The Simulation Argument

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm

Those of you, who don't want to read all my arguments, because it's to damn much, can skip the text, and use the video links below.


Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.

I thought about giving up, since the subject seems to attract people with an infinite amount of doubt and question, and less knowledge about science, but I am an optimist, and I believe that I just need to make it right.


Concluding that we exist inside a super computer, was not easily done. Before I ever got to that point, I studied science in all its forms: biology, astro physics, quantum mechanics, electro magnetism, evolution, math, geometry, string theory, relativity, chemistry, computing, robotics, consciousness and probably some more, that I didn't think of when I wrote this.

So it was not some vaguely based conclusion. It was the sum of the parts.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear! I do not believe in God or the supernatural! Hell no! An invisible all powerful being judging us? Ridiculous! Whoever is behind our reality is not divine! And I don't consider the supernatural to be supernatural, but to be interference.
I don't mind people having their faith, as long as they don't bother me with it. So enough with faith and religion, please! I want no part in it! I am into science only!

So, this a scientific discussion about a model to explain reality. Any attempt to bring metaphysics into it will be ignored! I know that it will not stop certain people from attempting it, but they will be met by a wall of silence from me!


Now, let me walk you through the things that led to my conclusion:


1: The Collapse of the Wave Function.
Measurement or observation turns waves of potential into particles. The Quantum Eraser Experiment has determined that for sure! Measuring is just an extension of observing. Observing needs consciousness. Consciousness seems to be the logic (but not provable) culprit of the collapse!


2: Non-locality.
Entangled particles copying eachothers behavior across distances.
You have to be a hardcore physicalist to not find that weird! It is most logically described as central governing. Both particles receive their state from the same place.
You could choose to see it as an illogical marvel of nature. Up to you!


3: Quantum tunneling.
Particles crossing improbable boundaries. You do not see it in nature, matter crossing through matter. But you occasionally see it in computer games. We could call it a small glitch.


4: The speed of light.
What could possibly stop something in a vacuum? A spaceship going max speed with a headlight. The headlight light should exceed light speed. It does not. Something stops it. What??


5: Dark matter and energy.
The universe does not add up without it. Matter as we know, does not explain what we see. We still fail to detect the dark stuff. Maybe there are some other forces at large? Some digital settings maybe?


6: The Physical Constant.
If our universe had been just a tiny bit differently adjusted in polarity between protons and electrons, we would not be here! But it's just perfect for us! Many scientist see that as wonderful luck. A miracle! Others think there must be more universes out there. All failing to produce life. Are we the lucky one among trillions?


7: The Fibonacci Sequence / The Golden Ratio.
The whole universe seems to be wrapped in codes that determines everything from black holes to snail shells. It is there. It's for all to see. You can calculate it. But is it random? If it is random, is it the ultimate coincidence?


8: The Holographic Principle.
At the event horizon, at a black hole: What happens? Susskind won the argument against Hawking: Events are displayed as "holograms" at the edge of the universe!
But! Not only black hole events are displayed! All events are!
Who's watching?


9: String theory equations.
Scientists make them to describe the universe. Physicist James Gates Jr. discovered computer codes buried deep within them. Not just random 1's and 0's but a specific code. One that was made in the 40's to correct graphical errors in data transfer.


10: Math has two answers to the nature of the universe:
1) A multiverse or 2) A zeroverse. It seems to favor the zeroverse slightly.


11: The Simulation Argument by Dr. Nick Bostrom.
At least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.



Bonus arguments, that cannot stand alone, but helps build the case when combined with the above:

12: Snow flakes and flames.
The only place we know of, in the universe, that has those incredibly graphically beautiful phenomena, is Earth. They could be unique to Earth. They are as amazing as they are unnecessary. A true gift of beauty from nature. Or maybe not?


13: The Supernatural/Paranormal/UFO's.
Nature cannot break its own laws, so if they are broken, it is evidence that someone/something above or beyond the universe is causing it.
If just one case in all human history is true, it exists!


14: The miracle of life.
Nobody knows exactly how the first living cell came to be.
Most scientists consider it a true miracle.


15: Dreams.
When we dream, our minds create a false reality, that we think is real - nomather how bizarre it is. So the question is: Can we trust the reality that we are presented to, when we are "awake"?


16: Direct brain stimuli:
When surgeons stimulate the brain directly, fx the area that controls a hand, there is a delayed effect of a few seconds. As if the signal goes "some place else" before ending in the hand.



