|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 1:15:38 GMT
Or, at least, the statistical probability that you are a simulation is greater by a factor of a billion than the probability that you are a ‘real person’. That is how a famous article written by Nick Bostrom whilst working at Oxford University concluded.
That’s going to take a bit of explaining. Bostrom looked at the state of technology in the 1970s, at a famous 2D computer ping pong game that existed at that time. He considers the progress that has been made since, how we have progressed to advanced virtual reality games in a very short period. It is very probable that this progress will continue, he said, so that entire simulated worlds will come to be developed. These simulated worlds could be occupied by sentient artificial intelligences. These sentient beings will not necessarily know that they are mere artificial intelligences inside a computer-generated virtual reality. They will live their lives as we currently live ours without ever knowing they exist inside this matrix.
Here's where things take a strange turn: Bostrom asks: ‘how do you know you are not one of these beings? How do you know you are not a sentient artificial intelligence reading this post on this politics forum inside a computer-generated reality?
Things turn stranger still when Bostrom makes the point that it is statistically more probable that you are such a being than you are not. There is only one real world, but there are potentially billions of simulated worlds. There could be as many simulated worlds as the people with the necessary technical know-how in the real world care to create. So, the possibility that you occupy a simulated world rather than the real world is statistically greater by a factor of potentially billions. If you were asked to gamble on whether you occupy the real world or a virtual world, you would be very wise to gamble on the possibility that you are a mere simulation in a virtual world, as the probability of that being the case is significantly greater, he said.
That’s some weird shit right there. I’ve no idea what to make of it. I suppose many of the arguments for and against Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum could be transferred to this discussion, but that’s as far as I can get.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 18, 2023 11:19:28 GMT
Or, at least, the statistical probability that you are a simulation is greater by a factor of a billion than the probability that you are a ‘real person’. That is how a famous article written by Nick Bostrom whilst working at Oxford University concluded. That’s going to take a bit of explaining. Bostrom looked at the state of technology in the 1970s, at a famous 2D computer ping pong game that existed at that time. He considers the progress that has been made since, how we have progressed to advanced virtual reality games in a very short period. It is very probable that this progress will continue, he said, so that entire simulated worlds will come to be developed. These simulated worlds could be occupied by sentient artificial intelligences. These sentient beings will not necessarily know that they are mere artificial intelligences inside a computer-generated virtual reality. They will live their lives as we currently live ours without ever knowing they exist inside this matrix. Here's where things take a strange turn: Bostrom asks: ‘how do you know you are not one of these beings? How do you know you are not a sentient artificial intelligence reading this post on this politics forum inside a computer-generated reality? Things turn stranger still when Bostrom makes the point that it is statistically more probable that you are such a being than you are not. There is only one real world, but there are potentially billions of simulated worlds. There could be as many simulated worlds as the people with the necessary technical know-how in the real world care to create. So, the possibility that you occupy a simulated world rather than the real world is statistically greater by a factor of potentially billions. If you were asked to gamble on whether you occupy the real world or a virtual world, you would be very wise to gamble on the possibility that you are a mere simulation in a virtual world, as the probability of that being the case is significantly greater, he said. That’s some weird shit right there. I’ve no idea what to make of it. I suppose many of the arguments for and against Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum could be transferred to this discussion, but that’s as far as I can get. Any thoughts? There is nothing to make of it. It doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2023 11:35:48 GMT
There is no way out of the logic that doesn't breach the rules.
I.e. - "i think the word is real because I think it should be real"
Darling has been consistently raising good threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 11:38:54 GMT
Wouldn’t the probability that we are a simulation increase the probability of miracles and talking snakes ?
Same as infinite universes .
