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

[no-one-particular]

If you want to know what's going on then just follow the money. Ask yourself who's getting rich off this.

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

 

[steve_bank]

We live in a universe of bizarre, incomprehensible, odd and strange posts.

 

[DBT]

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire.

 

[excreationist]

If you want to know what's going on then just follow the money. Ask yourself who's getting rich off this.

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

Well I think they're trying to cut costs (to increase profits).... so it seems they haven't put life on any other planets or exoplanets.... that means they don't have to simulate other places very accurately....
Another way they could be cutting costs is to begin the simulation relatively recently rather than always simulating everything since the big bang....

 

[no-one-particular]

Every atom and subatomic particle is simulated perfectly down to the tiniest detail everywhere throughout the entire universe all the time. And there is life everywhere. Their computers have no limits. And they cost nothing to build

 

[no-one-particular]

Every atom and subatomic particle is simulated perfectly down to the tiniest detail everywhere throughout the entire universe all the time. And there is life everywhere. Their computers have no limits. And they cost nothing to build

They grow them like trees

 

[excreationist]

Every atom and subatomic particle is simulated perfectly down to the tiniest detail everywhere throughout the entire universe all the time. And there is life everywhere. Their computers have no limits. And they cost nothing to build

Well just the Sun on its own has 10^57 atoms.... that's a 1 with 57 zeroes. And Planck time is 10^-44 seconds - meaning that is how often physics seems to update. Normally computers are limited by the speed of light... so a computer the size of the earth would take more than 100 ms just to orbit the earth once.

So do you really believe life is everywhere? Then why haven't we found any on Mars, etc?

 

[pood]

Are you saying the fact that we have not yet found evidence of life beyond the earth is itself evidence that the universe is a simulation, and a cost-cutting one at that? I confess the simulation argument seems to me to be “goddidit” updated for the digital age.

 

[excreationist]

Are you saying the fact that we have not yet found evidence of life beyond the earth is itself evidence that the universe is a simulation, and a cost-cutting one at that?

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes - the Fermi paradox says that it is surprising that we can't detect intelligent life - and more than that we can't even find any kind of life - even though there are a huge number of earth-like exoplanets. Do you understand that having intelligent life on one planet is much less CPU intensive (and expensive) than having intelligent life on trillions of planets?

I confess the simulation argument seems to me to be “goddidit” updated for the digital age.

As far as "goddidit" in a simulation goes, I think it can be explained logically (using computers, etc) without the need for mysterious supernatural forces.
BTW do you think it is possible that in the future they will be able to make video games that are indistinguishable from reality?

 

[pood]

I think the Fermi so-called paradox applies only to the absence of evidence for intelligent, space-faring or signaling life, and not the absence of life itself.

I really don’t understand the simulation argument answer to the so-called paradox. No one has any idea what the economics of simulation would be if supercomputing were possible such as to simulate an entire universe, including self-conscious creatures (us) on at least one planet. For all we know, if there were super-duper-duper computers (presumably quantum) then simulations, no matter how complex, would be dirt-cheap. If cost were a factor, the simulators don’t need to simulate vast numbers of civilizations on different planets. One other besides earth would do. In fact, all that would be required is to simulate an intelligent and intelligible radio signal from a distant planet received on simulated earth. It would not even be necessary to simulate an actual civilization behind the signal, only the signal itself.

But this is beside the point. You don’t need the simulation hypothesis to explain “where are they?” The answer may be staring us in the face: they’re very rare and perhaps nonexistent. You don’t need the high cost of simulation to explain this. You just need reality.

The kind of intelligence that we are looking for is similar to our own: Able to build radio receivers and transmitters, able to build spaceships. Yet such a life form happened only one time on earth: us.

If you condensed the entire 4.6 billion-year history of the earth into a single calendar year, Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, modern humans made their first appearance on the last day of the year, Dec. 31, at about one-tenth of one second before midnight. And even after that modern humans weren’t able to travel in space or send or receive radio signals until very, very recently. In fact during most of human history, the gargantuan part of it, we didn’t even have civilizations. We were hunter-gatherers.

