Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do something or other. This is an interesting discussion but it's probably time to move it back on to talk pages. Clearly this material is not going to be deleted, but it's just as clear that editors find using "Simulism" as an umbrella term problematic (definitely a neologism). I would suggest merge discussions at Talk:Simulism. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulism

Simulism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a remarkable article, with good content, but the theory itself was dreamed up a year ago by Ivo Jansch, who wrote at that time: "Lately I've been having these crazy thoughts about what the implications would be if the world as we know it wasn't really real but a computer simulation....I found it kind of fun to discuss and ponder the subject and I needed a place to write down my thoughts, so I installed a wiki....and somehow the term 'Simulism' seemed appropriate and the domainname wasn't taken yet, so here we are: [1]. It's almost like creating your own religion, only, it isn't." Quote from [2] This page violates WP:N and WP:RS. Anarchia 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should also point out that Nick Bostrom who is notable has not become interested in Ivo Jansch's simulism, as the article might seem to imply, but has rather been developing his own Simulation hypothesis - a different version of he same basic idea. Anarchia 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, as the main author of this article, I would be aggrieved to see it deleted. I believe it has an integrity, in that it is about the belief that the world as we perceive it is simulated, rather than the technical details of how it should be done, or whether or not it is actually simulated. There is a long history to this idea, which, I think is not covered elsewhere. The article began as a counter to simulated reality which, quite honestly is a mess. I have no idea why the afd on this article is being suggested, but I would suggest that whoever suggested it, looks at the simulated reality entry, and compare the two.

--TonyFleet 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I put an AfD on this article, first, because some of it seems to be original research, and, second, because as far as I can determine using google and academic database searches, 'simulism' is not a generally recognised term. (It used to be used in biology, but in a different way.) Tony, you are undoubtedly correct about the simulated reality page. And, for what it is worth, I meant it when I said that the simulism article is remarkable. But, why don't you use the information you have gathered to improve the simulated reality article? There are already multiple article dealing with the brain in the vat, evil genius, etc ideas. Anarchia 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and Simulated reality, Evil genius, Brain in a vat, etc., etc., etc.? Ewlyahoocom 06:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested and redirect. To quote TonyFleet: There is a long history to this idea, which, I think is not covered elsewhere. That would make this original research (WP:OR). -- Roleplayer 00:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In spite of possible less-than-serious origins, its a real topic. and not quite a new one--the possibility of the entire perceived world not being real has occurred to people for millennia. DGG (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no established notable theory called 'simulism'.Anarchia 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a notable theory which is about the world not being 'real', and completely illusory, and it has taken many forms. This is described in the article. This theory does not have a name (but lots of different names). The article brings them together and uses a name coined recently. That, I would argue is legitimate, and is allowed in many other contexts. For example, Fictional technology just brings up a whole load of mirrors of the wikipedia article. There is a genuine concept, and clearly the idea has currency. The name, though may be unique to Wikipedia, and even if it is not, are we sure that the name was not intiated by the Wikipedia article?

Even if we were to accept the argument that the title is not 'notable', then that is an argument for moving it, but NOT for deleting it. I understand what you are saying, but the issue here (at the moment) is whether or not the article should be deleted. I think there is enough in the article to make it of value so that it should be kept in some form, and could end up being expanded. The argument that it should be merged with another article needs to be had at another time.

In addition, I think that to put an AfD on this article, "because some of it seems to be original research", (as stated above)is not actually a valid reason. There are lots of articles, parts of which have been tagged as "original research", and very few of them are proposed as afds; the way to deal with them is to tag the offending parts and request that they be improved. I am not sure which sections of this article actually are being referred to here, and it would be useful to have these identified.

I believe that the article needs to stay, and it needs to be completed as it was originally envisaged (please see the underlying code for the full extent of this article).--TonyFleet 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As you say there is a long and significant history of people exploring the idea that humans do not have contact with so-called 'reality'. This idea is covered in many articles in wikipedia: Brain in a vat; Evil demon; Cartesian skepticism; idealism; simulated reality; Phenomenalism; Phenomenology; Simulation hypothesis; Transcendental idealism; Dream argument; Allegory of the cave, and so on (I will find more if you wish), as well as discussions on the pages of individual philosophers. I think a very good reason needs to be given for beginning another page that contains information that ought to be on these other pages.

It is true that an article that gathered interesting ideas from material that ought to be on these other pages could be interesting. But, this raises at least two questions. Is the construction of such a page an act of original research of a kind that violates WP:NOR? What should the page be called? I am not an administrator, so I don't feel qualified to answer the first question. However, assuming that there is a consensus that such an article is necessary, it seems inappropriate to call it 'simulism'. The term 'simulism' is not a notable or recognised term; it clearly violoates WP:NOR, and, I believe, violates it in an important way. First, encyclopedias are supposed to report on things; they are not tools for propogating individuals (or small groups of individuals) ideas. Second, 'ism' is a suffix that is usually added to words when there is a substantial body theory existing in an area to provide a quick way of refering to a position. I just don't think that it is okay for individuals to coin neologisms that sound as though they reflect a substantial theory, and then use that neologism to refer to something they, or a few people have just dreamed up - especially when there are closely related existing philosophical theories with other names.

The simulism article was created by someone(s) with good research and writing skills. Why not use those skills to refine existing articles on the same topic?

I am not going to contribute to this debate any more. I am only one person, and I think my position is obvious. If others disagree with me, that is fine. Anarchia 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge in one or more of the articles mentioned by Anarchia. It is true that much of the material is interesting: paradoxically, it is just the hat under which it goes that is non-notable. The fact that somebody has coined a new word (and a wiki) for his own version of a millenium-old hypothesis might be interesting, but as a mention in a relevant article. --Goochelaar 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. The article is a good article and worth having, as a compendium/meta-article about various different theories of the world being unreal, but it is awfully close to simulated reality. If either of the two articles should survive this one should, and the content there merged here. As long as the articles are that would be a big chore, and keeping two articles is far better than a messy merge. The two articles could also be distinguished and kept separate, with this one about the philosophical and existential implications, and the other about technological/technical speculation on the feasibility, means, etc. Wikidemo 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.