I'll leave the conclusion up to you. Because: who am I to tell you?

But if I add up all the parts, the sum of them = A Matrix.

I have no idea what sort of computer we live in. I only have a faint idea of the makers technology, intention and purpose. But I do not know! So please do not ask about stuff I can't possibly know!


Videos (for those who prefer visuals to text):

"What is Reality?"
A technical/philosophical approach to our information reality
Complication level: 7/10
Entertainment value: 9/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU (30 min.)

"The Simulation Hypothesis"
A layman's introduction to the hypothesis
Complication level: 3/10
Entertainment value: 6/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M (50 min.)


Quotes:

The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
- Werner Heisenberg

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
- Niels Bohr

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein

Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought.
- Albert Einstein

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Last edited by QuantumT on Wed May 30, 2018 11:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

wtf
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by wtf » Sat May 26, 2018 8:16 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm
Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.
But any claim that the world "is" one way or another is exactly the definition of metaphysics.

Science builds mathematical models that describe reality. But they don't say what reality IS; only how it behaves. Newton and Feynman are on record making this exact point. Science is historically contingent. Aristotle had his theory of gravity, which was replaced by Newton's theory, which has been replaced by Einstein's ideas. And we know that can't be the last word because we can't yet reconcile gravity with the quantum theory.

So any time anyone says, "The world IS this" or "The world IS that," they are doing metaphysics. As you are in this post.

Perhaps you could help your own cause by saying, "The model of reality that says we live in a computer is a pretty good fit to physical observation," you would at least have an arguable case. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be doing science.

When you say the world IS a computer, you are doing metaphysics. And when you say you don't believe in an all-powerful being, but you do believe in an all-powerful supercomputer (built by whom, may I ask?), how can you be surprised that your opponents play the God card? It's just like the idea that we might someday upload ourselves to a computer and live forever in digital bliss. The parallel with Christian theology is impossible to ignore.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sat May 26, 2018 8:25 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:16 pm
But any claim that the world "is" one way or another is exactly the definition of metaphysics.

Science builds mathematical models that describe reality. But they don't say what reality IS; only how it behaves. Newton and Feynman are on record making this exact point. Science is historically contingent. Aristotle had his theory of gravity, which was replaced by Newton's theory, which has been replaced by Einstein's ideas. And we know that can't be the last word because we can't yet reconcile gravity with the quantum theory.

So any time anyone says, "The world IS this" or "The world IS that," they are doing metaphysics. As you are in this post.

Perhaps you could help your own cause by saying, "The model of reality that says we live in a computer is a pretty good fit to physical observation," you would at least have an arguable case. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be doing science.

When you say the world IS a computer, you are doing metaphysics.
I did not at any point say that reality IS what I propose. I only say it is my conclusion based on .....

I am not 100% sure of this. Only about 99.999999999999% :mrgreen:

wtf
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by wtf » Sat May 26, 2018 8:34 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:25 pm
I did not at any point say that reality IS what I propose. I only say it is my conclusion based on .....

I am not 100% sure of this. Only about 99.999999999999% :mrgreen:
You are not addressing the point I made.

The fact that you're not absolutely certain doesn't mean you're doing science. It still means you're doing metaphysical speculation. You're saying, "I'm 99% sure that the world IS such and so." That's metaphysics, whether said with certainty or with a confidence interval.

Science says, "I'm 99% certain that X is a good *MODEL* of the world." That's science. When you say that something IS the world, that's metaphysics.

But put all this aside. Who built the computer? And if we are just a simulation in somebody else's world, how can we even begin to reason about it? After all, our laws of physics and computer science are just fictions, like the laws that apply inside a video game where we can fly through the air and zap aliens.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sat May 26, 2018 8:47 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:34 pm
You are not addressing the point I made.

The fact that you're not absolutely certain doesn't mean you're doing science. It still means you're doing metaphysical speculation. You're saying, "I'm 99% sure that the world IS such and so." That's metaphysics, whether said with certainty or with a confidence interval.

Science says, "I'm 99% certain that X is a good *MODEL* of the world." That's science. When you say that something IS the world, that's metaphysics.

But put all this aside. Who built the computer? And if we are just a simulation in somebody else's world, how can we even begin to reason about it? After all, our laws of physics and computer science are just fictions, like the laws that apply inside a video game where we can fly through the air and zap aliens.
If you had followed my history on this site, you'd see that I have refered to my conslusion as a model, several times. I did not do it this time, perhaps because I don't want to repeat myself and annoy people. But it is just a model!

