- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The odds that we live in a simulation are close to 1
Posted on 8/8/20 at 1:49 am to BeepNode
Posted on 8/8/20 at 1:49 am to BeepNode
quote:Uh yeah, quantum mechanics is wonky shite. At that scale things behave differently depending on whether we watch it happen. Things act like both particles and waves. Sometimes a single particle is in two places at once, or it will disappear then reappear somewhere else. This simulation is glitchy as hell.
It's debatable whether or not such civilizations could create many simulations at the fidelity that our current reality is playing out.
Every particle needs to be accounted for. It could be that they use compression algs to only bring resolution to the level that is needed based on what we are observing/interacting with
0
Posted on 8/8/20 at 2:04 am to Porcine Human
I hope I’m in the cool level
Posted on 8/8/20 at 2:10 am to Korkstand
Some scholars categorically reject—or are uninterested in—anthropic reasoning, dismissing it as "merely philosophical", unfalsifiable, or inherently unscientific.[4]
Some point out that there is currently no proof of technology which would facilitate the existence of sufficiently high-fidelity ancestor simulation. Additionally, there is no proof that it is physically possible or feasible for a posthuman civilization to create such a simulation, and therefore for the present, the first proposition must be true.[4] Additionally there are limits of computation
I understand it completely. What I see is a way to try and think that the world isn't chaotic and random through a method other than God/fate/karma. I compare the two because they both are a force that is supposedly controlling our universe and both are unfalsifiable .
Some point out that there is currently no proof of technology which would facilitate the existence of sufficiently high-fidelity ancestor simulation. Additionally, there is no proof that it is physically possible or feasible for a posthuman civilization to create such a simulation, and therefore for the present, the first proposition must be true.[4] Additionally there are limits of computation
I understand it completely. What I see is a way to try and think that the world isn't chaotic and random through a method other than God/fate/karma. I compare the two because they both are a force that is supposedly controlling our universe and both are unfalsifiable .
Posted on 8/8/20 at 3:37 am to Capstone2017
quote:Yes we know it's philosophical and unfalsifiable, and thus not scientific. But this is a thought experiment and a discussion of the math involved with it, not a scientific or theological debate. The premise is that AI is possible, in which case mathematically we are almost certainly in a simulation ourselves. That premise might be incorrect, in which case it's no fun to talk about.
Some scholars categorically reject—or are uninterested in—anthropic reasoning, dismissing it as "merely philosophical", unfalsifiable, or inherently unscientific.[4]
quote:So? That's what we do, try to make sense of the chaos. Some people throw their hands up and chalk it up to god and subscribe to a religion, while others consider other possibilities.
I understand it completely. What I see is a way to try and think that the world isn't chaotic and random through a method other than God/fate/karma. I compare the two because they both are a force that is supposedly controlling our universe and both are unfalsifiable .
But regardless of what you or I may believe, when or if the day comes that we do create a true AI and a simulation for it to "live" in, then it too will inevitably question its own reality and eventually recreate itself. Then that one will do the same, and so on. That is what this thought experiment is about. But, again, it may turn out to be impossible to create consciousness in a machine.
Basically this thread asks you to choose one of two possibilities: either we live in the one and only reality, or we are currently the most recently created simulation at the top of a stack of countless others, and the creators of all those other universes are rooting us on as we try to build the next layer.
Posted on 8/8/20 at 6:00 am to Porcine Human
quote:
quote:
Can we discuss that you provide no support for your random conjecture
You’re looking at it wrong if you expect actual evidence that we live in a simulation. Its most likely impossible to get evidence for that since the only evidence for that is most likely only contained outside of our universe.
The closest we will get to evidence is if we’re able to create simulations containing conscious beings. If we can, the odds that we live in a simulation are very close to 1, as I’ve talked about earlier in the thread.
Well when someone postulates that the odds are close to 1 (I assume you mean close to 100% likelihood), I expect them to be able to provide evidence and strong support for their conclusion.
If we want to ignore that, then what kind of simulation - I assume some sort of digital simulation? It seems unlikely that such a simulation would have the emergent qualities that we see in life on earth. Our consciousness, instincts, humanity is all tied into our biological bodies - the need to for food, to procreate, etc. all directly impact our consciousness and I don't think we are anywhere close to fully understanding that side of it.
AI at this point is really good at solving specific problems, general AI will go good at solving many different kinds of problems and at coming up with more efficient techniques of problem solving, but that still does not really approach the other side of biological drivers for intelligence, community, religion and other concepts that have a basis in evolutionary biology.
Way down the road we could get close and it could be possible, but I don't think there is strong evidence to forecast that we will create such a simulation at some point. This also broaches the question of what exactly we are talking about as in a simulation - and I typically take that to mean some sort of digital simulation. We could be in a simulation where some beings on an order of magnitude higher decided it would be cool to put a frickload of fundamental particles together and then see what happened. But I don't think that really counts because that just reduces the definition of a simulation to "some beings at a higher order of magnitude are responsible for the physical universe".
For me the simulation hypothesis sort of means beings of a pretty similar, but definitely advanced, intelligence capability - not beings we have no capability of understanding.
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 11:36 am
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News