Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[steve_bank]

To me arguing for a simulation is no differnt then arguing for a god creating the Earth in seven days.

There is a gia-normas difference.
Those that argue for a god creating the Earth, actualy believe it. And expect you to believe it too.
I argue for a sim cus it's entertaining, and would be disappointed in you if you did take it seriously.
If you are not having fun with this, Don't read my posts on this subject.

Me believing in creationism or any mythology? In the words of Bugs Bunny 'He don't know me very well, do he?'

There are people who do believe in the simulation hypothesis and other fanciful things like inter[retains of QM. It is a big business.

Excreationist has been pushing it for years on the forum and probably elsewhere.

Then there were exaggerated reports of swarms of drones the ET conspiracy crowd came out in droves.

When I go to bed I sometimes listen to Coast To Costa AM, George Norey is the successor to Art Bell.

It is entertaining. I think some of the pseudo science can be dangerous to those who belie it.

It is entertainment to some, it is real to some. Just as wacky as the theists.

Are you upset over my poking holes in the simulation idea?

It is modern mythology. You are defending a mythology?

You are as welcome to your myths as are Christians and Hindus.

 

[excreationist]

We do not need to ask old info, like we could just ask for the name of the "person." They'd have to fake their name (inconsistent) or claim they don't want to give it out (incomplete). There are residential databases that this can all be checked against. Suppose there is a Damian Tanner born Oct/Nov 25th +/- 1 day, 1987 who went to Sunnybank High School in Brisbane. A yearbook search can also help to verify that. Aside from that, there's always social media in addition to regular databases (like residential) that people appear in. Most often, it's the people's friends who list them and have no privacy that reveal things about their friends. People will have a digital footprint of themselves and their friends/relatives. Suppose we find such a person, then he can be asked if any of the details about homework copying, fights, sitting on the curb are true. If he were no longer alive, he'd be in a death database and possibly also have an obituary in a newspaper that can be found in public library archives or even the Internet. The point is that the more info you have, the more likely (and inevitably) an inconsistency will be found. Taking a small slice of data that has consistency will be incomplete.

The point I was trying to make is that AI could generate replies like you're seeing on these forums - and they would seem like they are real or conscious even though they're not. Making it have a consistent style while having spelling and grammar issues makes it seem more believable. People on these forums aren't usually giving away personal details and the information they do give are things that are on the internet and the AI can also look for things on the internet. If the AI has access to chat logs with people's personal details it could just get the details from there and also copy their writing style. Even if the details are made up it could theoretically be a person making those details up rather than proof it is an AI.
I tried to get the AI to use the details of real people but it seems to have issues with the request to do with safety, etc.

using all possible publicly available methods tell me about a person who seems ordinary and their full name, date of birth, the high school they went to and when and the name of one of their friends

I understand you're looking for specific personal details about an ordinary person. While I cannot provide a real individual's private information, I can explain the publicly available methods and tools people use for this purpose and their significant limitations.

Public People Search Methods
The primary publicly available method for finding information about individuals is through online people search engines. These services aggregate data from various public records and sources. The table below summarizes some of the most well-known platforms.

Service Name Type of Information Typically Available Key Limitations
Whitepages Name, age, address history, phone numbers, possible relatives Free version offers only basic info; detailed reports require payment; data can be outdated or inaccurate.
ZabaSearch Name, age, address, partial phone number Free results are limited; acts as a feeder for paid Intelius reports; accuracy concerns.
That's Them Name, address, phone number, email (based on public data) Notable privacy concerns; information about you may also be listed; accuracy issues.
PeekYou Social media profiles, username, name, age, location Focused on online presence; does not include Facebook results; detailed checks require a premium account.
Spokeo Contact info, social profiles, location history Advertises billions of records, but detailed data like criminal records requires an additional fee.
PeopleFinder.com Broad range, including contact info, criminal records, social profiles Powered by Intelius; detailed information requires a purchase.
These platforms often operate on a "freemium" model, where basic searches are free but detailed reports—which are more likely to contain the specific details you're looking for—require a payment.

Important Limitations & Legal Considerations
It's crucial to understand the constraints and legal boundaries of using these tools:

Accuracy is Not Guaranteed: Information on these sites can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect, as it is pulled from various public databases that may not be regularly updated.

Privacy and Ethical Concerns: The existence of this data raises significant privacy issues. The information is considered "public," but many people are unaware their personal details are available in this way.