Any speculation about "the makers" in this model, and their agenda and tech, can and will only be pure speculation. I can only see that the model fits better than any other, not beyond it.

wtf
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by wtf » Sat May 26, 2018 9:02 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:47 pm
If you had followed my history on this site,
That is something I have not done. I take each post on its own self-contained merits. I do not know what you've said about this subject in the past. If you intended for your own prior posts to serve as background, you should have linked them. But even better, just make each post self-contained. You can't reasonably expect readers to click on your posting history and read everything you've written in order to understand what you're saying.
QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:47 pm
you'd see that I have refered to my conslusion as a model, several times. I did not do it this time, perhaps because I don't want to repeat myself and annoy people. But it is just a model!
It would not have annoyed me because I haven't read your other posts on the topic. It would have greatly helped me to understand your point.
QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:47 pm
Any speculation about "the makers" in this model, and their agenda and tech, can and will only be pure speculation. I can only see that the model fits better than any other, not beyond it.
I can live with that.

But really. We all live in a supercomputer? That's nonsense on its face, no matter how many clever people believe it these days. One would have to grant that it's possible that Ms. Pac-Man is thinking deep thoughts as she gobbles white dots and runs from monsters. It's absurd on its face. We don't know how to create consciousness; nor how to determine if a machine is conscious; nor for that matter to even determine if our next door neighbor is conscious. "Hi Fred, looks like a nice day." "Yup." "See you later." "You too, have a good one." That's not much of a Turing test.

So the idea that we can leap to the conclusion that our consciousness is the result of some alien intelligence writing computer code using what we consider to be the principles of computation, is a wild speculation without any sensible evidence.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sat May 26, 2018 9:09 pm

I respect your opinion, that:
It's absurd on its face.
But you can't judge alien technology by comparing it to our own. And if my model is true, they, who run this, are like aliens to us.

A.C. Clarke once said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

PS. I added "model" and quotes to the initial posting :wink:

wtf
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by wtf » Sat May 26, 2018 10:54 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 9:09 pm

But you can't judge alien technology by comparing it to our own.
That's exactly the point. The simulation theory assumes that the super-beings at the level above us have the same laws of physics and the same laws of computation that we do. You need that assumption in order to say that our world appears computational therefore we are a computation.

But there's no reason to assume the meta-beings who programmed us have the same laws of computation or physics. It may well be the case that they don't; and that the scientific laws we perceive are like the rules of Ms. Pac-Man. If Ms. Pac-Man is conscious she thinks that the world consists of tasty dots and hungry monsters. But that's not true of our world at all.

So if the meta-beings simulated our reality, we can't say we're a computation ... because we don't even know what they think a computation is. We only know what THEY WANT US TO THINK a computation is. The simulation idea fails on this very point.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sat May 26, 2018 11:19 pm

It may fail in your mind, and perhaps in other peoples minds as well. But you cannot limit reality to your own beliefs and expectations. You sound like a bowel bacteria who figured out how food came to it. It was just there! End of story! Agriculture, distribution, industry, fabrication, transport and another being eating it is crazy! Can't you see that your limitation of possible reality is frail?

However, it is not my job to convince you! Like Max Planck said:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I would like to continue this in PM, so readers are not bugged by a long repetitive discussion. I'm not trying to shut you down, just asking you to be considerate to the readers. Can we do that? Please?

wtf
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by wtf » Sat May 26, 2018 11:54 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:19 pm
It may fail in your mind, and perhaps in other peoples minds as well. But you cannot limit reality to your own beliefs and expectations. You sound like a bowel bacteria who figured out how food came to it. It was just there! End of story! Agriculture, distribution, industry, fabrication, transport and another being eating it is crazy! Can't you see that your limitation of possible reality is frail?

However, it is not my job to convince you! Like Max Planck said:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
You are completely agreeing with my point but failing to understand the point. You are not understanding your own point! Which is that we can not extrapolate our notions of computing and physics to the meta-beings.

And the Max Planck quote is completely off topic. It doesn't bear on this at all. No matter how many people die, simulation theory will still be bullshit. Just because a lot of chemists died doesn't mean the phlogiston theory of heat is coming back any time soon.

