I had a comment this morning that I think gives me a lead-in excuse to jump over to this thread.
Can you perhaps just post a less verbose article please.
NO offense please.
Let’s be simple straight to the point.
Set out the 3 point argument and dismantle them 1 by 1.
I hope you take this as constructive.
Cc: You misunderstand, this has been my homework assignment book that I'm sharing, it documents my progression through the entire book, which is way too verbose and redundant in itself, so I've given myself permission to be redundant, no other way to keep up with Donald Hoffman. I think if you give this last installment another scan, you'll see what my actual point is.
That said, your advice is well taken, and more articles will be showing up. In good time.
Now I’m back in the digesting phase of my process. Rereading what I’ve written and selecting those key points you’re requesting.
Stay tuned for, STUDENT’S GUIDE TO DONALD HOFFMAN’S “CASE AGAINST REALITY”
Hello again John,
I spent the morning doing catch up on chores and it occurred to me I shouldn’t play coy, since, you were nice enough to take the time to ask. Okay than, off the top of my head:
Categorizing this book as “Science” rather than “Intellectual Entertainment.”
Hoffman’s flippant dismissal of scientific realism and Physicalism is worth making a big deal about. His deluded dismissal of “spacetime” - I would label an intentional con.
Hoffman’s confusion between the perceived and the perceiver. Suggesting that the reality of an object is dependent on the way it is perceived, it is ridiculous. Ignoring the fundamental reality that light needs to reflect off an object before we can perceive it, indicates intentional con.
Implying that human understanding of quantum weirdness down at Planck scales matters to the reality of the macroscopic spacetime matrix we are embedded within. Again I would categorize that as an intentional con.
Implying that his FBT theorem and ITP theory, which are created within an artificial binary idealized universe, relates to our physical reality. It does not, it’s a head game, nothing more. His sterile one dimensional understanding of some idealized digital evolution completely disregards Earth’s “wet” evolution and what that has to teach us.
His apparent cluelessness about the difference between Objective Reality and Physical Reality. Namely, “objective” is a quality of the human mind in action, not a quality of nature unfolding, which is simply Physical Reality.
Taking consciousness as a foundation of our universe, seems more like prank than serious conjecture. Consciousness is a spectrum of emergent abilities, an inevitable result of biological complexity. Acquiring consciousness requires a physical entity capable of interacting with its environment. Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” are impossible to observe or study - that is not science!
Hoffman is not doing serious science - he’s doing philosophy, his math may be rigorous but it’s disconnected from physical touch stones and firmly stranded within the landscape of his mind.
I was going to put down three points, but it doesn’t work that way, one thing leads to another.
“dismantle them 1 by 1.” John, care to clarify?
If you’re curious:
Prof Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity.
In Defense of Scientific Realism and Down to Earth Physical Reality.
Chapter 10a, Community: The Network of Conscious Agents (1/3)
Chapter 10b, Community: The Network of Conscious Agents (2/3)
Chapter 10c, Community: Network of Hoffmanian Conscious Agents (3/3)
The Prelude, Prof Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity
Chapter 1, Mystery: The Scalpel That Split Consciousness
Chapter 2, Beauty: Siren of the Gene
Chapter 3, Reality: Capers of the Unseen Sun
Chapter 4, Sensory: Fitness beats Truth
Chapter 5, Illusory: The Bluff of the Desktop
Chapter 6, Gravity: Spacetime is Doomed
Chapter 7, Virtuality: Inflating a Holoworld
Chapter 8, Polychromy: Mutations of an Interface
Chapter 9, Scrutiny: You Get What You Need, in Both Life and Business
Appendix, Precisely: The Right to Be (Foolish)