3 ms·
I think, particularly with the advent of AI and modern computer technology as a whole, Gödel would today be a simulationist of Bostrom’s cut. If we ever have t
by madaxe_again 3y ago
I think, particularly with the advent of AI and modern computer technology as a whole, Gödel would today be a simulationist of Bostrom’s cut.
If we ever have the means to accurately simulate reality - which we already do, at small scales and with significant time dilation - then it becomes almost inevitable that we reside within a simulation, as the simulations would vastly outnumber physical reality, and therefore the balance of probability is that we reside within a simulation - possibly nested within many other layers of simulation.
It isn’t necessary to simulate an entire universe at utter fidelity - just that which is observed - which rather neatly ties into the current understanding of quantum mechanics, and waveform collapse. It also isn’t necessary to do it in realtime, as from within the simulation all would appear synchronous regardless - aeons could pass between states, while the substrate orbits a white dwarf whiling away the cold eternity at the heat death of the parent universe.
Whether that implies an afterlife is another matter - perhaps we are ephemeral after all - but taking Gödel’s argument about the wastefulness of imbuing consciousness only to then snuff it out, half baked, it would stand to reason that any simulator would seek to accrue that experience, and use it for other purposes.
Perhaps there is only one consciousness, asynchronously living every life, every existence. I find this useful to bear in mind, as the person to whom I am asshole today may be an aspect of me from another iteration.
I prefer to look at this not as woo-woo, or belief, but rather logical deduction based on sound premises.
Of course, it may all be bunkum, and we may be alone in the universe, and life may indeed be meaningless and fleeting - but we cannot know, as that would foul up the simulation no end.
- skissane 3y ago> I think, particularly with the advent of AI and modern computer technology as a whole, Gödel would today be a simulationist of Bostrom’s cut One of my favourite parts of Bostrom’s seminal paper is an aside, but one I feel would have appealed to Gödel had he lived to read it: > Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage – the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure Bostrom’s argument, although it starts from materialist premises, contains within it an anti-materialist potential: What if there is no basement universe? What if it is software all the way down? Given Gödel’s anti-materialism, I think that potential would have appealed to him
- aliasxneo 3y ago> I prefer to look at this not as woo-woo, or belief, but rather logical deduction based on sound premises. Are you saying that belief is woo-woo? Curious to understand how you're relating the two.
- madaxe_again 3y agoYes. Belief is grounded in nothing - hence it is belief. One could believe in moon Nazis, or Bigfoot, or god - without a shred of evidence for any of them. Knowledge is based upon rationale and testable hypotheses.
- aliasxneo 3y agoMaybe this is just semantics, but the statement, "I believe my wife loves me," would necessarily be grounded in nothing? Or is that not belief?
- madaxe_again 3y agoThat’s not belief. Either your wife loves you (good for you) or she does not (hooray for me). She’ll let you know, either way, so there’s no need for belief here.
- aliasxneo 3y agoInteresting way to avoid the question. I guess we'll just have to disagree :)
- mensetmanusman 3y agoBelief that you exist, belief that free will exists, belief that others have consciousness, belief in human rights.
- madaxe_again 3y agoI think, therefore I am. Free will is entirely debatable. In the same vein, the consciousness of others is also not certain, but I err on the side of caution. I don’t “believe” in human rights, however they probably create a better living environment for all, therefore I would say they are a good thing.