Remember that it was Descartes who asked in 1641 if it could be possible that everything he thought and experienced was nothing but an illusion created by an evil demon. So simulation theory is not new; it's at least 377 years old. And gnosticism, which posits a hierarchy of gods and demigods who create the world, is 2000 years old. Simulation theory is a modern spin on a very old idea. Yet another point that the simulationists fail to appreciate.
QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:19 pm

I would like to continue this in PM, so readers are not bugged by a long repetitive discussion. I'm not trying to shut you down, just asking you to be considerate to the readers. Can we do that? Please?
It's an online forum. Anyone in the entire world who gives a shit can say their piece here.

In what way am I being inconsiderate to readers? They can read, not read, post, not post. I don't see any evidence that anyone on this forum is shy of jumping in when they have something to say. Having a private discussion defeats the entire purpose of an online forum. If someone wants to add something they will.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3227
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by attofishpi » Sun May 27, 2018 1:18 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm
11: The Simulation Argument by Dr. Nick Bostrom.
At least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
What yourself and Bostrom are still not providing is the core reason as to why we would venture into a 'simulation' in the first place?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by Noax » Sun May 27, 2018 3:08 pm

Posting this reply before reading all the stuff others posted. Forgive me if I inevitably repeat what some of them might have already said.
QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm
I want to make one thing absolutely clear! I do not believe in God or the supernatural! Hell no!
If we're in a simulation, the natural word is virtual, not real, and the real world is not natural, thus supernatural. You are making a supernatural claim here. That's what the word means. Doesn't necessarily mean magic or God, but the creator of this simulation (not all-powerful or divine or any of that baggage) is pretty much assuming a creator-of-universe role, no?

So, this a scientific discussion about a model to explain reality. Any attempt to bring metaphysics into it will be ignored!
A claim that the universe is a simulation is a metaphysical claim. Hard to avoid the discussion going this way at times.
1: The Collapse of the Wave Function.
Measurement or observation turns waves of potential into particles. The Quantum Eraser Experiment has determined that for sure! Measuring is just an extension of observing. Observing needs consciousness. Consciousness seems to be the logic (but not provable) culprit of the collapse!

2: Non-locality.
Entangled particles copying eachothers behavior across distances.
You have to be a hardcore physicalist to not find that weird! It is most logically described as central governing. Both particles receive their state from the same place.
You could choose to see it as an illogical marvel of nature. Up to you!
Quantum mechanics says none of these things. You may choose to interpret it this way, but the validity of interpretations cannot be demonstrated, hence they make poor evidence for any conclusion you wish to demonstrate.
For example, the quantum eraser experiment only works if there are no conscious observers. The experiment has never been successfully performed with the roles of Alice and Bob actually filled with a conscious entity.
3: Quantum tunneling.
Particles crossing improbable boundaries. You do not see it in nature, matter crossing through matter. But you occasionally see it in computer games. We could call it a small glitch.
Not a glitch at all. No computer would function without tunneling, since transistors rely on it to function. Biological nervous systems (brains) seem to require it as well as synaptic barriers are too thick for signals to cross in a classic manner. It is pervasive in nature.
4: The speed of light.
What could possibly stop something in a vacuum? A spaceship going max speed with a headlight. The headlight light should exceed light speed. It does not. Something stops it. What??
I see your grasp of relativity is lacking as well. The light recedes from the spaceship at the speed of light, as it must. Nothing stops it.
6: The Physical Constant.
If our universe had been just a tiny bit differently adjusted in polarity between protons and electrons, we would not be here! But it's just perfect for us! Many scientist see that as wonderful luck. A miracle! Others think there must be more universes out there. All failing to produce life. Are we the lucky one among trillions?
Teleological argument, yes. Not perfect for us. There would be a lot more life if it were tuned for that. It seems tuned more like 'just good enough'. A simulation would probably reach for a more favorable tuning so the dataset need not be so large to produce one brief instance of life in a tiny corner of the simulation. Just saying this argument seems to work against the simulation idea.
There is a short set of physical constants, but not just one of them.
7: The Fibonacci Sequence / The Golden Ratio.
The whole universe seems to be wrapped in codes that determines everything from black holes to snail shells. It is there. It's for all to see. You can calculate it. But is it random? If it is random, is it the ultimate coincidence?
You see mathematics in the universe. So do I.

10: Math has two answers to the nature of the universe:
1) A multiverse or 2) A zeroverse. It seems to favor the zeroverse slightly.
This needs clarifying. I can think of at least four very different things that have been classified as a multiverse. Not sure what a zeroverse is. My attempt to google it came up dragon ball.

