3 ms·
I've honestly never fully understood Bergstrom's trilemma that set up this whole debate. I understand what it's arguing, but don't understand why the third opti
by kylecazar 4y ago
I've honestly never fully understood Bergstrom's trilemma that set up this whole debate. I understand what it's arguing, but don't understand why the third option (we're in a sim) is the most plausible of the three...
I think it's more likely that we can't make conscious sims at this scale/fidelity (#1), or that a society sophisticated enough to do so would take issue with "simulating" bone cancer in conscious sim children (#2). I'd hope, at least.
- interstice 4y agoAs I understand it the reason for plausability is that there can only be one 'top' level, but any sufficiently complicated simulation could contain more simulations within it. The potential depth being more or less infinite if the top level is infinitely complex. My thoughts are that given the complexity of the simulation we are currently in, whatever could be simulating something like this would have to have insane compute power or be limiting required compute in various ways, or both. I sometimes wonder if things like the relatively low speed of light is an example of this. As for simulating bone cancer, unfortunately if youre only simulating a universe to see how black holes work (or whatever) then it may not matter to the designers what side effects there are -- although it would be nice to think that life would at least be a curiosity.
- bookofjoe 4y agoAny sufficiently complicated simulation could be indistinguishable from magic.
- abudabi123 4y agoThe detection from LIGO opens a door to more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO