/int/ - International

I think Tzeentch is secretly the Emperor.

sleep tight porker

sleep tight porker

sleep tight porker

the simulation argument is stupid because all the arguments towards the simulation can endlessly be made for the world in which the supposed simulation is running, so its like an infinite simulation of simulations which never exits into any kind of real world. basically their arguments are arguing for the argument that no "real world" exists or is even theoretically possible. but those are just semantics. if real world is impossible and doesnt exist but all what exists is the simulation then the simulation is the real world

As long as the simulation follows consistent rules, there's no difference between living a simulation and a computable universe. So if you believe in a computable universe, the question is an idle one (except in the context of anthropic arguments, but then it becomes about whether you sample once from every class or once from every instance). If you believe in a noncomputable universe, the question becomes, what are the observable differences? Do you think there is a true random source at the center of the cosmos?

>>9726 >basically their arguments are arguing for the argument that no "real world" exists or is even theoretically possible That's not Nick's argument, though. His argument is that if (1) and (2) are false, then our universe is most likely (but not certainly) a simulation, because any universe with the scale of ours in which (1) is false is going to develop many intelligent life forms more advanced than us in our present state, and if (2) is false, then that means such life forms, with the ability to harness massive amounts of energy (e.g. with Dyson spheres or something equivalent), will simulate mini-universes down to consciousness. It does imply that in such a scenario, any random universe experienced by a conscious being is extremely likely to be a simulation, but inevitably one would be real. Hence "almost certainly". Energy would remain a limiting factor preventing an infinity Matryoshka doll of nested universes, since if we're a simulation, we can be confident that the basic rules of physics observed in this universe apply in the real one that is simulating it. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a simulation. >>9731 >>As long as the simulation follows consistent rules, there's no difference between living a simulation and a computable universe. This is right, which is why it's of little comfort when it comes to existential dread.

Sleep tight porker >>9726 and? Doesn't mean it isn't either true or logically sound, or both. There are other problems with the particular arguments used by Bostrom, but "all simulation theories are funamentally wrong" are incorrect. There's a reason why it's called metaphysics. My take is that this is a false trichotomy, none of the propositions stand in any form to exclude the other two. And number two is specially wild and obviously false: we already enjoy with great pleasure running simulations of "our" past and the past of the entirety of earth all the time to the best of our capacity, why wouldn't this continue? Does he think that a post-human civilization is going to lose interest in whatever taxonomic definition they use for us to separate them? We make plenty of simulations regarding neanderthals and dinosaurs and so on too, and a post-human species would most likely have a broader definition of personhood, not narrower than ours. Meanwhile, number 1 is the very likely on it's own to be correct. A lot of people like to scare themselves over thoughts like: "well if the universe is a simulation, what if it gets shut down one day?" Well, if you were alive up until that point you die, and if you were already, you were already dead. It's all the same. And some will think about how then everything they know has been for nothing, and well, that happens in a natural universe too: one day the last living creature on earth will die and one day the planet itself will be destroyed, one way or another. Even whatever creatures there are who created the simulation will too die and become extinct some day in their own reality be itself another simulation or not.

>>9764 >My take is that this is a false trichotomy, none of the propositions stand in any form to exclude the other two. I don't think it's meant to exclude. It just assigns much higher probability that we're in a simulation if the first two propositions are false. Both could be true, and we could still be in a simulation. That would just mean it's a product of extremely unlikely circumstances as opposed to an almost guaranteed outcome. >And number two is specially wild and obviously false: we already enjoy with great pleasure running simulations of "our" past and the past of the entirety of earth all the time to the best of our capacity, why wouldn't this continue? Exactly. >Meanwhile, number 1 is the very likely on it's own to be correct. Not saying you're wrong, but curious why you think so.