms (all the thousands varieties of True Type fonts :) -- it is
> only useful insofar as it *differs* from all the other letters.
> So too with words, colors, concepts... Hence, 'belief' may only
> be a meaningful notion as long as we distinguish it from 'knowledge';
> 'simulation' only makes sense if we can point to at least one 'thing'
> that is NOT simulated.
>
> Does anyone see an emergency escape door from this? (Other than
> sheer mysticism which is providing exactly that: a way out of
> binary reductionism. Does simulation have a Buddha nature? :)
There is a third possibility- the simulacrum. That is a simulation with
no original. I have heard this word used in reference to all the subtle
simulations, copies, *theatre* that goes on in public and social
discourses. For example- I live right across the street from a high
school and every day at 3:15 I seee a sea of black and white clothes.
Black t-shirts, white jeans, black and white adidas. All are copies of
something, all are simulating something (calvin klein commercials?) but
there is no detectable original.
-- Ken Pantheists http://www.geocites.com/Broadway/2446/