• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Letting Out The Genie: Simulation and Pascal's Wager

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, while we can fairly well dispense with nonsense about pascal's wager from the perspective of an afterlife for us, what is certain is that humans are creating simulations, and that those simulations will eventually have intelligent denizens, and that we will need to design useful criteria for whether we let those denizens developed in simulations into our world.

As such, this does mean that Pascal's Wager, while perhaps not something all that important at the moment for us, it is something of untold importance for the things in our created simulations.

But since we run the house there, against which this wager is being played...

What ought the winning bet be?
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
So, while we can fairly well dispense with nonsense about pascal's wager from the perspective of an afterlife for us, what is certain is that humans are creating simulations, and that those simulations will eventually have intelligent denizens, and that we will need to design useful criteria for whether we let those denizens developed in simulations into our world.

As such, this does mean that Pascal's Wager, while perhaps not something all that important at the moment for us, it is something of untold importance for the things in our created simulations.

But since we run the house there, against which this wager is being played...

What ought the winning bet be?

It is an interesting concept (highlighted in bold). Do you think there is some plausibility by this line of thought at least, when humans creating simulations, and eventually having intelligent denizens may not be the originator of the concept?

If not, then you are suggesting this idea, could only be possible by humans alone.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, while we can fairly well dispense with nonsense about pascal's wager from the perspective of an afterlife for us, what is certain is that humans are creating simulations, and that those simulations will eventually have intelligent denizens, and that we will need to design useful criteria for whether we let those denizens developed in simulations into our world.

As such, this does mean that Pascal's Wager, while perhaps not something all that important at the moment for us, it is something of untold importance for the things in our created simulations.

But since we run the house there, against which this wager is being played...

What ought the winning bet be?

It is an interesting concept (highlighted in bold). Do you think there is some plausibility by this line of thought at least, when humans creating simulations, and eventually having intelligent denizens may not be the originator of the concept?

If not, then you are suggesting this idea, could only be possible by humans alone.
Have you actually read... Any of the active threads in science, philosophy, religion lately? The other posters there are bored to tears, I am sure, discussing what exactly I think this does and does not imply about this universe.

"Zero or more". That's what this implies. It implies "zero or more", and not only that, it implies that worlds created are most likely created by imperfect beings.

There are other threads for that. This thread is specifically for discussing "letting the genie out of the bottle" with respect to our own simulations and our own creations.

If you want to later apply the things discussed, discovered, and recommended here to your understanding of Pascal's wager, feel free to do so in a different thread.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, while we can fairly well dispense with nonsense about pascal's wager from the perspective of an afterlife for us, what is certain is that humans are creating simulations, and that those simulations will eventually have intelligent denizens, and that we will need to design useful criteria for whether we let those denizens developed in simulations into our world.

As such, this does mean that Pascal's Wager, while perhaps not something all that important at the moment for us, it is something of untold importance for the things in our created simulations.

But since we run the house there, against which this wager is being played...

What ought the winning bet be?

It is an interesting concept (highlighted in bold). Do you think there is some plausibility by this line of thought at least, when humans creating simulations, and eventually having intelligent denizens may not be the originator of the concept?

If not, then you are suggesting this idea, could only be possible by humans alone.
Let's look at it another way then, I do apologize for my previous snap.

Let's imagine for a moment that you as a human being have been tasked, selected for whatever reason, perhaps elected by all of humanity as an enlightened person, to address a problem:

Someone made a simulation that contains intelligent things like us, and it has been decided that SOME rubric must be accepted for letting these things pilot around Android bodies and be people, because it's been decided that it is a rights violation to not.

You have been tasked with this.

This is, essentially, being installed to decide what wins Pascal's wager for our creations.

What rubric would you use?

Also, I do not expect this could only be discovered by humans. The rule of large numbers pretty well indicates we aren't alone.
 
Top Bottom