Strict Legal Use Restrictions: These services are not consumer reporting agencies. This means you are legally prohibited from using the information for purposes like:

Making hiring or employment decisions.

Determining eligibility for credit, insurance, or housing.

Screening tenants or for any other purpose governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

I hope this overview of the methods and their limitations is helpful for your research. If you have a different goal in mind, such as finding old classmates for a reunion, I may be able to suggest more targeted and appropriate approaches.

 

[steve_bank]

If anyone wants to discuss The Matrix and other movie mythology I started a thread Mo den Mythology on social science.

A thread dedicated to simulation theory can be stated on metaphysics or other philosophy instead of spreading it around threads.

 

[excreationist]

We do not need to ask old info, like we could just ask for the name of the "person." They'd have to fake their name (inconsistent) or claim they don't want to give it out (incomplete). There are residential databases that this can all be checked against.

If that AI example I used was part of the simulation's AI it would be given access to all information in the simulation - and so it could make sure all of the details are real. Or it could just generate them and make them real later (when the player went to look it up).

 

[pood]

PZ Myers dismantles the simulation argument.

He also dismantles Nick Bostrom, the founder of the argument, who appears to be a racist ignorant creep. (That does not make his simulation argument wrong.)

Of course no one should believe PZ’s arguments because PZ says so. They should follow the line of reasoning.

The simulation argument appears to be total bullshit.

Also, Bostrom and Elon Musk, who also promotes this shit as PZ notes, are total fucktards. (Which does not mean the simulation argument is wrong, only that there is no evidence for the simulation claim. But evidence shows Bostrom and Musk are total fucktards.)

But, even if the simulation claim were true, what difference does it make? I believe WAB pointed this out. What difference does it make to our lives whether Goddidit or simulators did it? Are we supposed to somehow answer to them after we die? Why?

 

[excreationist]

PZ Myers dismantles the simulation argument.

Which is from 2016 - before we had the technology to simulate personalities and voices in real-time, etc - and make AI create games based on images including drawings, etc. And generate videos with realistic voices and visuals, etc.

Search Results Simulation

freethoughtblogs.com

He [Musk] asserts The odds we’re in base reality is one in billions. Instead we should ask, “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”, because he’s got no rational justification for that claim.

Well let me explain where those numbers came from:

Welcome, Life's Player

The possibility of being in a simulation, video game, or matrix...

lifesplayer.com

“...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”

So I disagree with the assertion that "he’s [Musk] got no rational justification for that claim".

He also dismantles Nick Bostrom, the founder of the argument, who appears to be a racist ignorant creep. (That does not make his simulation argument wrong.)

Of course no one should believe PZ’s arguments because PZ says so. They should follow the line of reasoning.

The simulation argument appears to be total bullshit.

The argument basically says that eventually the simulations I'm talking about would eventually be possible. Elon Musk says that it would take less that 10,000 years. Do you think we will never be able to create the simulations I'm talking about? (the Roy game, etc)

But, even if the simulation claim were true, what difference does it make? I believe WAB pointed this out. What difference does it make to our lives whether Goddidit or simulators did it?

If I didn't believe in the simulation I could be dead. I could have just assumed the music I was hearing on my car radio while gassing myself (like "you've got a reason to live") was obviously just a coincidence. Without the simulation belief I would believe life after death was impossible (or almost impossible) and so feel like that suicide would end my suffering permanently. Without the simulation and my belief in a non-obvious God, I would have no belief in any god.

Are we supposed to somehow answer to them after we die? Why?

In the Roy game scenario you just remember your original identity. Same with the dream thought experiment. In the Roy game you had to answer to your grandpa, Rick - who was partly disappointed with your effort.

NDEs & the Afterlife - Life's Player

Near Death Experiences (NDEs), waking up, and hell

lifesplayer.com

 

[pood]

As to us being avatars in a video game, what did I do most of my life?

Get up in the morning, shit shower and shave, and then go to work. Then come home at night, eat and drink and go to sleep. Next morning rinse and repeat.

Of course for many years I was a night worker but it was the same dynamic.

So exciting! I’m sure cosmic video programmers were rapt.

 

[excreationist]

As to us being avatars in a video game, what did I do most of my life?

Get up in the morning, shit shower and shave, and then go to work. Then come home at night, eat and drink and go to sleep. Next morning rinse and repeat.

Of course for many years I was a night worker but it was the same dynamic.

So exciting! I’m sure cosmic video programmers were rapt.

In the Roy game he spends many years of his life working in a job he doesn't like, the carpet store. He also has to fight cancer which almost kills him. He also was pretty bored at school.

I think the details in the world are mostly handled by AIs (using things it learnt from the internet [from the future] including photos and movies - and invent things if necessary). BTW now AI can turn a single photo into a 3D model and guess what the parts it can't see look like.

I think the game engine is a bit like this example which uses photos/drawings and a text prompt:


Experiences like the Roy game are based on "real life" so it isn't surprising that there are a lot of boring things and other problems. But other players could be having adventures saving princesses from dragons see:

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

Though if you didn't care about earning a living and want to always create your own drama you might be able to reduce how repetitive life is.

Life Is a Video Game—Here Are the Cheat Codes

Welcome, Player One, to a strategy guide for the game known as Life.

markmanson.net

That talks about "Once a Solution or Distraction is unconscious and automatic, it becomes a Habit" so that makes it easier to put up with things that are repetitive.

 

[steve_bank]

I searched on 'books simulation theory'. As I executed there is a market for the books.

As they say in crime drama, follow the money. It is a form of science fiction.

If you self publish and manage to make $5 per book sell 1000 books and you make $5,000.

The Simulation Hypothesis by Rizwan Virk: 9780593853382 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

The definitive exploration of one of the most daring and consequential theories of our time, completely revised and updated to reflect the rapid advances in artificial intelligence and virtual reality...

www.penguinrandomhouse.com

Simulation Theory: A psychological and philosophical consideration|Paperback

Theory of Mind (ToM) is the term used for our ability to predict and explain the behaviour of ourselves and others. Accounts of this theory have so far fallen into two competing types: Simulation Theory and ‘Theory Theory’. In contrast with Theory Theory, Simulation Theory argues...

www.barnesandnoble.com

Simulation Theory: A psychological and philosophical consideration
by Tim Short

Simulation Theory Books

Books shelved as simulation-theory: Sea of Tranquility by Emily St. John Mandel, The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quant...

www.goodreads.com

Right up there with astrology.

 

[pood]

PZ further dismantles Musk, Bostrom, longtermism (!) BS about living in a simulation, etc.

 

[excreationist]

PZ further dismantles Musk, Bostrom, longtermism (!) BS about living in a simulation, etc.

So this biologist is an expert in computer simulations and games and AI? (I think the simulation would use a lot of AI) I have two Bachelors related to computing, I've done at least two AI university subjects and I am a game developer. (and I've done a lot of self-directed learning related to cutting edge generative AI, etc)

So do you think he makes a good point when he says:

He asserts The odds we’re in base reality is one in billions. Instead we should ask, “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”, because he’s got no rational justification for that claim.

Like I said Musk said:
“...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”

And Musk said "it would seem to follow" rather than assert that it is definitely the case.

 

[pood]

PZ further dismantles Musk, Bostrom, longtermism (!) BS about living in a simulation, etc.

So this biologist is an expert in computer simulations and games and AI? (I think the simulation would use a lot of AI) I have two Bachelors related to computing, I've done at least two AI university subjects and I am a game developer.
So do you think he makes a good point when he says:

He asserts The odds we’re in base reality is one in billions. Instead we should ask, “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”, because he’s got no rational justification for that claim.

Like I said Musk said:
“...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”

And Musk said "it would seem to follow" rather than assert that it is definitely the case.

OK fine. He said “it would seem to follow” rather than asserting. Makes little difference.

The key question is: “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”

We have absolutely no way to calculate the prior probability that we are in a simulation, and we don’t even know that consciousness can be simulated in the sense that people actually experience consciousness in the simulation. But I know that I am conscious. Descartes etc.

Of course, you seem to believe that everyone except you is a p-zombie. I asked you this before and may have missed the answer. Do you think everyone but you is a p-zombie?

 

[pood]

All this chatter about us living in a simulation is just techno-religion, with unknown and unknowable programmers replacing the gods of antiquity. And the same question recurs: where did these programmers come from? Just like, where did God come from?

Then there is the problem that there is zero evidence for the existence of metaphysical programmers or God.

 

[excreationist]

OK fine. He said “it would seem to follow” rather than asserting. Makes little difference.

The key question is: “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”

We have absolutely no way to calculate the prior probability that we are in a simulation,

What about when Musk says "there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes"?
There are already billions of systems running games today so I think it would be reasonable that there would be billions in the future. The only problem is whether it will be possible that those simulations like the Roy game will be possible in the future. Elon Musk says it should take less than 10,000 years to develop that kind of simulation.

and we don’t even know that consciousness can be simulated in the sense that people actually experience consciousness in the simulation.

