Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[pood]

You have asserted that we probably live in a simulation (recently shown to be impossible).

So that article you linked to proved that the odds that we're in a simulation is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000%?

You the burden of proof to show that it is possible and that in fact we live in a matrix. You can’t meet that burden. Hence I conclude that the claim we live in a simulation is bullshit.

I've tried explaining myself multiple times. Remember that Sabine Hossenfelder gave it 9/10 on the bullsh*t meter. Why did she give it that score if that argument is 100.0000000000000000% water tight? Maybe Occam would say that maybe she's more accurate than the article you love so much.

As mentioned, I don’t give a fuck what Hossenfelder says. Appeals to authority are empty and anyway, she is no longer an authority on anything, just a standard-issue internet grifter.

 

[pood]

Well Dictionary.com's Word of the Year is for 2025 is 67 pronounced "six-seven". So the odds of some esoteric numbers being the word of the year - or even in the dictionary at all - is pretty low.

WTF is your actual argument here?

Like the meaning of the "word" the meaning isn't very clear. Just that there is some kind of connection between things involving 6 and 7. (including a coincidental connection)

Huh? What are you trying to say here?

 

[pood]

Reality is reality,

So-called reality is a simulation.

There is no way to differentiate between the two.

So why worry about it?

 

[pood]

I have asked this before, but I don’t believe I have ever gotten a direct answer, only elliptical ones,

Do you believe that we live in a simulation, and you are the only one conscious in it, and the rest of us are p zombies?

 

[excreationist]

As mentioned, I don’t give a fuck what Hossenfelder says. Appeals to authority are empty and anyway, she is no longer an authority on anything, just a standard-issue internet grifter.

I was under the impression that you believed the paper/article because it seemed authoritative and it supports your existing opinion. I'm not sure you actually understand what it is trying to argue. Why is it necessary that simulations must be able to evaluate every single possible algorithm including those that would take more than a googolplex years to evaluate? Maybe try and assume that the audience is a first year university student (or less).

 

[excreationist]

Reality is reality,

So-called reality is a simulation.

There is no way to differentiate between the two.

So why worry about it?

I thought you could differentiate between the two because one is an absolute certainty, the other is absolutely impossible...

 

[pood]

As mentioned, I don’t give a fuck what Hossenfelder says. Appeals to authority are empty and anyway, she is no longer an authority on anything, just a standard-issue internet grifter.

I was under the impression that you believed the paper/article because it seemed authoritative and it supports your existing opinion. I'm not sure you actually understand what it is trying to argue. Why is it necessary that simulations must be able to evaluate every single possible algorithm including those that would take more than a googolplex years to evaluate? Maybe try and assume that the audience is a first year university student (or less).

The paper argues that the universe is not fundamentally algorithmic and therefore algorithms cannot simulate it.

Do you believe we live in a simulation and that you are the only conscious person in in, and the rest of us, or at lest most of the rest of us, are p zombies?

Yes/no?

 

[excreationist]

The paper argues that the universe is not fundamentally algorithmic and therefore algorithms cannot simulate it.

I've shown that generative AI that can produce the visuals and sounds of believable people. What is stopping a more sophisticated and powerful version of that from simulating a universe? And what exactly does that have to do with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?

Do you believe we live in a simulation and that you are the only conscious person in in, and the rest of us, or at lest most of the rest of us, are p zombies?

Yes/no?

It's like the question of whether I think I'll die in the next 30 years. I don't have a clear yes or no answer. It would mean a possible simulation would be a lot cheaper and it would reduce the problem of suffering a lot. Maybe there's a 50:50 chance - to simplify things.

 

[pood]

The paper argues that the universe is not fundamentally algorithmic and therefore algorithms cannot simulate it.

I've shown that generative AI that can produce the visuals and sounds of believable people. What is stopping a more sophisticated and powerful version of that from simulating a universe? And what exactly does that have to do with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?

Do you believe we live in a simulation and that you are the only conscious person in in, and the rest of us, or at lest most of the rest of us, are p zombies?

Yes/no?

It's like the question of whether I think I'll die in the next 30 years. I don't have a clear yes or no answer. It would mean a possible simulation would be a lot cheaper and it would reduce the problem of suffering a lot. Maybe there's a 50:50 chance - to simplify things.

So there is a 50/50 chance we are in a simulation and you are the only conscious person in it?

The visuals and sounds of believable people are not real people. People are real.

