3 ms·
"Is there a flaw in the argument?" - I don't see a flaw because I can't see any argument in the first place. How is the (let's say, quite likely) hypothesis th
by V-2 10y ago
"Is there a flaw in the argument?" - I don't see a flaw because I can't see any argument in the first place.
How is the (let's say, quite likely) hypothesis that eventually we're going to create VR that's ingistinguishable from actual reality supposed to logically lead to the notion that there's a billion to one chance we're living in VR right now?
It feels like something along the lines of the "???? PROFIT!!!!" meme (originated from a South Park episode). Clearly a crucial step is missing
- GrantS 10y agoHe's using the quickness with which we've progressed to VR as an existence proof that creating universes is not as hard as once expected, such that "universes" might actually be numerous and commonplace. From there, it's a statistical argument -- if "existence" contains one billion "universes" and only one of them is the base level of reality in which all the other simulations are nested, then if we assume a uniform distribution over universes, we have a one in a billion chance of being in the base level of reality. That's a very simple version of the argument with obvious flaws, but that's what he meant. Nick Bostrom has made a much more elaborate version of the argument.