No simulation argument is required to explain any of this. It’s just how things are. Based on our own experience, technological intelligence with space ships and radio telescopes is likely to be vanishingly rare. Of course our experience is only one data point, and it probably isn’t valid to make conclusive inferences from that, but that data point is certainly suggestive.

As to simple life forms, the universe may be teeming with them for all we know, but they are impossible to detect from great distances. So that we haven’t yet found them is unsurprising.

Will we someday make video games indistinguishable from reality? Maybe. But I don’t think it follows from this that anyone should think that the characters inside the video games that we actually have are conscious. It’s the other thing I fail to understand about the simulation argument: If one wished to simulate a human species and human civilization for some unknown reason — their own amusement, as in video games? — why would they need, or even want, to simulate actual consciousness among the inhabitants of the simulation? By your own cost argument, it seems it would be extremely costly and “CPU intensive” to simulate actual consciousness among billions of simulated people, rather than letting them just be philosophical zombies, entities that behave as if they are conscious but are not really conscious.

And of course, the simulation argument fails to explain where the simulators came from. Are they simulated, too? LIke turtles, is it simulators all the way down? Occam’s Razor is needed here methinks.

 

[pood]

The simulation argument really does seen to be the goddidit argument updated for the digital age.

For example, many religious believers, including especially evangelicals I think, believe that God created human intelligence on only one planet, earth. So why is the universe so vast yet absent of other intelligent life forms? Because — and I have actually seen an entire philosophical paper devoted to to this claim — God wanted to show us his love for us so much, that he created an utterly barren universe, except for earth, just to show how special he thought we were. This is the supernatural equivalent of the “CPU-intensive” simulation argument.

God created us, but who created God? Simulators created us, but who created, or simulated, the simulators? Same question in different contexts. Is it Gods all the way down? Simulators all the way down? The arguments are parallel and both avoid the idea that reality is what it is, no Gods or simulators required.

Or take the so-called fine-tuning argument. It basically holds something similar to what follows:

1. Several important constants of nature must be what they are, or very close to what they are, to make it possible for carbon-based life forms to exist.

2. Carbon-based life forms exist.

Therefore:

3. The universe as we find it is highly improbably, OR, put another way, it cries out for explanation.

4. The best explanation is that the universe was created by some intelligent agent — either God, or intelligent agents running simulations on super computers.

Therefore:

The universe was created by some intelligence, either God or intelligent agents running simulations on super computers.

Another way to put it night be:

Given that the universe is highly improbably life-friendly, it is more probable that it was designed this way than that it is this way by accident. The designers may be God, or intelligent agents running simulations on super computers.


The problem is that this argument seems no good, because I don’t think that 3 follows from 1 and 2.

That is, even if we grant premise 1, that the constants of nature must be identical or very close to what they are in order for carbon-based life (or any conceivable life?) to arise, it simply does not follow that these constants are improbable. For one thing, they are the only constants we know about, because, well, they are constant. There is no probability distribution here. There is no way of even knowing whether these constants could have been different.

The idea is sometimes cashed out as follows: It is logically possible that the constants could have been different, and the ways that they could have been different are practically infinite. But in that case the probability of any ensemble of constants manifesting themselves is not only staggeringly low, but effectively zero. Moreover, logical possibility is not the same thing as physical possibility.

A multiverse along with God or the simulation argument is sometimes evoked to explain fine tuning. But to me none of these are necessary, because the whole fine-tuning argument founders on a misapplication of probability. So the fine-tuning argument for God, a multiverse or the simulation hypothesis cannot even get off the ground. There is nothing to explain. Like God and the multiverse, the simulation argument explains nothing about the reality that we find ourselves in, so far as I can see. They are all superfluous and cleaved away by the famed razor.

 

[no-one-particular]

there is a big difference between God and intelligent aliens.

 

[pood]

My point is, there is no reason to invoke either to explain the reality that we find ourselves in.

