C'mon, he must be right, he's got equations and everything.
Oh, but wait . . . The quantities in the equations are completely made up and meaningless. So, let me rephrase my earlier assessment: This is complete hookum. Because the number of hypothetical "ancestor simulations" is large compared to the number of actual developing civilizations, we are "almost certain" to be in a simulation rather than real? Huh?
Let me present an alternative, equally plausible hypothesis: The entire universe is being run by tiny, invisible pixies, who implement all the laws of physics by grabbing things and moving them around in exactly the right way when we perturb our environment. (Why they do this is unknown.) Unfortunately, there is no empirical test that can distinguish between this situation and one in which the laws of physics arise just because of the way real particles interact.
Let's all just agree to pretend that we're not living in pixie-world or The Matrix, OK? It makes no difference, anyway, and it's a whole lot simpler. And if you want to kill your neighbour or your boss, you can't console yourself that they were just simulated anyway.
Boy, you do not have the slightest clue how to make or refute a metaphysical argument, do you? Your A,EPH is nothing like his argument, lacking the most basic elements of inevitable technological development.
How about this for a refutation, He makes a good circumstantial case. But so do the evangelicall Christians. So do the Muslims, so do the Jews, the Budhists and so does just about every religion in the world. Why, because religions are developed explicitily for providing circumstantial theories in order to answer the question of our existence. He has created a proto-religion which may someday blossum into an established (ie over a milinnea old with no exact knowledge of how it was born.) Pick your religion, i
He makes an argument, going from premises to conclusions. Do you disagree with the premises? If so, how? That's how you refute an argument, not by getting all huffy and expecting it to go away.
Hey, that explains all the problems we've been having with quantum physics in relation to 'normal' physics. The pixies are too large to interact with objects on a quantum level in the same way they do with larger objects, so quantum physics ends up being different from normal physics.
By Jove, we may be on to something! This could be the beginning of a new era in enlightened scientific thinking. More studies need to be done into this new Pixieverse theory. I think we've hit something BIG here.
Yeah, and I really believe you actually read the article. Really.
He was quite up-front about which quantities we can't gauge, and his conclusion was not that we live in a simulation, but that it is one only three interesting alternatives that we have any reason to have credence for.
Let's all just agree to pretend that we're not living in pixie-world or The Matrix, OK? It makes no difference, anyway, and it's a whole lot simpler. And if you want to kill your neighbour or your boss, you can't console yourself that they were just simulated anyway.
Dave's right. It's just like the argument of fate. As long as you do not know what will happen in the future, the question of whether there is fate or not is moot point. You can explain events as fate or as random events all you want, since it
If you are "almost certainly a computer simulation and not 'real'", then this argument would have to hold true for the person controlling the simulation.
Therefore, it is more likely that your are a simulation of a simulation then that you are a simulation of reality. Then, of course, it is more likely that you are a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of reality....
The question is not whether we are in a simulation, but, at what level of simulation are we in.
and this my friends is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, but wait . . . The quantities in the equations are completely made up and meaningless. So, let me rephrase my earlier assessment: This is complete hookum. Because the number of hypothetical "ancestor simulations" is large compared to the number of actual developing civilizations, we are "almost certain" to be in a simulation rather than real? Huh?
Let me present an alternative, equally plausible hypothesis: The entire universe is being run by tiny, invisible pixies, who implement all the laws of physics by grabbing things and moving them around in exactly the right way when we perturb our environment. (Why they do this is unknown.) Unfortunately, there is no empirical test that can distinguish between this situation and one in which the laws of physics arise just because of the way real particles interact.
Let's all just agree to pretend that we're not living in pixie-world or The Matrix, OK? It makes no difference, anyway, and it's a whole lot simpler. And if you want to kill your neighbour or your boss, you can't console yourself that they were just simulated anyway.
Re: drugs are bad (Score:1)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:1)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:0)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:0)
He makes a good circumstantial case.
But so do the evangelicall Christians.
So do the Muslims, so do the Jews, the Budhists and so does just about every religion in the world. Why, because religions are developed explicitily for providing circumstantial theories in order to answer the question of our existence. He has created a proto-religion which may someday blossum into an established (ie over a milinnea old with no exact knowledge of how it was born.)
Pick your religion, i
Re: drugs are bad (Score:2)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:1)
By Jove, we may be on to something! This could be the beginning of a new era in enlightened scientific thinking. More studies need to be done into this new Pixieverse theory. I think we've hit something BIG here.
Re: drugs are bad (Score:2)
He was quite up-front about which quantities we can't gauge, and his conclusion was not that we live in a simulation, but that it is one only three interesting alternatives that we have any reason to have credence for.
Re: drugs are bad (Score:1)
Re: drugs are bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Dave's right. It's just like the argument of fate. As long as you do not know what will happen in the future, the question of whether there is fate or not is moot point. You can explain events as fate or as random events all you want, since it
Re: drugs are bad (Score:0)
Therefore, it is more likely that your are a simulation of a simulation then that you are a simulation of reality. Then, of course, it is more likely that you are a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of reality....
The question is not whether we are in a simulation, but, at what level of simulation are we in.
Matrix Philosophy Links (Score:2)
What's so bad about living in the Matrix? [warnerbros.com] is one of my favorites, there are many others also. Check it out if you're interested..