3 ms·

> [...] in addition to several respected thinkers who have explicitly shared their probability of believe with regards to living in a simulation (ex. Elon Musk

by p-e-w 4y ago

> [...] in addition to several respected thinkers who have explicitly shared their probability of believe with regards to living in a simulation (ex. Elon Musk >99.9999999%, Nick Bostrom 20-50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson 50%, Hans Moravec “almost certainly”, David Kipping <50%) These "respected thinkers" would do well to go back to the roots of philosophy, which is wonder and uncertainty. The sheer amount of arrogance necessary to attach a number, or even just a range of numbers, to an idea so all-encompassing and beyond any human experience is mind-boggling. You don't know, folks. Not even enough to form a reasonable "belief" about the subject. You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
3pt14159 4y ago
Because they lean on their axioms in such ways that leads them to put faith in them to answer harder questions. It's the same basis that most technically minded people have that leads them to reject the idea that God exists. They put their faith in reason and technology.
kelnos 4y ago
I'd suggest reading up on this a bit more before passing judgment. Certainly some of these people are full of hot air, but it is actually reasonable to put ballpark numbers on the probability. There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? If the answer is yes, then the probability that our reality is simulated does actually approach near-certainty, as we then have to assume that there are "real" societies out there that have achieved this ability, and would then simulate some number of realities, possibly many. And if it's possible for the "real" societies to simulate, then it follows that it's possible for the simulations to create their own simulations, and so on and so forth, recursively. So it would then be reasonable to expect that the vast majority of realities are simulated, and thus reasonable to expect with high probability that our reality is a simulated one, because there's no reason to assume that our reality is exceedingly unusual, that is, "real". > You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others? Attempting to assign probability to something is an admission that we don't know. I think you might want to step back from your emotional reaction to this, and perhaps consider that it's not arrogance that drives this sort of thinking (at least not universally), but curiosity, and (some?) people's natural desire to consider the different possibilities, and attempt to assign some sort of weight to them. Would you say that it's also pointless to try to estimate the probability that there is intelligent life on other planets? Certainly there are very many unknowns there, but as our knowledge of the universe increases, some of those unknowns get a little less fuzzy. Eventually most of those unknowns may end up becoming known. I think it's silly to require us to wait for some arbitrary knowledge point before we make guesses and slowly refine those guesses over time.
- jl6 4y ago
  > There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? It’s a whopper of an unknown, on the same scale as “is there a God?”. Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    No, it's not at that scale at all. "Is there a god?" is not falsifiable, so we can't prove that either way. Whether or not reality can be simulated is something we actually can know, at least in the affirmative: if we do manage to construct such a simulation, then it is obviously possible, and the answer is obviously "yes". Of course, as long as we have not created such a simulation for ourselves, we may not be able to prove that it is not possible to do so. Certainly we don't know the answer now! And it's possible -- but not certain -- that we will never know. But suggesting that it's on the same scale as the god question is just not correct. > Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility. That's pretty unscientific as well. We can't reject the possibility of a god, even if we know that we can't prove or disprove a god's existence through science. Science, as a tool, does not have unlimited applicability. Declaring that it is not possible for a god to exist is just as religious as declaring that one does. For the record, I don't think gods exist, at least not in the sense of anything described by any human religion, as a creator of the world or universe, or an arbiter of morality. But I at least have the humility to admit that I don't -- and can't -- know that for certain. (I do consider that hyper-intelligent, hyper-technologically-advanced beings might exist, that are able to -- through technology -- examine and manipulate space-time to whatever degree they desire. Are they "gods"? Not necessarily in the way any human religion would consider, but they'd at least have the omnipotence/omniscience bits down pat. And who knows if they even exist, or if such technology is even possible.)
- p-e-w 4y ago
  > but it is actually reasonable to put ballpark numbers on the probability Not if those "ballpark numbers" are just gut instinct dressed up in order to appear more credible than a simple "uhhm, maybe?". > is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? Nobody knows the answer, and nobody knows a realistic path to finding the answer in the near or medium future. Any claims to the contrary are just extrapolations from the knowledge and technologies available to us, which are utterly insufficient to cope with problems anywhere near that magnitude. > Would you say that it's also pointless to try to estimate the probability that there is intelligent life on other planets? Yes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that concepts such as the Drake equation are bordering on pseudoscience. The "science" angle simply doesn't add anything of value here. The Drake equation says little more than "probabilities can be chained by multiplication", which again is just a complicated way of stating an intuitive fact. Without estimates for the key factors (such as the probability that life develops into intelligent life), the equation doesn't provide any actual insight, whereas once those probabilities are known, the equation becomes trivially obvious. I believe that the simple statement "we have no idea whether intelligent life exists outside the solar system" is not only obviously correct, but shows a deeper understanding of the problem than the Drake equation does. Recognizing when no actual knowledge is available can be a profound insight – far more profound than believing you have made progress because you've split the question into smaller questions.
bnegreve 4y ago
> You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others? When he says 50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson is quite literally saying "I don't know".
- p-e-w 4y ago
  Why play number games when ordinary language semantics are sufficient?

