Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument

>>17111440
4. Your logic is flawed and the simulation doesn't real.

File: 188rffwo2jqp8jpg.jpg (93KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x450px

>>17111451
You're saying that it is impossible to create a simulation advanced enough to be confused with the real universe by the people inside.

Most computer scientists believe that we ourselves will achieve this within 30 years, some say within the next 500.

Now think universally to species that could be thousands to millions of years more advanced than we are. And this is highly likely.

It seems like you could work out whether it's more likely that we've already done it and we're in it or more likely that we've yet to do it. Each of those would have a statistical probability and one would come out on top. I don't know how to calculate statistical probability, though.

File: 1405880613957.jpg (32KB, 340x339px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 340x339px

>>17111440
>"dude what if like this is all fake lmao"
>mfw crap like this actually gets attention

Modern "science" is a complete joke.

>>17111470
With the exponential technology growth saying it is improbable within the next 500 years is, in my mind, saying that human flight would never be achieved 500 years ago.

I'm not a simulation expert by any means but chew on this;

Everything in the universe that we could ever see or touch, all matter and time came from a point when there was no matter and there was no time.

Thus our own model of our own universe practically screams simulation. That was the moment the switch got turned on.

>a single point when there was no things and there was no time

What is "real"?
If something is a perfect simulation, isn't it as real as the original?

>>17111460
Ok, so the thinking is:
>a single universe most likely contains multiple simulations
>simulations therefore outnumber universes
>you are more likely to be living in a simulation than a universe
which isn't the right logic to use, since everyone in a simulation is also in a universe. The real question is "is it more likely you live in a universe and outside a simulation or in a universe and inside a simulation" which isn't as simple to answer.

It's also self-defeating in that if this is a simulation we wouldn't be able to make statistical inferences about reality since reality is outside the simulation and not in our range of experience except in the base level the simulation needs to stick to in order to make sense.

>>17111507
Because if the simulation is advanced enough then it logically follows that the people within it would also create their own simulations.

Think about a video game release today. 1 single game can sell millions of copies world wide in one single day. And that is 1 game on 1 planet in 1 solar system.

Now think universally.

We are all in God's simulation. And the heaven is outside of it, it's the reality.

File: 1307530085497.jpg (3KB, 123x140px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 123x140px

>>17111440

>1. The species for some reason refuses to create such a simulation.
>2. The species dies before the simulation is created.
>3. I am absolutely, without a doubt, 100% living within such a simulation.

I don't see the logic behind the jump from outcome 2 to outcome 3, and the jump is absolutely enormous. Why is it so out of the question that a 4th outcome could exist where a species has the ability to create such a simulation yet we are not a part of that simulation?

I see the idea behind what he's saying, but the proof he's constructed just reeks to me of faulty logic.

>>17111524
'God' could very well be a computer engineer or a team of them and completely irrelevant to our lives.

>>17111535
It's not proof, it's theory. He gives equal chance to all 3 scenarios.

But, if just one species on one planet in the Universe has become technologically advanced enough the create a simulation advanced enough to be confused with reality then mathematics tells us that there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of such simulations. And that is highly likely.

Which gives you a one in one hundred trillion chance of being in the real universe.

File: bug.jpg (67KB, 1000x907px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x907px

>3. I am absolutely, without a doubt, 100% living within such a simulation.
Well you can always go and jump of a cliff. Just wake up the rest us once you do.

>>17111513
If we assume the simulations are making simulation upon simulation inside themselves then we may as well assume reality is making reality upon reality inside itself. Also, the simulations are restricted by energy needs, social stability, mechanical error, human error and that's still assuming reality is much like the inside of the simulation.

File: 1327608621249.gif (488KB, 205x194px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 205x194px

>>17111440
>>17111460

>within 30 years

Why do people always do this? Create these positively enormous predictions and give them a time line of a few decades?

2001: A Space Odyssey was written in 1968, under the idea that by 2001 we would be traveling to Jupiter in enormous space complexes with sentient AI while riding business shuttles to layovers at space stations on our way to moon bases. Now here we are, 14 years past that deadline. Even today if someone wrote a similar plot line under the title 2048: A Space Odyssey (also 33 years in the future), I still would be seriously surprised if we had fucking commuter flights to moon bases by that time.

People take things like Moore's law and extrapolate it to ridiculous lengths.

File: Enzo-cube-1.jpg (139KB, 524x393px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 524x393px

>>17111561
If we have 1 video game today which people spend months playing for hours at a time and it sold millions of copies in one single day....

Then likelyhood is that there could be a trillion such simulations in the real universe. Never mind the internal creations.

It's a theory but a tenacious one.

>>17111573
I'm telling you what scientists are saying right now.

Silas Beane for one. Talk to him John Stewart.

