Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[pood]

Just to be clear, in your model you are CERTAIN that YOU are conscious, but when I protest that I am conscious too, you give it a 50% chance that it's not true --

I don't think we're just two similar characters - I think I am player controlled and my consciousness comes from the player whose consciousness isn't generated by the simulation.

that that's just what my character has been programmed to say, or what my simulated brain has been programmed to believe. Correct?

I think there is AI that generates plausible NPCs which includes them appearing to be conscious.

Evidence?

 

[excreationist]

Just to be clear, in your model you are CERTAIN that YOU are conscious, but when I protest that I am conscious too, you give it a 50% chance that it's not true --

I don't think we're just two similar characters - I think I am player controlled and my consciousness comes from the player whose consciousness isn't generated by the simulation.

that that's just what my character has been programmed to say, or what my simulated brain has been programmed to believe. Correct?

I think there is AI that generates plausible NPCs which includes them appearing to be conscious.

Evidence?

You think there is a zero chance I am correct therefore it is absolutely impossible for me to change your mind - otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself about the chances. So it doesn't make any sense for me to respond since I have already answered those kinds of questions before.

 

[excreationist]

Well you don't believe in fully immersive simulations but there would be a more limited simulation that you think is possible. So do you have a problem with there being a VR video game with fairly photorealistic graphics (like GTA 6) and characters you could talk to that do real-time text to speech, etc?

Are you asking about being a conscious simulation INSIDE such a video game without knowing it? Yes, I have a problem with that, because no one has even shown it is possible.

No - just exactly what I asked. I think it would be possible with current technology.

Also, how did you calculate this probability, other than pulling it out of your ass?

The 50/50 probability is roughly based on my feelings.

You realize that probability and statistics do not rely on feelings?

They kind of do when bookies think up the odds... anyway I don't know the exact number of simulations with p zombies compared to those without which would be required to calculate it without relying on feelings.

 

[bilby]

You think there is a zero chance I am correct therefore it is absolutely impossible for me to change your mind - otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself about the chances. So it doesn't make any sense for me to respond since I have already answered those kinds of questions before.

It's easy to come up with excuses when asked for evidence.

"You wouldn't believe the evidence if I presented it" is always a cop out.

Present the evidence. If you have already answered the questions, you can just quote your previous posts, so it shouldn't take much effort on your part. If it's solid and convincing, and @pood refuses to consider it, then we will all know that you are right, and he is wrong.

Or keep making excuses, then we will all suspect that you are full of shit.

 

[excreationist]

You think there is a zero chance I am correct therefore it is absolutely impossible for me to change your mind - otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself about the chances. So it doesn't make any sense for me to respond since I have already answered those kinds of questions before.

It's easy to come up with excuses when asked for evidence.

"You wouldn't believe the evidence if I presented it" is always a cop out.

A typical person might say "if you can present good enough evidence then I will change my mind". But pood seems to be saying "it is impossible that there would ever be an argument that I would ever convince me" (on this topic). Otherwise he would need to build into his odds that possibility.

Present the evidence. If it's solid and convincing, and @pood refuses to consider it, then we will all know that you are right, and he is wrong.

Or keep making excuses, then we will all suspect that you are full of shit.

Well what about his claim that a paper proves simulations are impossible due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems? That is an easier topic for me which pood also believes he is definitely 100% correct about. Do you also think that paper is 100% correct and watertight?

 

[pood]

You think there is a zero chance I am correct therefore it is absolutely impossible for me to change your mind - otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself about the chances. So it doesn't make any sense for me to respond since I have already answered those kinds of questions before.

It's easy to come up with excuses when asked for evidence.

"You wouldn't believe the evidence if I presented it" is always a cop out.

A typical person might say "if you can present good enough evidence then I will change my mind". But pood seems to be saying "it is impossible that there would ever be an argument that I would ever convince me" (on this topic).

No, I am not saying that. I am asking you for evidence to support your claims. If you have compelling evidence, I would change my mind, But you don’t have any evidence,

Otherwise he would need to build into his odds that possibility.

Built into what odds? How are you calculating your prior probability that we live in a simulation (in which only you are conscious, no less!) We have one data point — the universe as we experience it. You cannot build a probability distribution from that. You “feeling” has nothing to do with actual probability,

Present the evidence. If it's solid and convincing, and @pood refuses to consider it, then we will all know that you are right, and he is wrong.

Or keep making excuses, then we will all suspect that you are full of shit.

Well what about his claim that a paper proves simulations are impossible due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems? That is an easier topic for me which pood also believes he is definitely 100% correct about. Do you also think that paper is 100% correct and watertight?

I don’t “believe” any such thing; I cite the paper as strong evidence that an algorithm or algorithms cannot simulate the universe because the argument is that the universe is not algorithmic.

 

[pood]

Even if it were possible that we live in a simulation, trying to calculate the probability that we do so is meaningless — like the Drake Equation, there are too many unknown variables and only one data point.

 

[pood]

It’s the exact same problem with the so-called “fine tuning argument” — gosh, what are the odds that the constants of nature are just right to support life, and if they were a tiny bit different no life would be possible?

Well first, it’s not really at all clear that different combinations of constants would fail to yield life, though it might be life not as we know it (paging Mr. Spock).

Second, given that most of the universe is empty quantum vacuum, the universe hardly seems “fine tuned” for life all, though maybe for black hole formation.

But most tellingly, the question is basically meaningless, because the constants are — constant! So the odds that they are what they are is unity!

This sort of question trades on ambiguity between what is physically possible and logically possible.

It may be logically possible that the constants are different, but given that this is the only universe we have and the constants are, what they are, there is no prior probability to calculate.

 

[excreationist]

No, I am not saying that. I am asking you for evidence to support your claims. If you have compelling evidence, I would change my mind, But you don’t have any evidence,

If there was any possibility you could change your mind then the chances you are wrong isn't exactly zero.

I don’t “believe” any such thing; I cite the paper as strong evidence that an algorithm or algorithms cannot simulate the universe because the argument is that the universe is not algorithmic.

I was under the impression that you saw the paper as "proof" you are correct. BTW do you think brains are algorithmic?

 

[pood]

As a thought experiment, assume that there were six universes, and then assume the absurdity that you could somehow “step outside” of the one you are in (step outside into what?) without knowing which universe you stepped outside of.

And then, to compound the absurdity, suppose you could somehow determine that three of the universes are simulations and three are “base” reality (which somehow generated the three simulated universes, assuming further that such a thing is even possible).

THEN, under these utterly absurd and impossible circumstances, you would have the right to calculate the prior probability of living in a simulation to be 50 percent.

Otherwise you have no basis for making any calculations and your “feelings” are meaningless.

 

[pood]

No, I am not saying that. I am asking you for evidence to support your claims. If you have compelling evidence, I would change my mind, But you don’t have any evidence,

If there was any possibility you could change your mind then the chances you are wrong isn't exactly zero.

I don’t “believe” any such thing; I cite the paper as strong evidence that an algorithm or algorithms cannot simulate the universe because the argument is that the universe is not algorithmic.

I was under the impression that you saw the paper as "proof" you are correct. BTW do you think brains are algorithmic?

Science does not “prove” anything, as I and others have repeatedly stressed.