 

[Swammerdami]

Humans evolved in small groups. The expected number of one in a million events happening to you, or one of the two hundred people you know, in your entire lifetime of 365x70 days is about 5, and that's your baseline for "OMFG, that's AMAZING!!"

The number of one in a million events that will happen to a person somewhere in the world today is about 8000....

It's hard to define, let alone quantify, the rate of coincidences. Out of respect for the genuis who combined intuition, common-sense and analytic power and whom one of the greatest mathematicians called "the man most likely to storm and smash a really deep and formidable problem; there was no one else who could command such a combination of insight, technique and power". I go with  Littlewood's law: A person can expect to experience events with odds of one in a million (referred to as a "miracle") at the rate of about one per month. This extrapolates to about a 50% chance of a billion-to-one miracle in an average lifetime.

Improbabilities are apt to be overestimated. It is true that I should have been surprised in the past to learn that Professor Hardy [an atheist] had joined the Oxford Group [a Christian organization]. But one could not say the adverse chance was 10⁶ : 1. Mathematics is a dangerous profession; an appreciable proportion of us go mad, and then this particular event would be quite likely....

 

[excreationist]

So there is a 50/50 chance we are in a simulation and you are the only conscious person in it?

That is roughly what I currently think.

The visuals and sounds of believable people are not real people.

That is what I'm saying.

 

[pood]

So there is a 50/50 chance we are in a simulation and you are the only conscious person in it?

That is roughly what I currently think.

The visuals and sounds of believable people are not real people.

That is what I'm saying.

But tthere is a 50/50 chance that you are real and everyone else is a p zombie in a simulation, even though it has been shown that algorithms cannot create such simulations?

You must think yourself very important and special!

Would you like to explain how you arrived at this probability estimate that only you are real and everyone else is a p zombie in a simulation?

 

[pood]

Have you asked yourself why the putative simulators would make you, and you alone, conscious? Why make anyone conscious if they are just running some sort of stupid video game? And why you in particular?

 

[excreationist]

But there is a 50/50 chance that you are real and everyone else is a p zombie in a simulation, even though it has been shown that algorithms cannot create such simulations?

So I said "Why is it necessary that simulations must be able to evaluate every single possible algorithm including those that would take more than a googolplex years to evaluate?"
You replied "The paper argues that the universe is not fundamentally algorithmic and therefore algorithms cannot simulate it."

Yes that is what it "argues". Please explain why it is definitely correct and why a simulation must evaulate "every single possible algorithm including those that would take more than a googolplex years to evaluate"

You must think yourself very important and special!

Would you like to explain how you arrived at this probability estimate that only you are real and everyone else is a p zombie in a simulation?

I think in scenarios like the Roy game only the player is "real" and the rest are p zombies:

It is possible that everyone could be genuinely conscious - and that is considered more "normal" so I just gave them equal odds. The odds are just intuitive approximations.

 

[excreationist]

Have you asked yourself why the putative simulators would make you, and you alone, conscious? Why make anyone conscious if they are just running some sort of stupid video game? And why you in particular?

In that Roy game video the player is conscious. What is the point of running a video game if no-one has a genuine consciousness of it? The player is the one directly or indirectly paying for the video game. In return they have a conscious experience of it.

 

[pood]

I am asking why you imagine you are the only one conscious in a video game?

 

[excreationist]

I am asking why you imagine you are the only one conscious in a video game?

Like I said it would make it a lot cheaper and reduce the number of people experiencing genuine suffering (by NPCs not having consciousness). In universes like ours they try and minimise the costs of video games as much as possible so that they can make a good profit. Also I am saying there is maybe a 50/50 chance this is the case.
Now sometimes games use AI slop to cut costs and I think AI is also a good way to cut costs for more immersive simulations.

 

[pood]

I am asking why you imagine you are the only one conscious in a video game?

Like I said it would make it a lot cheaper and reduce the number of people experiencing genuine suffering (by NPCs not having consciousness). In universes like ours they try and minimise the costs of video games as much as possible so that they can make a good profit. Also I am saying there is maybe a 50/50 chance this is the case.
Now sometimes games use AI slop to cut costs and I think AI is also a good way to cut costs for more immersive simulations.

No, I am asking why they would make YOU conscious and no one else. What is so special about YOU?

 

[excreationist]

No, I am asking why they would make YOU conscious and no one else. What is so special about YOU?

I think I am the player (in a game like the Roy game or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment).

 

[pood]

No, I am asking why they would make YOU conscious and no one else. What is so special about YOU?

I think I am the player (in a game like the Roy game or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment).

And why would you think this?