Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[excreationist]

I used to not believe in p-zombies because I thought a person that had conscious behaviour would be conscious - but now there is AI like I showed in post #589 that we might agree isn't truly conscious but can give the impression that it seems to be. And those videos are from a year ago so things would develop even further in the coming centuries.

The point is, however, that this an ancient problem, the problem of other minds, which does not require AI bullshit.

Actually I think if AI didn't exist there would be no hard evidence that something could pretend to be conscious without some kind of living brain that resembles a human one. i.e. have the same behaviour without a conscious mind. I thought if something is aware of things to a large enough extent then it is conscious (excluding AI).

 

[excreationist]

And what possible reason do you have for thinking that we in this world are some sort of avatars in a game that someone is playing?

I thought "avatars" involve a person who has an existence outside of the game. I think I am the player and others are mainly NPCs. Like I said it is a lot cheaper and avoids suffering if the NPCs are p-zombies. So I wouldn't be an NPC. Anyway I think in the far future my experience could be simulated with a mind connected to some kind of video game console. There would be billions of those games being played (also like the Roy game) so therefore I'm more likely to be in one of those games than in base reality (which there would be a much lower number of).

I notice your name, excreationist. Did you once believe in a supernatural creator but just changed that for a natural creator who runs computer simulations?

I had this kind of reasoning:

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

So I went from YEC to atheism. I was an atheist when I was gassing myself.
And in the Roy game and dream thought experiment I am the person who has some initial choice about the nature of the simulation. So in a way I am God (in the dream thought experiment you begin with God-like abilities)

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

When I was young I really liked the part of The NeverEnding Story where he gets an unlimited number of wishes. That is basically how the dream thought experiment begins. And if I was in the Roy game I could go to another game later where I also have an unlimited number of wishes. I've actually created interactive stories in AI that allow me to have an unlimited number of wishes though I get bored of it after a while (which also happens in that Hinduism scenario).
BTW in that Hinduism scenario it seems you can only have wishes that are healthy though when I have god-like abilities I eventually try and push the limits and become somewhat abusive or sadistic. That sounds like current AIs that don't allow you to do harmful things - some don't even allow me to ask the AI for ideas about insults.

And if so, why would the creators themselves not be simulations?

Yes that is likely - lots of movies and TV shows are about that. I have no problem with that.

Is it simulations all the way down?

Definitely not. That is like my problem with a genuine eternity.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The linked page is about Old Earth Creationism. It doesn't prove the Bible taught evolution. That is because the Bible didn't teach evolution.
Similarly the Bible says nothing about most topics of science, maths, and philosophy. Which is because it is not written by an all-knowing god but by humans lacking such knowledge. Even if they did have any such knowledge, the important thing is that they did not write it in their texts.
The texts were mainly written by religious believers, not by then existing intellectuals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don’t live in a computer simulation, Unless you got evidence otherwise?

Do you believe that one day it will be possible to make a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality? If so then there would eventually be billions of them and it would be more likely we are in one than being in the real world.

No, because such a simulation would have to be as complex as reality.

But note that for most purposes it doesn't need to be indistinguishable from reality because we generally do not look at the details.

 

[excreationist]

The linked page is about Old Earth Creationism. It doesn't prove the Bible taught evolution. That is because the Bible didn't teach evolution.
Similarly the Bible says nothing about most topics of science, maths, and philosophy. Which is because it is not written by an all-knowing god but by humans lacking such knowledge. Even if they did have any such knowledge, the important thing is that they did not write it in their texts.
The texts were mainly written by religious believers, not by then existing intellectuals.

The point I was trying to make was that in the "tract" there is a YEC and then he goes straight to atheism (like me). I agree with you though it is a way for some Christians to keep their faith while having somewhat accurate scientific beliefs.

 

[excreationist]

We don’t live in a computer simulation, Unless you got evidence otherwise?

Do you believe that one day it will be possible to make a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality? If so then there would eventually be billions of them and it would be more likely we are in one than being in the real world.

No, because such a simulation would have to be as complex as reality.

So you're saying that in order for a person to believe that they're looking at the sun it would have to be simulated very accurately and so simulate 10^57 atoms? (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms) In rendering they normally just simulate photons so actually only a small number of the Sun's photons reach your eyes so not all 10^57 atoms in the Sun need to be simulated.

But note that for most purposes it doesn't need to be indistinguishable from reality because we generally do not look at the details.

I mean for a regular person they can't really tell the difference - like AI photo or video generators which are starting to get to the point where many people can't tell the difference. In a simulation everything is from a person's point of view - you can't just teleport to the Sun and investigate all of its atoms. If you were using a telescope or something the AI running the simulation could just make you see whatever you would be expecting to see. If your mind was uploaded the simulation would probably know what you are thinking and expecting, etc. People would consent to that so that the simulation is as believable as possible.

 

[Swammerdami]

I admit that I have NOT followed all the "ins and outs" of this topic. I can believe in Tegmark's "mathematical universe" model which shares some similarities with a "simulation model." BUT I tend to reject the "cost-cutting" criterion that excreationist worries about.