>>17111553

The entire argument rests upon a positively enormous philosophical assumption, which in itself is based solely upon assumptive theory. It's incredibly faulty to derive a set of definitive conclusions off a purely speculative assumption.

This assumes that there is an equal chance of living in every universe and that every created simulation is so widespread as to affect every living being across the entire universe.

If we created a simulation of that caliber on this planet, it does not stand to reason that suddenly a jellyfish living in a completely separate galaxy now has a 1/2 chance of living in a simulation.

>>17111584

Yeah, no shit. I'm talking about the consistent tendency for scientists to make these bold predicitions with timelines of 30 years, when it ends up being more like 100.

>>17111597
Do the simple math yourself.

If there are hundreds of trillions of simulations then you have a one in one hundred trillion chance of being in the real universe.

I know you think this is real, and I know you think you exist in a physical form.

But what does science have to say about that?

Science says that your physical form is made up of energy and that our universe sprung up out of literally a null point.

I know this is hard to hear Neo. I can only show you the door.

>>17111603
So put it out to 500 as I have said I think on the op post. Whatever time line you pick, 3000 years is a tiny spec of time in a giant bucket of time.

Yeeesh

>>17111618

I'm not even picking on your stupid argument about simulations, I'm just picking on the over-eagerness of scientists to make claims that people can see as landing within their lifetimes rather than being realistic.

It's a tangential point stemming from a discussion. It's ok, it happens sometimes.

>>17111646
What makes you so sure that you are real?

File: 1373878000721.jpg (28KB, 806x605px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 806x605px

>>17111611

It's not about doing the simple calculations. That's doing math in a vacuum.

You're basing calculations off an assumption that for every additional universe we have an equal chance of living in each. In order for this to work, it must also carry the assumption that each time an additional universe is created, our chances of living in the universe we already reside is then altered as well.

The analogy of a jellyfish in a different galaxy is meant to illustrate the problems of applying basic probability to an assumption of this magnitude. Suddenly going from a 100% chance of living in reality to a 50% chance of living in a simulation the moment a scientist turns on a capable simulation is using math in a vacuum.

This is independent of whether or not I think I'm living in reality or not. Honestly this life seems real enough to me that I know I can never discern whether it's some sophisticated simulation or not, and honestly it doesn't really change anything at all in my existence either way. I'm just pointing out the flaw in trying to shoehorn gradeschool probability into a vast assumption about the nature of reality.

>>17111657

Holy shit, you don't get it at all. I'm not talking about simulations and whether they exist or not. Not even remotely.

It was a tangential point about the tendencies of scientists. My bad for bringing it up.

File: c640x360_17.jpg (11KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 640x360px

>>17111658

> Honestly this life seems real enough to me that I know I can never discern whether it's some sophisticated simulation or not, and honestly it doesn't really change anything at all in my existence either way.

>>17111657

talking about a simulation and talking about whether or not a person is real are two totally different fish bro

you can be in a simulation and still be very much real. im sure youve heard people say cogito ergo sum before.

>>17111670

If I'm never made aware that I'm in "the matrix" or not, nothing ever changes for me.

And if it's truly a competent simulation, then I'll never know one way or the other.

humanity doesnt have 500 years

the atmosphere is being eroded little by little. the tree line is descending every year (the maximum altitude that trees will grow because of how thin the atmosphere gets high up)

oxygen levels are declining at a noticeable pace. in a city average is 5% lower than outside a city and a drop of 4% was seen in the last 10 years alone. most of the air you breath is nitrogen. in city 15% average right now

dont make plans for the next millennium for humanity it will be lucky to last 70 more years

>>17111667

that's what you get for expecting someone on /x/ to be able to juggle more than one thought at a time

File: reality.jpg (91KB, 575x495px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 575x495px

>>17111672
>you can be in a simulation and still be very much real.

you can't have a simulation with as much or more information than the universe containing that simulation, ergo you cannot have multiple smaller simulations containing information adding up to the sum of information in the universe in which they exist.

fucking entropy how does it work

now we are going towards my direction.

>>17111709
That direction is down. Go take your meds, Hanz.

>>17111712
i literally took my meds today.

>>17111702

Is there a point you're trying to make here or are you just finding chances to use images you've saved?

>>17111553
but there are an even larger number of planets with less developed life, so you have an even higher chance of being on a planet which is at a level of development less than being able to make those simulations.

>>17111611
>If there are hundreds of trillions of simulations then you have a one in one hundred trillion chance of being in the real universe.
no, that's wrong - you're making the same mistake I already pointed out here>>17111507
the probability of being in reality isn't 1 for one reality compared to all the other simulations.

you should be comparing all the planets where simulations may have spread to with the planets where they haven't spread to yet, but even that would be irrelevant because the scale of the universe is something we only know from "inside the simulation".

>>17111672
cogito ergo sum has been refuted in my view successfully by multiple thinkers, there's a section on its wikipedia article listing objections.

