What do you think about? — Belter
Yup. Simulation is of something... — creativesoul
then not only is the simulation more probable in the future, is it not inevitable? — Arne
he was saying that our physical world could be a computer program that doesn't need a computer — Michael Ossipoff
But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself — Michael Ossipoff
But it certainly couldn't make that story. The story, the hypothetical possibility-story, was already there, as a system of inter-referring abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff
We have 3 ontological options:
1) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, and in the future it will not happen.
2) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, but in the future it will happen.
3) We live now in a computational Simulation, which happened in a time of the past. — Belter
My objections:
It may not be possible to simulate our world as it is.
If it is possible, we have no way of knowing how likely it is.
There is no evidence we are currently living in a simulation.
We don't know what a super-human AI would do. It seems unlikely to me we can extrapolate from human motivation and behavior.
If we are living in a simulation and if there is no possible way for us to determine that we are, then saying we are in a simulation is meaningless. — T Clark
.I can not understand this claim. Software without hardware is for me a nonsense like mind without brain or a "substantiation" of functions.
.But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself .
.I do not understand what do you mean by "system of abstract facts itself".
We can mention a hypothetical computer-program. If that hypothetical program that we’re discussing hasn’t been written on paper, is it any less a computer-program? Need it be in a computer, or even on paper? …or even completely discussed? — Michael Ossipoff
The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that our experience and science’s observations are about relation. …logical and mathematical structural relation. He pointed out that there’s no particular reason to believe in the independent, objective existence of the “stuff” that those relations are about. — Michael Ossipoff
We can mention a hypothetical computer-program. If that hypothetical program that we’re discussing hasn’t been written on paper, is it any less a computer-program? Need it be in a computer, or even on paper? …or even completely discussed?"
The computer program for reality...
The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that our experience and science’s observations are about relation. …logical and mathematical structural relation. He pointed out that there’s no particular reason to believe in the independent, objective existence of the “stuff” that those relations are about.
Did Faraday really say that?
Anyway, there is very good reason to accept that the mathematical structure of our theories correspond to features of reality.
Reference pleaseIt is possible to simulate our world according to physics. — tom
Only if we are in an infinite universe. Even if we are, that would only mean that someone is being simulated, not that we are.If it is possible, it is certain to happen. (if you are a realist) — tom
That's not the way it works. If you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence. You're making a claim. I'm not. I don't say we aren't living in a simulation, only that there's no evidence we are.There is no evidence that we are not in a simulation. — tom
And they may not.Post-humans may be forced to simulate reality to solve pressing problems. — tom
Only if simulation is the most common mode of existence, for which we have no evidence.That we are in a simulation agrees with the Principle of Mediocrity. — tom
It is possible to simulate our world according to physics. — tom
You need to make clear what you mean by 'live in' or by a simulation.We have 3 ontological options:
1) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, and in the future it will not happen.
... — Belter
That is not true by definition, and even if it was, it does not make even the odds of your three options. In fact, the physics we know are incapable of creation of such a self-simulation, so if we are in some sort of VR, it is being run in a universe of more computationally capable physics.then the three options have the same probability a priori of be true, due to by definition a higher intelligence system can occult its existence.
The definition says nothing of the sort. The definition is that it no longer requires humans for improvement.My claim is that Singularity is by definition unknown, such as God in religions, the player in video games, etc. A super IA is by definition, able to occult its existence. — Belter
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.