• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Images that make you laugh

 
 
 
unapologetic said:
"If we can design intelligences, most intelligences will be designed."
Click to expand...
Most?
That is an unproven assertion. therefor (A) is unsupported.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the central thesis of the simulation theorist. The cartoonist, Zach Weinersmith, is working with the constraint of his medium, and for brevity is not presenting the simulation hypothesis itself, but rather assuming that his audience are already familiar with it - it is a subject he has regularly lampooned, so that's a fair assumption with regards to most of his readership.

As the final quote "Once Simulation Theory logic is allowed, you can prove ANYTHING" suggests, he is derisive of the value of the entire hypothesis.

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed the simulation argument suggesting that if a civilization becomes capable of creating conscious simulations, it could generate so many simulated beings that a randomly chosen conscious entity would almost certainly be in a simulation. This argument presents a trilemma:

  1. either such simulations are not created because of technological limitations or self-destruction;
  2. advanced civilizations choose not to create them;
  3. if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality and we would therefore almost certainly be living in one.
This assumes that phenomenal consciousness is not uniquely tied to biological brains but can arise on systems implementing the right computational structures and processes, also known as functionalism in philosophy of mind.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia
 
unapologetic said:
if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality
Click to expand...
It is that assumption of quantity that I question.
Click to expand...
Well we already see it with crude "simulations". How many software packages of any kind do we make that we only ever have a single instance running?

Minecraft is a crude simulation; There have been hundreds of millions of copies sold.

If we simulated a universe able to support intelligence on a similar scale to what we observe in our "real" universe*, why would be stop at one? If we simulate just two, the odds of a random intelligence being one that is in the "real" universe falls to 0.33; Simulate a mere hundred and the odds are below 1%.

And if the simulations can themselves make simulations, the odds rapidly become vanishingly tiny that a given intelligence is in the "real" reality.

We already have a number of threads on this topic, if you want to discuss it further, outside the humour fora:

https://iidb.org/threads/generative-ai-behind-a-possible-simulation.29980/

https://iidb.org/threads/questions-about-the-simulation-hypothesis.29890/

https://iidb.org/threads/the-openai-conspiracy-argument-for-a-possible-simulation.26820/

https://iidb.org/threads/argument-from-possible-simulation.23567/





* There are roughly eight billion intelligent beings known to inhabit our universe, but of course, there may be far more we don't know about. Even if we subtract the Trump supporters, that's still a lot of intelligences
 
Last edited:
Are we using the same langue?
"If we can design intelligences, most intelligences will be designed."
"if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality..."
Am I reading that wrong?
Do those statements not assert that they would create more simulations than their population numbers? That assertion is baseless.

"the odds rapidly become vanishingly tiny that a given intelligence is in the "real" reality."
The odds of being in any one of the simulations is just as small.



If we can design gods, most gods will be designed.
 
unapologetic said:
Are we using the same langue?
"If we can design intelligences, most intelligences will be designed."
"if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality..."
Am I reading that wrong?
Do those statements not assert that they would create more simulations than their population numbers? That assertion is baseless.
Click to expand...
No it's not. An accurate simulation of today's Earth would include eight billion or so intelligences. Just two of those would include twice as many simulated intelligences than there exist "real" ones.

And that's before we even start on the simulations that the simulated intelligences themselves might create.
unapologetic said:
"the odds rapidly become vanishingly tiny that a given intelligence is in the "real" reality."
The odds of being in any one of the simulations is just as small.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there are a lot of them. The chances of acquiring the winning ticket in the lottery are small. The chances of acquiring just a ticket are not.

If there exist a million universes, 999,999 of which are simulated by the inhabitants of the one "real" universe, then the chances of you being in the "real" universe are a million to one, and the chances of you being in any specific simulation (say number 314,159) are also a million to one, but the chances of you being in one of the 999,999 simulations, rather than in the "real" universe, is 99.9999%
unapologetic said:
If we can design gods, most gods will be designed.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Indeed, we observably can and do design gods, and all of them are designed.
 
bilby said:
An accurate simulation of today's Earth would include eight billion or so intelligences.
Click to expand...
OK got it.
I was thinking 'designed intelligences' in the cartoon meant AIs. Which would NOT by necessity outnumber undesigned intelligences.
You were talking 'intelligences' = inhabitants of simulations.
But if the cartoon was referring to simulations it still would not be 'most'. It should be ALL intelligences would be designed. Hence my confusion.

8 billion people and an uncountable number of stars, is overkill for a simulation. (in my opinion)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom