• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

Yes you seem to believe that there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance we are in a simulation. A very black and white kind of thinking.

Yes, But even more, I believe there is a a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance that we live in a simulation and you are the only one conscious within it.

Whence this hubris? Why are you so special?
 
Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist. :rolleyes:
Do you think it is possible that there could one day be a VR video game where the graphics look almost photorealistic and you can use your voice to talk to the characters and they reply realistically? And the AI would be handled by a computer rather than real people controlling the talking of the NPCs.

What has this to do with the issue at hand? That you believe there is a 50 percent probability that we all live in a simulation but the blessed YOU are the only one conscious within it? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
 
Also, how did you calculate this probability, other than pulling it out of your ass?
 
Yes, But even more, I believe there is a a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance that we live in a simulation and you are the only one conscious within it.

Whence this hubris? Why are you so special?
Yeah as an atheist I thought there was nothing special about me. It seemed my life wasn't worth living. There are main characters in some video games and movies that seem very ordinary, at least at first. If I could relive a life I would relive my own - partly because in school a lot of girls liked me but I didn't know what to do. Then I came across large amounts of PUA stuff, etc. But I only put it into action at the age of 29 (after I was getting over "toxic shame" which developed as an atheist). I would have done a lot better if I had even asked a single person for girl advice when I was in high school.
Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist. :rolleyes:
Do you think it is possible that there could one day be a VR video game where the graphics look almost photorealistic and you can use your voice to talk to the characters and they reply realistically? And the AI would be handled by a computer rather than real people controlling the talking of the NPCs.
What has this to do with the issue at hand? That you believe there is a 50 percent probability that we all live in a simulation but the blessed YOU are the only one conscious within it? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
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?
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. I guess your reasoning is that simulations are definitely not possible therefore the probability is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000%. That leaves out room for any ignorance or misunderstanding you might have of the issues.
 
Last edited:
Could you please explain not just why you think reality is a simulation,
So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future ...
There would be a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation.

IOW, given a plausible starting assumption, Simulation is just more likely.

The  Boltzmann brain hypothesis -- which certainly seems far more absurd than the simulation hypothesis -- was also proposed (though sarcastically) with a similar likelihood argument.
 
Could you please explain not just why you think reality is a simulation,
So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future ...
There would be a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation.
IOW, given a plausible starting assumption, Simulation is just more likely.

The  Boltzmann brain hypothesis -- which certainly seems far more absurd than the simulation hypothesis -- was also proposed (though sarcastically) with a similar likelihood argument.
Is someone claiming that a Boltzmann brain is more likely than an intelligence evolving naturalistically? The thing about simulations is that when one is possible then after a little while billions would be possible, assuming it can be replicated cheaply (and today there are billions of video games with the demand coming from billions of players).
 
Last edited:
Quite apart from these long strings of 0s being bloody annoying, you should also be aware that they reduce, not increase, the accuracy of the figure 0%.

Even the % does this.

The most accurate way to express exactly zero chance numerically is: 0
 
IOW, given a plausible starting assumption, Simulation is just more likely.

The  Boltzmann brain hypothesis -- which certainly seems far more absurd than the simulation hypothesis -- was also proposed (though sarcastically) with a similar likelihood argument.
Is someone claiming that a Boltzmann brain is more likely than an intelligence evolving naturalistically?

Start a new thread if the Wikipedia article on Boltzmann brains isn't good enough for you. As I implied, it was a 19th-century invention to serve as a reductio ad absurdum in thermodynamics.

The thing about simulations is that when one is possible then after a little while billions would be possible, assuming it can be replicated cheaply (and today there are billions of video games with the demand coming from billions of players).

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Quite apart from these long strings of 0s being bloody annoying, you should also be aware that they reduce, not increase, the accuracy of the figure 0%.

Even the % does this.

The most accurate way to express exactly zero chance numerically is: 0

You and I often agree, and I DO understand your point, but extra zeroes are not always superfluous.
Recently I complained right here at IIDB that graphics with lists like the following (with all numbers having same precision) ...
Code:
   23.6
     17
   15.8
... make me want to puke. The second number should be written "17.0" A majority of programmers are incompetent. Can we at least agree on this?

I had a drinking buddy (who bragged about hiring a helicopter to fly him and his fellow executives to Manila for a Yahtzee game, believe it or don't). In an already-weird conversation he mentioned that there were 2.54 cm in an inch. Not knowing a good come-back for that I said "there are 2.5400000 cm in an inch." He didn't believe it! I won a bottle of beer.
 
I doubt all people are conscious of what they do and why. And that there are degrees ofn consciousness.

When you choose to buy one thing over another are you fully conscious of all the variables and influences that affect the decision?

Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist. :rolleyes:
P Zombie is a new one for me, I had to look it up. From the wiki pane my guess it is an arftiofact of the psjhedelics of the day.


Like Maxwell'[s Femon it m,ay bhave some usefulnees as atool.



Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment that appears to disprove the second law of thermodynamics. It was proposed by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867.[1] In his first letter, Maxwell referred to the entity as a "finite being" or a "being who can play a game of skill with the molecules". Lord Kelvin would later call it a "demon".[2]

If you believe nobody else feels and is aware I'd call that mentally unhealthy.