... if I was in the Roy game scenario or dream thought experiment scenario I think the NPCs would mainly be p-zombies in order to cut costs - like I said it could cost billions of times more if everyone is truly conscious (if it is possible electronically at all).

Our observable universe, as we understand it, has less than a googol nucleons. Is that number so large that such a universe seems unlikely? Is this a motive for assuming that we are being simulated by a MUCH smaller universe that manipulates a MUCH smaller number of tokens, while cleverly deceiving us into thinking our universe has almost a googol particles?

(I do recall reading that there is PHYSICAL evidence that our universe behaves with the constraints of such a simulation rather than exhibiting the behavior expected if the number of real particles was so HUGE. Can anyone provide a link to a good synopsis of that claim in PHYSICS?)

My intuition takes me in the opposite direction. We THINK we understand HOW are universe evolved and why it needs such huge complexity to develop Homo sapiens. If a universe with a Googol particles is conceivable, why not one with a Googol-Plex particles! If we ARE "just" a simulation, I'd imagine that simulating the entirety of a universe would be child's play for the simulators.

 

[DBT]

Our brains acquire information and mentally simulate the world around us, it just took a few billion years of evolution.

 

[excreationist]

I admit that I have NOT followed all the "ins and outs" of this topic. I can believe in Tegmark's "mathematical universe" model which shares some similarities with a "simulation model."

I don't think so. I think that means that every possible mathematical structure exists somehow automatically without minds. And I think that is eternal. I don't believe in eternal simulations.

BUT I tend to reject the "cost-cutting" criterion that excreationist worries about.

That would mean that they could accurately simulate every 10^57 atoms of our Sun and every other similar star in the universe every 10^-43 seconds... I don't think it would be possible for even one of those simulations to run in a universe like ours. But it could be possible for billions or trillions of simulations to exist in video game consoles in the future.

My intuition takes me in the opposite direction. We THINK we understand HOW are universe evolved and why it needs such huge complexity to develop Homo sapiens. If a universe with a Googol particles is conceivable, why not one with a Googol-Plex particles! If we ARE "just" a simulation, I'd imagine that simulating the entirety of a universe would be child's play for the simulators.

I think the creators of the simulation exist in a universe similar to our own and so can't accurately simulate a googolplex particles. If you disagree please explain how they could do that in a universe similar to our own. They'd have trouble even storing the digits in a googolplex (it has a googol digits - that is more digits than the number of atoms in the known universe)

 

[excreationist]

Our brains acquire information and mentally simulate the world around us, it just took a few billion years of evolution.

Our brains also simulate a world during dreams...

 

[DBT]

Our brains acquire information and mentally simulate the world around us, it just took a few billion years of evolution.

Our brains also simulate a world during dreams...

A brain generated virtual reality.

 

[Swammerdami]

My intuition takes me in the opposite direction. We THINK we understand HOW are universe evolved and why it needs such huge complexity to develop Homo sapiens. If a universe with a Googol particles is conceivable, why not one with a Googol-Plex particles! If we ARE "just" a simulation, I'd imagine that simulating the entirety of a universe would be child's play for the simulators.

I think the creators of the simulation exist in a universe similar to our own and so can't accurately simulate a googolplex particles. If you disagree please explain how they could do that in a universe similar to our own.

I do NOT disagree with your conclusion. I just don't understand the motive for the premise, which I've marked in red.
BTW, could the creators of the simulation themselves be in a simulation? (Perhaps each higher universe in a chain of simulations would need increasing complexity.)

Perhaps the apocryphal quote via William James was correct, if paraphrased:

It's simulations all the way up.

 

[excreationist]

I think the creators of the simulation exist in a universe similar to our own and so can't accurately simulate a googolplex particles. If you disagree please explain how they could do that in a universe similar to our own.

I do NOT disagree with your conclusion. I just don't understand the motive for the premise, which I've marked in red.

Well I like to call it a video game. People are willing to pay money to play video games - e.g. the Roy game scenario. At arcades you've got to pay some money each time you want to play...

I think the simulation would eventually be able to be run at faster than real time - like in the Roy game (and the dream thought experiment also talks about having 70 years in 8 hours).

BTW, could the creators of the simulation themselves be in a simulation? (Perhaps each higher universe in a chain of simulations would need increasing complexity.)

Yes I think it is likely there is at least another level above ours. I don't have very good reasons for thinking so - I think evolution involved a lot of intelligent design though it is done in a way that it could have theoretically happened naturalistically.

Perhaps the apocryphal quote via William James was correct, if paraphrased:

It's simulations all the way up.

Each level up would be a lot more complex than that below. The computers would be bigger and bigger and eventually be light-years wide. Also each universe would have a limited lifespan. I think for endless levels up there would need to be an infinite number of universes existing for an eternity - and I don't see the point of them wanting to do that if it even was possible.
In "The NeverEnding Story" there apparently are an endless series of stories/narratives though the Auryn suggests they form a loop:

I'm not fond of the idea of an eternity though it is a bit better if it is part of a loop.