We live in a universe designed, built, and run by the mafia.

[excreationist]

To be precise, I am saying there is no evidence that we are in a simulation.

What about that are world is computable rather than there being infinite resolution in time and space....

 

[pood]

Don’t follow. Our world?

 

[excreationist]

Don’t follow. Our world?

Yes there is Planck time and the Planck length.... if time and space had an infinite resolution it would be harder to simulate. BTW are there flaws you can point out in Bostrom's arguments?

Are You Living in a Simulation?

The original paper that introduced the simulation argument

www.simulation-argument.com

 

[pood]

But if Planck time and length indicate that it is easier to simulate, are not the simulators also subject to Planck time and length? If so, are they also simulations? Then we are back to simulators all the way down, like the turtles. As to Bostrom’s paper, which I have read, more later.

 

[excreationist]

But if Planck time and length indicate that it is easier to simulate, are not the simulators also subject to Planck time and length? If so, are they also simulations? Then we are back to simulators all the way down, like the turtles. As to Bostrom’s paper, which I have read, more later.

I'm talking about evidence rather than proof. Being indistinguishable from reality means that it isn't obvious we're in a simulation....
Like I said I totally reject the idea of endless levels of simulations...
You seem to say that either there are endless levels of simulations or no simulation for us....
Also isn't it unusual that there were apparently an infinite series of simulations and it just ended for us? (we haven't created a simulation ourselves)

About endless levels again - it is far more likely for them to simulate a world without any (or many) simulations inside it because it would be far less computationally intensive and more immersive (if you don't suspect it is a simulation)

 

[pood]

No, I don’t think there are either endless levels of simulations or no simulations at all. It‘s just that if you say there aren’t endless levels, then you posit a base reality, which makes sense. I think we are that base reality. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise. Bostrom’s argument is just that, a philosophical argument and not evidence. The argument itself contains a number of highly dubious assumptions. such as that of substrate independence. I can well imagine running a simulation full of avatars, which seems to be what this metaverse thing is about, without any of the avatars being other than philosophical zombies.

 

[steve_bank]

Who is simulating the simulators who are simulating the universe?

Who is simulating the simulators who are simulating the simulators who are simulating the universe?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Ask not for whom the simulators simulate, they simulate for you.

I am simulated therefore I am.

The Golden Rule of simulation, simulate as you would want to be simulated.

Ask not what the simulation can do for you, ask what you can do for the simulation.

If I had no scruples and ethics I would start The Religion Of The Simulation. It would beat Scientology.

There is a sucker simulated every second.

 

[pood]

The simulation argument, as well as fantasies about the singularity, do strike me as a modern techno-religion.

 

[excreationist]

Bostrom’s argument is just that, a philosophical argument and not evidence. The argument itself contains a number of highly dubious assumptions. such as that of substrate independence.

So your counter-argument to his paper is two sentences....
What about Elon Musk's argument:

"...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 is one in billions"​

such as that of substrate independence.

I'm not sure if I understand this right but if consciousness can't be properly simulated in a computer you could just use brains in vats, etc.

I can well imagine running a simulation full of avatars, which seems to be what this metaverse thing is about, without any of the avatars being other than philosophical zombies.

In the movies and TV shows I'm aware of there are some conscious beings in the simulations such as those with an existence outside of the simulation (e.g. Morty in the Roy game) I don't have a problem with most beings being philosophical zombies - in fact it helps deal with the problem of suffering.

 

[pood]

I read Musk’s quote at the link you gave. It identified him as “an engineer worth about 200 billion dollars.” Just because he is “worth” that much money, does not mean his opinions are worth more than squat.

 

[pood]

I think it’s simple. Provide some empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. If you can’t, the simulation argument is no different from, “goddidit.”

 

[no-one-particular]

I think it’s simple. Provide some empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. If you can’t, the simulation argument is no different from, “goddidit.”

it almost sounds like you are arguing FOR religion and against the intelligent aliens theory.

There is a huge difference between God and intelligent aliens

 

[excreationist]

I read Musk’s quote at the link you gave. It identified him as “an engineer worth about 200 billion dollars.” Just because he is “worth” that much money, does not mean his opinions are worth more than squat.

It suggests he is extremely knowledgeable about technology (i.e. he is one of the most highly talented engineers in the world) - he even is behind organisations like OpenAI - I think AI will be a key part of future simulations. So I guess you think you are more qualified than him to speculate about future technology....

 

[excreationist]

I think it’s simple. Provide some empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. If you can’t, the simulation argument is no different from, “goddidit.”

Is that another 3 sentences as a counter-argument to Bostrom? Are you saying that his paper is identical as “goddidit"?

Perhaps it's similar to people who believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe - they can't prove that there is any but they think it makes sense to say that there might me. As far as “goddidit" goes, that usually involves no mechanism at all - just some mysterious supernatural forces.... on the other hand I'm talking about technological mechanisms including "level of detail".

 

[pood]

I don‘t think he is any more qualified to speculate about future technology than you or I. As to the remark that I am “arguing FOR religion and against the intelligent aliens theory,” I have no idea how anyone can derive this from what I said. Provide some evidence for either god or intelligent aliens or simulations and I’m all ears. If you can’t, you got nothing.

 

[pood]

I’m not saying his paper is identical to “goddidit.” I’m saying that the empirical evidence for simulation and goddidit are the same: zero.

 

[excreationist]

I don‘t think he is any more qualified to speculate about future technology than you or I.

