Has life ever spontaneously formed in a simulation?

>>58105422
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>>58105422
what do you define as life

>>58105422
https://www.ted.com/talks/christophe_adami_finding_life_we_can_t_imagine

Good talk to watch re: this question

>>58105444
That's a terribly written article.
Firstly, it doesn't draw a clear distinction between a normal brain and a Boltzmann brain.
Secondly, it doesn't explain what the paradox is.

Life on Earth was the result of random fluctuations, how is it different to a Boltzmann brain?
Or is the point of the paradox that due to a hostile multiverse it's far more likely for a brain to evolve in one go rather than step-by-step through life, so it's near-infinitely unlikely that the philosopher just so happens to be here on Earth?

>>58105422
No. And life never will spontaneously form in a simulation. Just like it did not spontaneously form in this universe.

Anyone who claims otherwise is completely and utterly ignorant of the mathematical challenges to such a claim. Our universe, as large and ancient as it is, could be run as a sim 10^100 and first life in any run would be absolute proof that someone interfered with the sim and placed it there. That's how obscene the math is.

Either our universe is a sim, or something from another universe came here and seeded life.

>>58105525
>Secondly, it doesn't explain what the paradox is.
Yes it does. It explains that the paradox is that the way we think we exist is extremely improbable compared to an isolated brain that simply believes it has memories etc. of other humans.

And by the same logic, anything we think we perceive about the universe is much more likely to be a small brain that simply thinks it's observing these things about the universe (because actually randomly forming, say, a star - is much less likely than forming a tiny brain with an imprinted image of a star preprogrammed into it)

So it's a self-defeating argument that destroys pretty much the basis of all observation about the universe, including itself. This is how it's a “paradox”

>>58105541
It's ironic how you find the idea of a universe existing for a very, very long amount of time to be less believable than the idea of some mythical intelligent being having deliberately designed life.

To me the former is much easier to accept - we already know the unvierse exists, and we don't have any reason to assume it will ever stop existing, so for all intents and purposes it could have existed for a very, very long amount of time with no real change to the status quo.

Meanwhile, accepting the idea of an out-of-universe entity that is either deliberately and knowingly simulating or creating us sounds absurd. Why do you jump from rejecting one difficult concept to so readily embracing another, ludicrously less practical concept?

>>58105553
That paradox makes a very bold assumption of what it means to think though.
The idea behind such brains being the most common is that the multiverse is too hostile to support actual life, but if a Boltzmann brain can actually operate even for the briefest moment like a brain (as opposed to chaos shaping into a brain for an instant), then that universe is not too hostile to support life.

So the paradox assumes that it is possible to be a brain which does not think, but simply exists.
I'm highly doubtful of that.

>>58105644
>That paradox makes a very bold assumption of what it means to think though.
Not really, btu it makes an extremely bold assumption about the nature of random fluctuations that happen in the universe. In fact, if we want to reject the paradox (which we rightfully should, seeing as it's a paradox), it's an indication of the fact that the universe does not permit/generate infinite random fluctuations.

>The idea behind such brains being the most common is that the multiverse is too hostile to support actual life, but if a Boltzmann brain can actually operate even for the briefest moment like a brain (as opposed to chaos shaping into a brain for an instant), then that universe is not too hostile to support life.
The idea behind such brains being common is that they're much smaller than “actual” life. If you consider a near-equilibrium universe undergoing random fluctuations, then the probability of a random low-entropy fluctuation happening is inversely exponential (afaik?) to the volume of the particles that need to undergo this random fluctuation.

So if you imagine something as small as a single brain with simulated inputs, it's going to be a rather tiny amount of space compared to a whole planet, let alone a whole galaxy with observable other galaxies.

>>58105682
>In fact, if we want to reject the paradox (which we rightfully should, seeing as it's a paradox), it's an indication of the fact that the universe does not permit/generate infinite random fluctuations.
It also rules out any theories in which “all possible universes” exist, like an infinite multiverse that permits every possible universe, or something like the mathematical universe hypothesis.

If your theory of everything constructs an infinite number of boltzmann brains, it's a self-defeating theory since it rejects its own analysis.

>>58105422
I'll try root out the interview, but when the original black and white game was being demoed the tiger avatar went to a lake and started studying its own reflection. There was a lot of talk of it being sentient.

It was probably just hype knowing the developerfag, but at the time it was interesting.

>>58105541
How is it not possible the universe is just a giant brute force attack, where everything is thrown in a sandbox and collided until eventually life spewed out.

Genuinely interested in an answer that's not deist or technodeist.

>>58105629
Because there is far more evidence that this world is by design not happenstance.

>>58105878
See >>58105878

The “just randomly fluctuate everything until life” argument defeats itself, because by that argment you have zero confidence in your own ability to observe the universe.

>>58105902
Feel free to mention a single example of such evidence

>in b4 “the bible”

>>58105541
You're an idiot.