>>17111763
Let me ask, why would you think that we, being made if vibrating energy and nothing else and existing in a reality which sprung from a null space of time and matter be real?

What are we really? Electric simulations created out of nothing.

And I'm okay with that now.

File: airport3.jpg (58KB, 682x1023px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 682x1023px

>>17111440
Im the only real person here. Its a fact.

>>17111730
Actually the longer we go without finding life the worse off we really are.

Hence The Great Void.

We are either ahead of the danger zone of null value or approaching it rapidly.

>>17111708
while I see your point when it comes to energy and matter I think a system could contain more information than the universe when you bear in mind that information can be packaged more compactly or with more efficiency and I assume the universe as a whole isn't doing that to anywhere near the utmost degree of efficiency.

>>17111795
>and nothing else
I think you're taking one (of many) interpretations of the evidence as reality. I don't think I am vibrating energy or made of matter or quanta etc. those are just the results that some people have made up and others have accepted.

look up wave function collapse
&
stars are not suns

>>17111822
I would be interested in hearing what you think matter is.

>>17111827

who are you talking to and why don't you paraphrase why you think it's relevant

>>17111827
>stars are not suns

Just watched a video of a guy zooming in with his camera, thereby wrecking the focus of the stars.

What's the point of this?

>>17111828
I don't think anymore. If I tried to explain matter honestly it would be an illogical, nonsensical statement - if you try to talk about anything honestly illogical statements are inevitable. It's like if you take a mathematical truth (2+1=3) it's true but it doesn't tell you anything outside itself. If you want new information, you have to move outside that internally consistent world of rules and logic and consistency, so illogical statements are necessary in the same way an amoeba has to extend part of itself out first like a tentacle exploring - if it remained a perfect circle it wouldn't move into new areas.
>TL;DR matter isn't matter, or if it is it's made up of trillions of infinitesimally small rutting unicorns

>>17111553
>3 possibilities pulled freshly from ass
>possibility 3 draws a firm conclusion despite having no logical link to the other 2
I appreciate the "I want to believe" rhetoric - I want to believe as well - but you're going to have to do better than this.

>>17111440
you shouldn't eat in your sleep better to eliminate karma until finding expressive outlets

>>17111702
He's right you know. It's at the very least real in the context of the simulation's reality. The simulation's creators could very well be nonexistant/intangible in context to said simulation's occupants' view of reality, given they're capable of higher thought.

>>17111440
If this is a simulation, I want console commands

>>17111440
>then there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of such simulations.
Tomoko talked about this years ago. What happens is the people that design the simulation have to decide what to do when the simulation catches up to the moment it gets turned on. Nobody in the far, far future is gonna wanna waste CPU cycles recomputing a history that they've already fully recorded on the outside. All the inner simulations would end up diverting into alternate timelines. It's basically a way of forcing time travel to be technologically invented in spite of physics.

>>17111460
>humans will be able to simulate universes quite easily
This is a massive assumption. Speaking as a data analysis and computation algorithms researcher, the only thing I can see being able to computer the first trillion years of the universe is a large galactic cluster that delegates the task intelligently to billions of individual planetary systems. It's not something you just go and do because you feel like it. I can only see it being used to "contact" severely distant galaxies that will otherwise never meet.

When you conversation partner takes three billions years to respond via light speed, resimulation of the universe becomes a slightly more feasible communication option. There is no situation under modern physics in which we'll have anything less that a billion-year communication cycle with any vast number of alien civilizations.

>>17111584
>scientists
COMP philosophers are not scientists.

>>17111611
Your statistical-subjective reasoning is shit.

You have a "probability" of 1 of existing in each and every such simulation as much as you do a probability of 1 of existing in the base/actual universe. It's not an exclusive measurement.

>>17111553
But there is obviously a 4th alternative. That our universe is real (even though it may still contain simulated universes created by alien intelligences)

>>17111708
>assuming a computational universe
It's like quantum physics doesn't exist to you at all.

>>17111805
>I assume the universe as a whole isn't doing that to anywhere near the utmost degree of efficiency.
This is, in all cases, a terrible assumption to make.

I can see the argument being made that organic life isn't well-compressed, but physics is another ball of wax entirely. It sounds like you believe in an inherent dimension to femtoengineering that biological life just so happens to have never come across. This is in complete contradiction to reality as I understand it because cellular anatomy IS nanotechnology. Amino acids building proteins IS how you make nanostructures work. Reality is so much more than a resolution/data storage problem.

Bump for philosophy.

>>17112828
There isn't a 4th option, OP just sucks at paraphrasing and should have copied right off wikipedia.