Well he created new technologies like reusable rockets and he has discussed AI and simulations with his brother very deeply. He is partly responsible for OpenAI which created things like this:

DALL·E: Creating images from text

We’ve trained a neural network called DALL·E that creates images from text captions for a wide range of concepts expressible in natural language.

openai.com

Do you know how to build an AI that can create images like this? He can so I think that proves he is more qualified to speculate about future technology....

 

[excreationist]

I’m not saying his paper is identical to “goddidit.” I’m saying that the empirical evidence for simulation and goddidit are the same: zero.

Well I had hoped after the previous two sentences that you would have a more substantial objection to Bostrom's paper. I'll agree that there is a major problem to do with empirical evidence that we are definitely in a simulation.

 

[pood]

Substrate Independence: We have no evidence that consciousness is substrate independent. If it’s not, the simulation argument fails right there.

To be sure, we have plenty of simulations. We’ve had them for decades — cartoons on TV, for example, are simulations of conscious beings. No one thinks these entities are really conscious.

Modern computers generate lots of simulations. I have seen a simulation of Abraham Lincoln walking and talking in a commercial for family trees. He even uses a computer. Does this simulated Abraham Lincoln think? It is aware that it is using a computer and speaking to an audience? Of course not.

We have growing evidence that the brain and our computers are not analogous. We have a whole field called artificial intelligence, or AI. It can do some amazing things, like beat the best human chess champs and compose music, poetry and art. Are these systems aware that they are doing these things? No. Did the computer that beat Kasparov know that it was playing chess and beating a human chess champ? No.

It remains to be seen whether awareness and self-awareness can be nonbiologically generated. So far this has not happened. Not even close. And no one knows how to make it happen.

Ethics: Suppose it were possible to simulate worlds with simulated consciousness and self-consciousness. The ethics of this are highly suspect, and an advanced society might well ban such simulations (though no doubt there might be a thriving black market for them). Our world is full of suffering. If our world is a simulation, then its programmers are malicious sadists. It’s a parallel concern with the Problem of Evil with respect to God.

Last Thursdayism: When did our simulation begin? Last Thursday? Why not? The fact that the universe looks really old could just be simulated. It’s the parallel argument to the God argument inLast Thursdayism: God made the world very recently but just made it look ancient, with fossils and everything. But the most parsimonious assumption is that our universe looks old because it really is old. If it really is old, it’s not a simulation, unless one wishes to argue that the simulation began billions of years ago.

Where are the flaws? Any technology, no matter how advanced, sooner or later displays flaws; indeed, the more advanced the technology, the more likely it is to have glitches because so many moving parts are involved. If there were flaws in our simulation, we ought to be able to spot some. Here and there the laws of nature would break down, maybe the moon would suddenly wink out of the sky, maybe a few things would start falling up instead of down. None of this ever happens. The most parsimonious reason why none of this ever happens is that we are not living in a simulation but in base reality.

Turtles all the way down: It’s either simulations all the way down or there is a base reality. But if there is a base reality, then the same simulation argument could be applied to that base reality, but the argument would be wrong. Paging Occam, the most parsimonious assumption is that we are the base reality, particularly when you consider that no one has any idea how to simulate an actual consciousness or even that it can be done at all (see my argument on point one above).

Techno-hubris: The simulation argument, the singularity argument. and the like are products of techno-hubris, in my view. Techno-hubris is the idea that technological progress, or even progress in general, is somehow linear or even exponential. It’s basically a myth. The techno-industrial civilization we have has basically ridden on the back of harnessing fossil fuels. This accomplishment must perforce be transitory for two reasons: first, fossil fuels are finite and cannot be replenished, and second, the conversion of fossil fuels into waste products in the sky is currently threatening not just human civilization, but potentially our every existence. If we were to look, say, 100 years in the future, which scenario seems more plausible: That we will be running all sorts of simulations on huge computer networks involving conscious beings experiencing suffering, or that that we will be struggling just to feed ourselves and find livable habitats in a world overwhelmed by climate change? I’d put my money on the latter, though of course all predictions are iffy.

The pace of technological improvement has already flattened considerably since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. In 1859, the year Origin of the Species appeared, the first oil well was drilled near Titusville, Pennsylvania. The late industrial revolution thus began. In 1859 there were no cars, no planes, no telephones, no computers personal or otherwise, no spaceflight, no radio, no TV, no economical use of electric lighting. The list goes on.

But starting around 1970, the pace of techno-change has significantly stalled. The biggest things we have now, that people did not have fifty years ago, are the internet, personal computers and cellphones. Beyond that the world of 2021 does not look too much different from the world of 1971, though the world of 1971 looked significantly different from the world of 1921, and the world of 1921 looked significantly different from the world of 1859.

I remember in 1970 reading about how by now we would have colonies on the Moon and Mars, underground cities, self-driving cars and flying cars (both of which may yet happen but the jury is decidedly out) worldwide nuclear power too cheap to meter, intelligent self-aware computers (like HAL 9000), intelligent robots that would do all our work for us while we bask in leisure, and many other marvels besides. None of it has happened.

Elon Musk: He’s a businessman and entrepreneur who finances inventions. He does not invent them. Again, he is no more qualified to speak about the future than you or I. The fact that he has had deep conversations with his brother about the future of AI means nothing more than any other ordinary bull session that smart (or even dumb) people have.

 

[pood]

Courtesy of P.Z. Myers:

The only reason we need more Greta Thunbergs is because the Elon Musks have been running amuck. He’s not a “risk-taking innovator” — he’s a billionaire who is busy looting the planet and our economy to fuel his ego. He doesn’t do science! He spends money on whatever gives him a good return on his investment; his fantasy of launching people (not himself, obviously, other people) to Mars is flaming anti-environmentalism.