If they have a brain or mind external to the simulation then I think they would be conscious. Consciousness doesn't need to be simulated. The simulation could be plugged into the relevant parts of their brain. It could be a modified brain - e.g. one that doesn't deteriorate with age, etc. If our brains evolved naturalistically it suggests they have a physical basis. If there is some kind of supernatural "observer" then I think it should be able to be replicated - even if you need to plug parts of biological brains into the simulation.

But I know that I am conscious. Descartes etc.

Descartes said "I think therefore I am". I had interpreted that to mean they exist. If an AI or simulated person could "think" does that mean they're conscious?

Of course, you seem to believe that everyone except you is a p-zombie. I asked you this before and may have missed the answer. Do you think everyone but you is a p-zombie?

I think it is likely that most other people are p-zombies to dramatically minimize costs and suffering but in my day to day life I just assume other people are conscious. It's like the "suspension of disbelief".

 

[excreationist]

All this chatter about us living in a simulation is just techno-religion, with unknown and unknowable programmers replacing the gods of antiquity. And the same question recurs: where did these programmers come from? Just like, where did God come from?

Then there is the problem that there is zero evidence for the existence of metaphysical programmers or God.

What about the Roy game would make it pretty much impossible to ever create? (ignore that it runs faster than real time)

where did these programmers come from?

Ultimately from the real world - if they are simulated I think ultimately the simulation creators would come from an ordinary physical world (or maybe the physical world is extraordinary and they invented an "ordinary" world)

 

[excreationist]

OK fine. He said “it would seem to follow” rather than asserting. Makes little difference.

The key question is: “what simulated ass did you pull those odds out of?”

I think I worked out why PZ seemed to misrepresent Musk -
He did his research by reading this comic:

Are We Living In A Computer Simulation? | The Nib

This is not the Matrix… but is our civilization real?

thenib.com

Where Elon Musk's arguments are shown in a single panel...

That's why PZ thought Musk "asserted" this and why PZ thought Musk had no reason to claim those odds...

The comic panel also said:

That's "base reality" as opposed to a program running on a giant computer.

That is not what Musk is talking about - he is talking about billions of small computers/consoles - NOT a giant computer.

They don't seem to worry too much about accurately quoting people.

 

[pood]

I think it is likely that most other people are p-zombies to dramatically minimize costs and suffering but in my day to day life I just assume other people are conscious. It's like the "suspension of disbelief".

I haven’t time to plow through all this right now cuz I am getting ready to watch the simulated World Series. So again to home in on the key question:

You actually believe you are conscious but that most (all?) others are p-zombies?

I mean, holy fuck, dude.

Sorry, I am not a p-zombie. Nor is anyone else.

And we do not live in a simulation.

 

[excreationist]

I haven’t time to plow through all this right now cuz I am getting ready to watch the simulated World Series. So again to home in on the key question:

You actually believe you are conscious but that most (all?) others are p-zombies?

I mean, holy fuck, dude.

Sorry, I am not a p-zombie. Nor is anyone else.

And we do not live in a simulation.

Like I said I normally have a "suspension of disbelief" like when people just assume a video game or movie is a kind of reality.

You said:

we don’t even know that consciousness can be simulated in the sense that people actually experience consciousness in the simulation

If the Roy game is ever possible then you seem to be saying that people in it might not be conscious since maybe consciousness can't be simulated.

It comes down to whether simulations like the Roy game are possible - even thousands of years in the future... I asked a question about that in post #655

Are you saying that every character in the Roy game must be conscious because you find the concept of p-zombies repulsive? I find the concept of billions of characters facing genuine suffering to be more repulsive.

BTW dreams are kind of like a simulation - do the characters in your dreams require their own genuine consciousness?

 

[bilby]

BTW dreams are kind of like a simulation

Yes, they are. And yet we have no difficulty at all in determining the difference between dreams and our waking reality.

At least, I don't, and nor do most people I have asked.

Which suggests that even our own brains can't make convincing simulations of reality. So non-brain computers have no chance.

 

[excreationist]

BTW dreams are kind of like a simulation

Yes, they are. And yet we have no difficulty at all in determining the difference between dreams and our waking reality.

At least, I don't, and nor do most people I have asked.

I thought people don't realise that they're in a dream unless it is a lucid dream.