by p-e-w 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

3pt14159 4y ago

Because they lean on their axioms in such ways that leads them to put faith in them to answer harder questions. It's the same basis that most technically minded people have that leads them to reject the idea that God exists. They put their faith in reason and technology.

kelnos 4y ago

I'd suggest reading up on this a bit more before passing judgment. Certainly some of these people are full of hot air, but it is actually reasonable to put ballpark numbers on the probability. There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? If the answer is yes, then the probability that our reality is simulated does actually approach near-certainty, as we then have to assume that there are "real" societies out there that have achieved this ability, and would then simulate some number of realities, possibly many. And if it's possible for the "real" societies to simulate, then it follows that it's possible for the simulations to create their own simulations, and so on and so forth, recursively. So it would then be reasonable to expect that the vast majority of realities are simulated, and thus reasonable to expect with high probability that our reality is a simulated one, because there's no reason to assume that our reality is exceedingly unusual, that is, "real". > You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others? Attempting to assign probability to something is an admission that we don't know. I think you might want to step back from your emotional reaction to this, and perhaps consider that it's not arrogance that drives this sort of thinking (at least not universally), but curiosity, and (some?) people's natural desire to consider the different possibilities, and attempt to assign some sort of weight to them. Would you say that it's also pointless to try to estimate the probability that there is intelligent life on other planets? Certainly there are very many unknowns there, but as our knowledge of the universe increases, some of those unknowns get a little less fuzzy. Eventually most of those unknowns may end up becoming known. I think it's silly to require us to wait for some arbitrary knowledge point before we make guesses and slowly refine those guesses over time.

jl6 4y ago
> There's currently one big unknown around this: is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? It’s a whopper of an unknown, on the same scale as “is there a God?”. Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility.
- kelnos 4y ago
  No, it's not at that scale at all. "Is there a god?" is not falsifiable, so we can't prove that either way. Whether or not reality can be simulated is something we actually can know, at least in the affirmative: if we do manage to construct such a simulation, then it is obviously possible, and the answer is obviously "yes". Of course, as long as we have not created such a simulation for ourselves, we may not be able to prove that it is not possible to do so. Certainly we don't know the answer now! And it's possible -- but not certain -- that we will never know. But suggesting that it's on the same scale as the god question is just not correct. > Might as well go full theist if you want to entertain this possibility. That's pretty unscientific as well. We can't reject the possibility of a god, even if we know that we can't prove or disprove a god's existence through science. Science, as a tool, does not have unlimited applicability. Declaring that it is not possible for a god to exist is just as religious as declaring that one does. For the record, I don't think gods exist, at least not in the sense of anything described by any human religion, as a creator of the world or universe, or an arbiter of morality. But I at least have the humility to admit that I don't -- and can't -- know that for certain. (I do consider that hyper-intelligent, hyper-technologically-advanced beings might exist, that are able to -- through technology -- examine and manipulate space-time to whatever degree they desire. Are they "gods"? Not necessarily in the way any human religion would consider, but they'd at least have the omnipotence/omniscience bits down pat. And who knows if they even exist, or if such technology is even possible.)
p-e-w 4y ago
> but it is actually reasonable to put ballpark numbers on the probability Not if those "ballpark numbers" are just gut instinct dressed up in order to appear more credible than a simple "uhhm, maybe?". > is it even possible to simulate reality to the fidelity that we seem to observe around ourselves? Nobody knows the answer, and nobody knows a realistic path to finding the answer in the near or medium future. Any claims to the contrary are just extrapolations from the knowledge and technologies available to us, which are utterly insufficient to cope with problems anywhere near that magnitude. > Would you say that it's also pointless to try to estimate the probability that there is intelligent life on other planets? Yes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that concepts such as the Drake equation are bordering on pseudoscience. The "science" angle simply doesn't add anything of value here. The Drake equation says little more than "probabilities can be chained by multiplication", which again is just a complicated way of stating an intuitive fact. Without estimates for the key factors (such as the probability that life develops into intelligent life), the equation doesn't provide any actual insight, whereas once those probabilities are known, the equation becomes trivially obvious. I believe that the simple statement "we have no idea whether intelligent life exists outside the solar system" is not only obviously correct, but shows a deeper understanding of the problem than the Drake equation does. Recognizing when no actual knowledge is available can be a profound insight – far more profound than believing you have made progress because you've split the question into smaller questions.

bnegreve 4y ago

> You don't know, at all. Why is it so difficult to just admit that to yourselves and others? When he says 50%, Neil deGrasse Tyson is quite literally saying "I don't know".

p-e-w 4y ago
Why play number games when ordinary language semantics are sufficient?