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2023 11:55:59 GMT
It would rise from zero to whatever value the simulation creators offered
Of course, those who created the simulation may be equally uncertain about whether they are real or simulated. Think of it like a nine circles of hell kind of arrangement.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 18, 2023 11:57:09 GMT
Darling has been consistently raising good threads. If that IS Mr Darling, of course - and not just some node of a sinister AI control program initiated by our alien overlords. (Just going to reconnect my head plug and climb back into my cosy goo tub..) |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 12:00:28 GMT
Or, at least, the statistical probability that you are a simulation is greater by a factor of a billion than the probability that you are a ‘real person’. That is how a famous article written by Nick Bostrom whilst working at Oxford University concluded. That’s going to take a bit of explaining. Bostrom looked at the state of technology in the 1970s, at a famous 2D computer ping pong game that existed at that time. He considers the progress that has been made since, how we have progressed to advanced virtual reality games in a very short period. It is very probable that this progress will continue, he said, so that entire simulated worlds will come to be developed. These simulated worlds could be occupied by sentient artificial intelligences. These sentient beings will not necessarily know that they are mere artificial intelligences inside a computer-generated virtual reality. They will live their lives as we currently live ours without ever knowing they exist inside this matrix. Here's where things take a strange turn: Bostrom asks: ‘how do you know you are not one of these beings? How do you know you are not a sentient artificial intelligence reading this post on this politics forum inside a computer-generated reality? Things turn stranger still when Bostrom makes the point that it is statistically more probable that you are such a being than you are not. There is only one real world, but there are potentially billions of simulated worlds. There could be as many simulated worlds as the people with the necessary technical know-how in the real world care to create. So, the possibility that you occupy a simulated world rather than the real world is statistically greater by a factor of potentially billions. If you were asked to gamble on whether you occupy the real world or a virtual world, you would be very wise to gamble on the possibility that you are a mere simulation in a virtual world, as the probability of that being the case is significantly greater, he said. That’s some weird shit right there. I’ve no idea what to make of it. I suppose many of the arguments for and against Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum could be transferred to this discussion, but that’s as far as I can get. Any thoughts? There is nothing to make of it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others. Some people might live their 'lives' very differently if they thought they and the people around them were mere simulations. Some of the discussion around this concept moots the possibility that we could be experiments; that is, that we have been created to see how human beings would react in certain situations, to guide our creators' developmental strategies, i.e., we were created to see how humans would react to living in the shadow of nuclear annihilation, etc. If I were living in a post-apocalyptic world, it would certainly matter to me that the nuclear apocalypse I imagined to be real didn't actually happen in reality. Of course, this is all very fanciful stuff. I don't believe my life is a simulation. I just don't. But I can't justify that intellectually. If this demonstrates anything, it demonstrates the limits of what can be demonstrated. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 12:07:48 GMT
It would rise from zero to whatever value the simulation creators offered Of course, those who created the simulation may be equally uncertain about whether they are real or simulated. Think of it like a nine circles of hell kind of arrangement. We would not know the minds of the creators but we would know that there would be a higher probability than if there were no creators . In a simulation scenario there is a possibility that the Earth was created 6000 years ago with fossils and the theory of evolution being a test of faith in the creator . Its pretty much impossible without it . |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 18, 2023 12:17:01 GMT
There is nothing to make of it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others. Some people might live their 'lives' very differently if they thought they and the people around them were mere simulations. Why? As already highlighted, you can't know either way. Why would you live your life (or simulife) differently? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 12:20:49 GMT
It doesn't matter to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others. Some people might live their 'lives' very differently if they thought they and the people around them were mere simulations. Why? As already highlighted, you can't know either way. Why would you live your life (or simulife) differently? I suppose there is a suggestion in the OP that we don't know. Nevertheless, I also pointed out that it is statistically probable that life is a simulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 18, 2023 12:27:21 GMT
Darling has been consistently raising good threads. If that IS Mr Darling, of course - and not just some node of a sinister AI control program initiated by our alien overlords. (Just going to reconnect my head plug and climb back into my cosy goo tub..) Some footage of an undercover Satan negotiating with Judas Iscariot  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2023 12:28:48 GMT
Wouldn’t the probability that we are a simulation increase the probability of miracles and talking snakes ? Same as infinite universes . If the simulation was good then there'd be little or no difference to whatever it was simulating. Am I concious or am I simulating conciousness? I don't know, or even care. It's a waste of time thinking about it unless you want to write a sci-fi script. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 18, 2023 12:32:24 GMT
Why? As already highlighted, you can't know either way. Why would you live your life (or simulife) differently? Religious fundamentalists have long promoted the adea that "morality" comes from God (10 Commandments, etc), and therefore atheists are likely to be less" moral", and if the planet went atheist, we'd all start murdering one another, dishonoring our father and mother, bearing false witness, and coveting the neighbour's ass, left, right and centre. I can certainly understand an argument that sees a person who "knows" nothing is "real" going a bit dangerous as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 12:32:38 GMT
Wouldn’t the probability that we are a simulation increase the probability of miracles and talking snakes ? Same as infinite universes . If the simulation was good then there'd be little or no difference to whatever it was simulating. Am I concious or am I simulating conciousness? I don't know, or even care. It's a waste of time thinking about it unless you want to write a sci-fi script. I disagree but I agree it’s a waste of time thinking about it if you think it’s a waste of time thinking about it . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 12:38:05 GMT
Why? As already highlighted, you can't know either way. Why would you live your life (or simulife) differently? Religious fundamentalists have long promoted the adea that "morality" comes from God (10 Commandments, etc), and therefore atheists are likely to be less" moral", and if the planet went atheist, we'd all start murdering one another, dishonoring our father and mother, bearing false witness, and coveting the neighbour's ass, left, right and centre. I can certainly understand an argument that sees a person who "knows" nothing is "real" going a bit dangerous as a result. I disagree. Many religious people believe that atheism results in morality becoming subjective whereas religion promotes an objective morality . If God says you shouldn’t shag your neighbours wife then you just shouldn’t do it . Even if she’s wants you too. |
|