 

[excreationist]

No one has any idea what the economics of simulation would be if supercomputing were possible such as to simulate an entire universe, including self-conscious creatures (us) on at least one planet. For all we know, if there were super-duper-duper computers (presumably quantum) then simulations, no matter how complex, would be dirt-cheap.

There are a lot of different reasons why people would build simulations - like in movies and TV shows (e.g. Black Mirror). So if it is possible and cheap and there is a lot of demand then it means there would be a lot of simulations... making it much less likely we're in base reality.

If cost were a factor, the simulators don’t need to simulate vast numbers of civilizations on different planets. One other besides earth would do. In fact, all that would be required is to simulate an intelligent and intelligible radio signal from a distant planet received on simulated earth. It would not even be necessary to simulate an actual civilization behind the signal, only the signal itself.

Yes now you're understanding how you can cut corners in a simulation....

But this is beside the point. You don’t need the simulation hypothesis to explain “where are they?”

I have other reasons to believe in simulations including that it is likely that in the future there would be huge numbers of them having it more likely that we're not in base reality.

Will we someday make video games indistinguishable from reality? Maybe. But I don’t think it follows from this that anyone should think that the characters inside the video games that we actually have are conscious. It’s the other thing I fail to understand about the simulation argument: If one wished to simulate a human species and human civilization for some unknown reason — their own amusement, as in video games? — why would they need, or even want, to simulate actual consciousness among the inhabitants of the simulation? By your own cost argument, it seems it would be extremely costly and “CPU intensive” to simulate actual consciousness among billions of simulated people, rather than letting them just be philosophical zombies, entities that behave as if they are conscious but are not really conscious.

Yeah I think it is likely in many simulations that other people would be philosophical zombies - not just to save CPU usage but to reduce the problem of suffering

And of course, the simulation argument fails to explain where the simulators came from. Are they simulated, too? LIke turtles, is it simulators all the way down? Occam’s Razor is needed here methinks.

I think that each simulation has much less information than the world outside of it.... so simulating one particle would involve many other particles... and there would be other particles that are not involved in the simulator/computer such as intelligent beings outside of the simulation. Our universe seems to run at 10^-44 seconds.... but I think if you made a simulation in our universe it would run a lot slower than that. To have infinite levels you'd need one to build a simulation capable of infinite levels plus people inside it that know how to do it and they'd have to do the same (make sure the people in the simulated world know how to do that) and so on with every level. If this process doesn't continue forever then there is no endless turtles. (which I think is the case)

God created us, but who created God? Simulators created us, but who created, or simulated, the simulators?

Well I think there must be an eternal physical universe outside everything....

Or take the so-called fine-tuning argument

I think simulations explain fine tuning - though fine tuning doesn't prove simulations.

 

[pood]

Well, as noted, I don’t think fine tuning requires an explanation. But if it did, why is “base reality“ fine-tuned? What explains that?

I’m aware of Bostrom’s specific argument. I just don’t think it is any good.

 

[no-one-particular]

base reality isnt fine tuned. Its khaos

 

[excreationist]

Well, as noted, I don’t think fine tuning requires an explanation. But if it did, why is “base reality“ fine-tuned? What explains that?

Base reality could involve a multiple universes like baby universes, etc, where some of them are fine tuned by chance.

I’m aware of Bostrom’s specific argument. I just don’t think it is any good.

My version of it basically is: there would be a lot of demand for simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, they would be possible and even trivial to make - so the odds we are in base reality is low.

 

[pood]

Well, again, I reject the idea fine tuning requires an explanation, for reasons stated.

As to the simulation hypothesis, there is no evidence to support it. Talk about demand for simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, is speculation without evidence.

 

[excreationist]

As to the simulation hypothesis, there is no evidence to support it. Talk about demand for simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, is speculation without evidence.

I think given enough technology it is inevitable that simulations indistinguishable from reality will be created. It is speculation but I think it involves a lot of evidence - though you assert there is "no evidence".

 

[pood]

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