What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?
-
Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy.
A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too.
The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics.
-
Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict".
The prohibition is for any graven image not just God. That’s why there aren’t a ton of sculptures of living beings/animals made by Jewish artists in the ancient world.
-
This post did not contain any content.
In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.
-
50%. We are or we aren't.
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
-
God damn you love ness monster!
Loveless monster? Oh poor thing...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I hope so
Also, can somebody please turn it off? I think we took this one as far as it's worth
-
This post did not contain any content.
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
-
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
-
You can't prove a negative.
The positive assertion is "we live in a simulation". All that can be done is gather evidence to support this assertion.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can't prove a negative.
That principle doesn't apply here, because you can use simple language to turn the words around, and then you have a positive, while the task of proving it remains the same.
Specifically: when you say you can't prove that we don't live in a simulation, then it is the same as saying you can't prove that we do live in reality.
But "we do live in reality" is a positive. Now the words are different, but the task is the same: prove that we live in reality.
-
I figure that we are all definitely living in a simulation because, even if the world has real physical existence, consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain to make sense of the world.
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
-
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
Did you really interrupt my minecraft game to make me read that?
-
Counter question; would it make any difference?
A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about
-
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
- Whoosh
- Given the lack of any meaningful information to base an estimate on, they essentially are.
-
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
I have no idea what you are trying to get at by that.
-
I have no idea what you are trying to get at by that.
So now you wonder what you need to answer.
-
In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.
Assuming reality and/or consciousness can be simulated, which we have no way of knowing is true (for now).
-
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
I would hope that we wouldn't build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we've built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.
-
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
surprise is simply the sensation of unexpected information
-
Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.
Can't prove it, can't disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.
People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)
It is as pointless as arguing about god.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't know why people assume that computation power increases indefinitely forever until it simulates a universe. why would it do that?