Real people become video game characters with whom you play games and you can harm and control wi9thout feeling, as in the violent games.
 
Last edited:
Yes, But even more, I believe there is a a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance that we live in a simulation and you are the only one conscious within it.

Whence this hubris? Why are you so special?
Yeah as an atheist I thought there was nothing special about me. It seemed my life wasn't worth living. There are main characters in some video games and movies that seem very ordinary, at least at first. If I could relive a life I would relive my own - partly because in school a lot of girls liked me but I didn't know what to do. Then I came across large amounts of PUA stuff, etc. But I only put it into action at the age of 29 (after I was getting over "toxic shame" which developed as an atheist). I would have done a lot better if I had even asked a single person for girl advice when I was in high school.
Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist. :rolleyes:
Do you think it is possible that there could one day be a VR video game where the graphics look almost photorealistic and you can use your voice to talk to the characters and they reply realistically? And the AI would be handled by a computer rather than real people controlling the talking of the NPCs.
What has this to do with the issue at hand? That you believe there is a 50 percent probability that we all live in a simulation but the blessed YOU are the only one conscious within it? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
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.
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?
 
I think it is extremely mentally unhealthy to believe you are the sole conscious being in a simulated world that amounts to techno-solipsism.

If a person were to believe this, it may make them cavalier about harming or even killing others, on the reasoning that they aren’t feeling a thing.

Fortunately, in excreationist’s case, the motive seems to be the opposite — to ease the fear that the world is full of actually felt pain and suffering.

There also seems to be some ancillary motivation that being the only one conscious makes him somehow special.
 
I doubt all people are conscious of what they do and why. And that there are degrees ofn consciousness.

When you choose to buy one thing over another are you fully conscious of all the variables and influences that affect the decision?

Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist. :rolleyes:
P Zombie is a new one for me, I had to look it up. From the wiki pane my guess it is an arftiofact of the psjhedelics of the day.

Not psychedelics, but a staple thought experiment in the philosophy of mind, deployed, for example, by David Chalmers in his analysis of the hard problem of consciousness.
 
My own position, fwiw, is that while p-zombies are logically conceivable, they are physically and metaphysically impossible.
 
Drug related mysticism. Timothy Leary for example.

In the language of the day P zombies is what I'd call tripping.

Howe can something be metaphysically impossible? One can construct metaphysical realities which can never be physically manifested.

I'd call p zombies metaphysics, thought experiments.
 
I should note that David Chalmers did take psychedelics, but what is wrong with that?
 
Drug related mysticism. Timothy Leary for example.

In the language of the day P zombies is what I'd call tripping.

Howe can something be metaphysically impossible? One can construct metaphysical realities which can never be physically manifested.

I'd call p zombies metaphysics, thought experiments.

Yes, they are thought experiments. This is philosophy.

Lines can get blurry between physically possible, metaphysically possible, and logically possible.

The analytic philosopher David K. Lewis argued that talking donkeys, flying pigs and literal Greek gods are all logically possible, just not physically possible at our world.

He went on to argue, however, in his book On the Plurality of Worlds, that such entities do in fact exist in actual realities wholly disconnected from our own. This is called the modal multiverse.

I don’t believe he took any psychedelics, either, ;)
 
You and I often agree, and I DO understand your point, but extra zeroes are not always superfluous.
I didn't suggest that they were always superfluous; Merely that they are in this case, when attempting to stress that the number in question is exactly zero.
Recently I complained right here at IIDB that graphics with lists like the following (with all numbers having same precision) ...
23.6 17 15.8... make me want to puke. The second number should be written "17.0" A majority of programmers are incompetent. Can we at least agree on this?
Absolutely; Not only are we in agreement, but your example is an extension of my point. 17 means exactly 17, while 17.0 means 17 at three digits of precision - were a fourth digit available, the number might well not be exactly 17 (for example, it could be 16.96, or 17.04). In your example, therefore, the zero after the decimal point is important and should not be omitted.

The number of significant digits informs us about the (im)precision in the number; Therefore precisely zero would be expressed as 0, while 0.00 suggests an imprecise zero that is likely somewhere between -0.005 and +0.005.
 
Okay, but how is what is being said metaphysically impossible as you said? Metaphysics is not bound by physics.

As to drugs psychedelics were everywhere in the 60s 70s. I heard it said as bank mangers were doping out and dropping acid, laterally true.

Ken Kesey was famously dosed as a student with acid in a college experimenter before it became illegal.

Pop culture today was in large part created by drugs.

Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Beatles. Carl Sagan said he used pot for inspiration.

I grew out of it around 1974.

End of derail.
 
Okay, but how is what is being said metaphysically impossible as you said? Metaphysics is not bound by physics.

Perhaps metaphysically impossible is the wrong word. While logically possible, I think p zombies are physically impossible in our world, Thinking brains are embodied, and brains and bodies work together. I do not see how evolved p zombies could exist. Evolved brains and bodies are tied together.
 
Back
Top Bottom