Our universe COULD be real, but the chance that we are in the real universe and not a simulation is very, VERY low. It's just a matter of statistics. There is only one REAL universe. And by universe, I mean everything in existence. Parallel dimensions, things outside the boundary of space-time, heaven/hell, etc - these, if existing, are all part of the one REAL universe. But there could be any number of simulated universes, because even if it's possible to only simulate one in universe prime, then the first simulation could simulate a universe and so on. And if it's possible to simulate more than one universe in universe prime, then the number of simulations could grow exponentially.

So the argument, boiled down, is that IF it is possible to simulate the universe AND IF a culture has done so, THEN the chance that I live in an unsimulated universe approaches zero.

>>17115360
what would be the point of building such a vast simulation? is there a new simulation created based on every decision an ant, worm, etc makes, or just humans?

>>17116141
There are countless reasons to build simulations.

>>17111478
>With the exponential technology growth
This shit is such a buzzword. Exponential growth is no indication of continued growth

There are hard stops wired into reality that are eventually going to curb this exponential growth. The speed of light is one of them.

>>17111597
its the probability of being born in a simulation you dolt

It's simulations all the way down

>>17116195
You need to get current. Speed of light is NOT the ultra-barrier we used to think

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

We're a simulation building simulations, meaning our makers are also probably in a simulation.. and theirs.. and theirs.. and theirs...

>>17111597
nigga you kinda dumb
Our universe was created 14 billion years ago. We're talking about the probability of whether it created about through natural or simulated means.

assumption 1: at least 1 universe was created through natural means

assumption 2: these natural means can be replicated

assumption 3: outside of our own universe, time is infinite

If you accept these assumptions, then the chance that our Universe was created by natural means is pretty small.

>>17116221
The only way to argue against this is to say that and species capable of creating such a simulation dies before hand or decides not to.

>>17116247
I'm not arguing against anything. Why is that an argument? I'm just stating the obvious. If we're a simulation then our makers are also probably a simulation, and theirs, and theirs, and so on.

Why so defensive? It's an obvious assumption, isn't it?

>>17116247
Also, if our Universe ends, then so does the simulation. So if the the original Universe ends, then obviously all simulations would end.

>>17116279
>Also, if our Universe ends, then so does the simulation
that's a pretty rash conclusion

If you're assuming that somebody is capable of creating a universe identical to the one we're in, why not assume that they are capable of creating one that can persist without a host universe?

The natural universe doesn't need another universe to sustain itself, why should a perfectly simulated universe?

>>17115360
>There isn't a 4th option,
>the number of simulations could grow exponentially.
Uh-huh... http://archive.4plebs.org/x/post/16970681/

>>17115360
im pretty sure there is a limit to how realistic a simulation can be. My gut tells me that the processing power to simulate the universe down to every single detail would require all the energy in the universe

>>17116158
Name one. It should be easy among an uncountable set.
>>17116195
Personally, I'm surprised that nobody's noticed that light doesn't have a speed.
>>17116211
Oh.... You're just jealous.
>>17116242
That first assumption seems pretty tenuous to me.
>>17116247
They all seem, in my experience, to decide not to.
>>17116264
>our makers are also probably a simulation
This is assuming there is more than one set of makers. In practice, I've only ever seen three sets.
>>17116279
Ending is just another way of saying you've run out of software storage space.
>>17116347
>why not assume that they are capable of creating one that can persist without a host universe?
Because that would entail magic, my dear. You'll notice that the simulation argument is philosophical in nature and that philosophers very much don't appreciate magic corrupting their logic.

>>17116376
>That first assumption seems pretty tenuous to me.
well you exist don't you? What's at the root of it all

Is it Jesus

You cannot losslessly simulate nested universes.

If our universe is a simulation, our simulations of new universes will be shitty and can be disregarded, and if they're not, they'll be such huge projects and energy-sinks that in all our universe, we'd only make a few.

Can you imagine simulating a computer within a computer within a computer? If you can make the third-level simulation worth simulating, then the second-level simulation must have, best case scenario, 100% of its resources dedicated to simulating it, making it a useless and superfluous universe.

>>17116395
Well yes, but I'm not exactly a universe am I?

>>17116413
filtered

>>17116412
you sound like a universe simulation expert

>>17116421
That is quite a shame. I'd be remiss to deprive you of a fair warning.
>>17116422
It's not hard to be one.
>>17116542
I'd like to submit this definition for the sake of this argument about future simulations of the past.

>>17112836
>It's like quantum physics doesn't exist to you at all.
it only seems to exist when i am not directly observing it :\

>>17116954
Yeah, it'll do that on you. Nothingspawn and the like. Void magic, you know how it is. Nameless mist and so on.

>People on /x/ arguing about science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E

>>17117635
top kek this is such new age woo shit

>>17118190
"Look! I got my web browser to simulate the universe we're in!"

File: hmmm.gif (256KB, 600x631px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 600x631px

why would it matter if our universe was real or fake?

what if godhead?

>>>/sci/7740457