>>58105924
[crickets]

>>58105525
Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean its a bad article

File: 1481606226540.jpg (8KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x256px

>>58105924
>give me proof
>e-except for this kind of proof, give m something else

Why are atheists so fucking dumb? You claim to be great rationalists or whatever, but still only hear what you want to heae.

>>58105863
>>>58105422 (OP)
>I'll try root out the interview, but when the original black and white game was being demoed the tiger avatar went to a lake and started studying its own reflection.

>There was a lot of talk of it being sentient.

How retarded do you need to be to make this leap?

>program something to do something mildly anthropomorphic
>omg it's sentient

>>58106254
You can't submit a storybook as proof otherwise I'm going to slam down the little mermaid and tell you it's proof of mermaids.

>>58106254
I invented the first time machine. Prove me wrong

File: Clippy.png (124KB, 362x335px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 362x335px

>>58105541
>Anyone who claims otherwise is completely and utterly ignorant of the mathematical challenges to such a claim.

It sounds like you're trying to describe probabilities in a strongly interdependent system as though they were independently random, like Roger Penrose. Would you like some help finding an appropriate model?

>>58105422
Yes, you're already living into it.

File: IMG_3790.png (652KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1280x960px

>>58106307

The Bible is one of the very few written records that exist from what's essentially the Neolithic. Especially relevant since we can't even read most other of the few writings that ancient.

I'm not saying you should take it as proof of the existence of god, and it is truth that it's not the most accurate source, especially the cuck James version, But I'm tired of the "storybook" meme. It is used as a source of information and a reference point in serious archeology.

>>58105422
>Has life ever spontaneously formed in a simulation?
yes
>where
Earth`

>>58105924
Not him, but he's right. The only person who hasn't really thought this through nor done his homework, is you.

The universe is extremely fine tuned to an insanely narrow range of values to allow life on earth, one of these constants for example is the atomic weak force, another being gravity, that if these values were altered by a even a tiny bit, no life could exist in the universe.

If you were at all serious about this, just look around you for crying out loud. The trees, the sky, the sun, the rotation of the planets, and biggest of all, US. Look at how we are communicating right now, it's something we call a "thread" on an "imageboard" called "4chan". How is this not effing incredible?

If you were to walk on the moon and saw a bucket of KFC with your name and date of birth written on it in permanent marker, and assume that it was there by chance, I must say you're probably retarded.

>>58105448
Well not posting on a mongolian message board for starters

>>58108361
google anthropomorphic principle

>>58108610
anthropic*

>>58108122
Most scholars don't date the Old testament to the neolithic. Some of the earlier stories are about what we would call the early bronze age, but that doesn't mean it was actually written in that time period.

>>58108361
But do we exist because the universal constants were made to be such or is it that if they were any different we wouldn't exist to ponder the question?

>>58108361
So, where's this evidence you mentioned?

>>58108361
Agree

>>58105541
read this

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

No silly, only God can create life.

>>58105448
When things tend toward order rather than chaos.

>>58108361
explain like I'm a retard, please

if one of those constants were different, why would not some different kind of life have arisen, evolved to intelligence, and eventually came to discuss the ...xenomorphic principle, I guess, banging their tentacles on their keyboards instead of my chubby little fingers?

it is serious question; I don't know enough to take a side and say I'm right and everybody else is a retard.

>>58110639
We've simulated a lot of universes with very minor changes to our physical constants and come to the conclusion that none of them can support, say, stable carbon atoms (which are a big part of what makes life possible)

That said, using this as a proof for the existence of god is ludicrous, because there's a much simpler explanation: The physical constants are only constant in our observable universe.

If you imagine, for example, that somewhere, a universe exists with every possible configuration of physical constants, then obviously life would evolve *somewhere*, and those particular universes would be the ones with the right configuration. Naturally, every intelligent observor would think its own universe is special and “carefully crafted”, even though in reality it isn't.

>>58108361
But if the atomic weak force were altered a tiny bit, wouldn't we just end up with a different set of atoms and molecules?
It seems wrong to assume that because the chemistry we know is invalidated, that nothing new comes to take its place.

For example, if atoms decayed more easily, then atoms larger than iron might be rare, so even if much of our chemistry became impossible the sheer abundance of atoms associated with life could make it much easier for life to form.

If atoms decayed less easily, there could be hundreds of stable atoms, so all sorts of new chemistry becomes possible.

>>58112400
>But if the atomic weak force were altered a tiny bit, wouldn't we just end up with a different set of atoms and molecules?
No, they'd just decay into nothing

>>58107718
>the first time machine
>the first

Irrelevant.

>>58106254
m8, people that far back thought the earth was flat, they had no proof of it, it was just what was believed or assumed to be true, they had nothing to prove it was wrong
how are the contents of the bible any more reliable?

>>58114608
well according to the bible, the earth is flat, so at least it's consistent with what people thought at the time

>>58108122
Great argument but Gilgamesh is way older and thus way more true