5 ms·

Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations

by feoren 5y ago

Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I respect people who believe in a bearded White omnipotent homophobic God who lives in a sky palace more than I respect people who believe in this insane drivel about the probability of living in a simulation. At least the former were indoctrinated as their brain was forming.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
The simulation hypothesis seems as theistic as the creationist hypothesis. Maybe the main difference being that with the simulation there would likely have been many creators (programmers) whereas the creationists would say there is one (although there are polytheistic creation narratives, so maybe not so different). Other than that, they both seem to fall into the theistic category since a higher intelligence is posited who created (the simulation | the real world).
serverholic 5y ago
Isn't it possible that our universe is really just an approximation meant to look as detailed as possible? You don't need a universe of processing power to simulate a universe. You just need to make it look believable enough that it fools whoever is in your simulation.
- cepie 5y ago
  I agree with you, and even if it's not an approximation, it doesn't matter; we can't make assumptions about the size of a parent reality (and its limits on processing power) relative to our own.
naasking 5y ago
> Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I think you've expressed a number of confusions. First, I think you contradicted yourself. The line you quote says that posthuman civilizations are unlikely to create simulations, but you say this is false because a universe simulation requires more power than available in the universe. So you're agreeing with the outcome while saying you're disagreeing. Second, I suggest reading the the paper fully, because Bostrom explains that we don't need full universe simulations, we need only consciousness simulations (kind of like the Matrix). The very premise of a post-human civilization is that they have knowledge sufficiently advanced that they have algorithms to simulate human minds. Much like how video games only render the part of the world that is visible to the players, so a consciousness simulation only needs to simulate minds and their perceptions of a macroscopic, classical world, they do not have to simulate a full quantum universe. Our brains are great at filling in information that we expect to be there, so even the parts that we directly perceivedon't need to be simulated with complete fidelity. Frankly, I don't think you've given the argument sufficient thought, but by a happy accident you picked exactly the outcome that I think is most likely, and I elaborate on why here: https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-not-living-in.html https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-...
- feoren 5y ago
  Fine, you got me: the assertion that is obviously true, but goes further in that it invalidates the need for any of this discussion. If your goal was to engage me in a thought-measuring contest, sure, you win: you've spent more time thinking about this utterly ridiculous nonsense than I have. Congrats?
  - naasking 5y ago
    If you're not interested in philosophical discussions, then why engage at all, particularly only to denigrate people who like exploring thought experiments?
  - cepie 5y ago
    I bet you could make your points without insulting others. What do you think?
    - feoren 5y ago
      I think my tone was no different than naasking's.
      - naasking 5y ago
        Yeah, saying I think you're likely confused, as I did, is not remotely the same as calling subjects that interest some people "insane drivel", or "utterly ridiculous nonsense". You definitely need to recalibrate your scale IMO.
- suzzer99 5y ago
  If the computer code running this simulation is that good to never have bugs, then the simulation is functionally identical to the meatspace real universe from our POV. So I don't know if there's any point thinking about it other than idle curiosity. But I do worry that for some simulation believers it could become an excuse to have less empathy towards fellow humans.
  - 5y ago
tmccrary55 5y ago
Who says humans and/or earth are an interesting or even desirable phenomenon in a simulated universe scenario?

by feoren 5y ago

UncleOxidant 5y ago

The simulation hypothesis seems as theistic as the creationist hypothesis. Maybe the main difference being that with the simulation there would likely have been many creators (programmers) whereas the creationists would say there is one (although there are polytheistic creation narratives, so maybe not so different). Other than that, they both seem to fall into the theistic category since a higher intelligence is posited who created (the simulation | the real world).

serverholic 5y ago

Isn't it possible that our universe is really just an approximation meant to look as detailed as possible? You don't need a universe of processing power to simulate a universe. You just need to make it look believable enough that it fools whoever is in your simulation.

cepie 5y ago
I agree with you, and even if it's not an approximation, it doesn't matter; we can't make assumptions about the size of a parent reality (and its limits on processing power) relative to our own.

naasking 5y ago

> Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I think you've expressed a number of confusions. First, I think you contradicted yourself. The line you quote says that posthuman civilizations are unlikely to create simulations, but you say this is false because a universe simulation requires more power than available in the universe. So you're agreeing with the outcome while saying you're disagreeing. Second, I suggest reading the the paper fully, because Bostrom explains that we don't need full universe simulations, we need only consciousness simulations (kind of like the Matrix). The very premise of a post-human civilization is that they have knowledge sufficiently advanced that they have algorithms to simulate human minds. Much like how video games only render the part of the world that is visible to the players, so a consciousness simulation only needs to simulate minds and their perceptions of a macroscopic, classical world, they do not have to simulate a full quantum universe. Our brains are great at filling in information that we expect to be there, so even the parts that we directly perceivedon't need to be simulated with complete fidelity. Frankly, I don't think you've given the argument sufficient thought, but by a happy accident you picked exactly the outcome that I think is most likely, and I elaborate on why here: https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-not-living-in.html https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-...

feoren 5y ago
Fine, you got me: the assertion that is obviously true, but goes further in that it invalidates the need for any of this discussion. If your goal was to engage me in a thought-measuring contest, sure, you win: you've spent more time thinking about this utterly ridiculous nonsense than I have. Congrats?
- naasking 5y ago
  If you're not interested in philosophical discussions, then why engage at all, particularly only to denigrate people who like exploring thought experiments?
- cepie 5y ago
  I bet you could make your points without insulting others. What do you think?
  - feoren 5y ago
    I think my tone was no different than naasking's.
    - naasking 5y ago
      Yeah, saying I think you're likely confused, as I did, is not remotely the same as calling subjects that interest some people "insane drivel", or "utterly ridiculous nonsense". You definitely need to recalibrate your scale IMO.
suzzer99 5y ago
If the computer code running this simulation is that good to never have bugs, then the simulation is functionally identical to the meatspace real universe from our POV. So I don't know if there's any point thinking about it other than idle curiosity. But I do worry that for some simulation believers it could become an excuse to have less empathy towards fellow humans.
- 5y ago

tmccrary55 5y ago

Who says humans and/or earth are an interesting or even desirable phenomenon in a simulated universe scenario?