6 ms·
I always thought it would be much less interesting to simulate a worm on a cellular level, and much more interesting to simulate some single-cell organism on an
by brap 5y ago
I always thought it would be much less interesting to simulate a worm on a cellular level, and much more interesting to simulate some single-cell organism on an atomic or even subatomic level. The latter feels more like “real life”, IMO.
I don’t know which one is more difficult, though.
Lots of interesting ethical questions. In the future we might be able to simulate a human on that level. Is it really alive? Does it have rights? If we can “scan” someone and simulate them virtually, are they the same person? If the physical body dies but there’s still a digital copy, can we say they’re still alive?
- karmanyaahm 5y ago> In the future we might be able to simulate a human on that level. Is it really alive? Does it have rights? Purely probabilistically, we are such humans. If any 'base' universe can easily simulate humans, for fun or research, such simulations will soon vastly outnumber the 'real' people. And because of that, we have to assume we are in an ancestor simulation.
- Enginerrrd 5y agoI really disagree with the fundamental assumption there. I find it very difficult to believe that a base universe could ever simulate something of the complexity of our universe without massive and pointless expense, at best. And even if they could, I find it even more unlikely that simulated universes would ever even be dense in the subset of multiverses (whichever flavor your like) which contain something like humans.
- brap 5y agoI agree, and additionally, it might take an awful lot of time until a civilization is advanced enough to reach the point where it can simulate other beings. For all we know, we can be the first beings to ever reach this point.
- tata71 5y ago> If we can “scan” someone and simulate them virtually, are they the same person? If the physical body dies but there’s still a digital copy, can we say they’re still alive? On what grounds?
- brap 5y agoWell, they would be (in theory) indistinguishable from the physical person. You’d be able to interact with them, and their thoughts, feelings, memories etc would all still be there. In many ways the “soul” is still there. Obviously this is very much a matter of opinion.
- tata71 5y agoI think the legal theory of personhood has nothing to do with successfully recreating interacting with that person.
- brap 5y agoRight, this is true at the moment, what about 100 years from now? 1000? As technology changes we might have to rethink our legal constructs.
- ncmncm 5y agoIt would be a copy. You might choose to give it the original's property, on the assumption that the original would have wanted that, or on the basis of a written will that actually says so. Then, the copy could carry on as if it were the original. And, in fact, we do that continuously. Every day you wake up believing yourself to be the person who went to bed the night before. It is close enough.
- ncmncm 5y agoAt the absolute best, you have a poor copy of the person. We have had examples of poor copies forever. We call them twins. If you have a twin, that twin isn't you, and you're not them. The most interchangeable your copy could be with you would be that the copy might be able to log into and post from your online accounts and fool many of your followers, if you have any; or to withdraw your money from your bank account and buy the sort of things you might have bought if you still had the money.