11: The Simulation Argument by Dr. Nick Bostrom.
At least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Well, number 2 is certainly true since a simulation, down to the level of particle physics, cannot be run by a human or any technology in this universe. If we're a simulation, it is not humans running it. The resources available to the runner of the simulation must be many orders of magnitude beyond this paltry universe in which we find ourselves.

Note also, how can an age be posthuman if humans are not extinct? 1 seems true by definition.


Bonus arguments, that cannot stand alone, but helps build the case when combined with the above:

12: Snow flakes and flames.
The only place we know of, in the universe, that has those incredibly graphically beautiful phenomena, is Earth. They could be unique to Earth. They are as amazing as they are unnecessary. A true gift of beauty from nature. Or maybe not?
Seriously? You think water must crystalizes a different way elsewhere, given similar pressure and temperature? Flames are a product of life. Find life, you find combustion of the chemical energy left behind by that life. I am sure that chemical flames sans-life occur somewhere. Just commenting on why I don't see flames on any of the nearby planets. A slab of Jupiter would burn spectacularly here, so why doesn't it burn there?

What has this to do with simulation? This is more an older version of geocentric teleological argument: The world is created purposefully for us, rather than us evolving for the environment that is the only option for it. A simulation would have been a lot more efficient if it stuck to the one planet and star. An ant-farm need not include irrelevant to the thriving of the ant colony.
14: The miracle of life.
Nobody knows exactly how the first living cell came to be.
Most scientists consider it a true miracle.
First life is the big conundrum. A cell was not the first life. Yes, the event did not leave behind a plethora of evidence that could survive billions of years.

----
But if I add up all the parts, the sum of them = A Matrix.
A simulation of evolutionary history would be a monistic simulation. I asked about that in my prior post, if that is what you are talking about. A dualistic simulation is just a virtual reality for a real (not simulated) consciousness. The matrix is dualistic, and it is real easy to detect a matrix. It was litterally an experiencer in a vat. They showed the vat. This is not the sort of simulation referenced by Bostrom above, which has no vats.

Almost none of the comments above indicate this sort of scenario.
The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
- Werner Heisenberg

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
- Niels Bohr

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein

Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought.
- Albert Einstein

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck
Good quotes, but unclear how any of them support this thread.
Last edited by Noax on Sun May 27, 2018 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by QuantumT » Sun May 27, 2018 3:53 pm

I am aware that I might have used a few words incorrectly, but it shouldn't ruin the message.
It is correct that each point in my presentation can be interpreted differently, that's the thing about circumstatial evidence. But when so many things can point to the same answer, I find that answer to be much more likely, than 16 different answers. But that's just how my mind works, yours probably works differently.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by Noax » Sun May 27, 2018 6:00 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 1:18 pm
QuantumT wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:07 pm
11: The Simulation Argument by Dr. Nick Bostrom.
At least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
What yourself and Bostrom are still not providing is the core reason as to why we would venture into a 'simulation' in the first place?
Bostrom is apparently envisioning a simulation of one's own physics (simulations of their [own] evolutionary history) which is not possible given the laws of our particular physics. What QuantumT suggests is that it is a simulation being done by higher beings, in which case there are simply no rules as to the limits of their capabilities (as wtf points out). Such a simulation would not be of the evolutionary history of the runners of the simulation. But then bringing up Bostrom here hurts that argument, because Bostrom is arguing (poorly at that) for a self-simulation scenario.

Number 1 and 2 on his list are both essentially certain, so the conclusion that 3 as a remote possibility simply has no reason to even be on the list.
Last edited by Noax on Sun May 27, 2018 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The Simulation Argument

Post by Noax » Sun May 27, 2018 6:06 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 3:53 pm
I am aware that I might have used a few words incorrectly, but it shouldn't ruin the message.
It is correct that each point in my presentation can be interpreted differently, that's the thing about circumstatial evidence. But when so many things can point to the same answer, I find that answer to be much more likely, than 16 different answers. But that's just how my mind works, yours probably works differently.
You brought up a lot of views on science, but didn't apply any of those views to your argument. Not sure why any of the views you stated early in the OP (however accurate or not) lend evidence for or against your simulation idea. None of it seems to point to your answer at all, or at least I fail to see you explain each connection. There is no argument presented, despite the word being in the thread title. Connect the dots for us.

You seem to be saying that you like this simulation idea, totally without evidence, and to hell with us if we came to different conclusions.
All very well, but it isn't an argument. There isn't even something we can say is fallacious reasoning since no reasoning is presented.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dontaskme and 4 guests