His flaw is assuming that his assumptions are even close to being accurate. The problem with these kinds of thought processes, is that they are fraught with limited thinking. Do you know how hard it is to keep exponential growth going for any length of time? And he wants it going for
There are way too many assumptions, way too many unproven constants. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and that is where the problems start for his "simulation theory". I actually understand that I couldn't begin to theorize what things might exist in 20 years, let alone 1000, 5000, or 10,000 years down the road.
but there's a tiny tiny chance that somewhere somebody is looking at a monitor saying "Whoo, look, that little critter got it right! Ha, what are the odds?"
If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).
As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.
we can't even get the people who put together operating systems to get the bugs worked out, i wouldn't expect the Programmer to have the powers of omniscience and omnipotence in His creation.
Completely missing the point. The actual argument for a simulation doesn't rest on anything remotely like that. The primary argument is that it looks like under the laws of physics, simulations should be possible. It also seems likely that an advanced species would be interested in making simulations of their ancestors and would likely make many such simulations. Thus, if one thinks that society is likely to survive to a very high tech level, one should expect if one is a remotely interesting time period that one is much more likely to be a simulation than the original. There are problems with this argument (and I don't buy it), but it is far more interesting than simply dismissing it as akin to belief in religion or gods. It is unfortunate that you and many others in this thread are simply ridiculing the argument rather than actually addressing it.
but how do you know the difference between reality and a sim? how does reality "exist" in any completely objectively provable way, distinct from what a sim would be like? "I think therefore I am" but that's really about as far as you can take it.
"Computer, end Program".
Hummm, still here, it was worth a tr
by the end, those holodeck stories were just going wild. whenever they needed some plot twist, the holodeck developed another property. kind of like the Jeffries tubes, but fancier.
And VM guests can't break out of the hypervisor... Oh wait, they can, if the hypervisor is buggy.
If the universe is a simulation, it is a pretty complex one. Bugs would be expected.
However, humanity has access to such a infinitesimal fraction of the universe, it would be unexpected to find bugs in simple parts like ours. The bugs would seem more likely in less tested parts of the code, like at extreme energies or very small distances.
I'm assuming this is very sly.
If I exist in this simulated reality, then I only exist because of the simulation. Shut down the simulation and I cease to exist.
This. Tech billionaires and a lot of slashdot users hear "You are living in a simulation" and they think "Neo in the matrix" rather than "Agent in the matrix" I think this is because they are dumb.
Well yeah, they are simulated that way.
You ever wonder if most people have any inner life? Even without us being a sim, what if there are only like a million (or a dozen, or a billion) actual human beings alive at any given time, and the rest of the population are just basically breeding stock going through the motions to provide support for the occasional genetic accident that produces a real human? Would explain history pretty well.
I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate
No. That is the reason that your constituent atoms have a particular form and function. But it is not the reason they exist in the first place.
Science tells us that the Universe began as an infinitely dense singularity 13.85 billion years ago. We have no idea why that happened, but the answer is not "Darwin", since that skips over the first 10 billion years, especially those first few planck times.
Well, sort of by definition, circular reasoning, and law of physics, we exist because that's a lower energy configuration than us not existing.
The problem isn't his text, which was perfectly understandable. The problem is your poor command of English.
i do not command English; we merely ask favors of one another. (PS I'm not the AC, I just saw a straight line I couldn't resist)
Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin