3 ms·

In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"? Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being." Why is it so absurd to think

In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"? Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being." Why is it so absurd to think that there have existed or do exist beings with more intelligence and computational resources than humans? It seems MORE absurd to me to think that, across all of the infinite universe(s), humans are the only intelligent, self-aware creature capable of scientific progress.

Erem 3y ago
I mean an entity that created the coordinate system and all the constants and laws that allow particles to exist and move is effectively divine with respect to the lowly inhabitants therein right?
lenerdenator 3y ago
If there's a simulation and we as a species are living in it, and bound by its rules (laws of physics, etc.) then you get into the question of who made said simulation with the rules that constrain us. Since this simulator sysadmin has control over us in ways we cannot comprehend or push back against in a meaningful way, I'd say it counts as a higher power. Since its existence cannot currently be proven false through empirical means, belief in its existence relies on faith. A person who believes in simulation theory in which someone created and administrates the simulation can be said to believe in a higher power than humanity, on faith. It's a creation myth as explained by a bunch of engineering majors who never bothered to pay attention during their anthropology classes as freshmen.
- orwin 3y ago
  No, the origin beliefs in this case aren't really faith. Let me frame that as questions: do you: - Believe that we will be able to create a true AI, with self-consicousness? - Believe that we will some day have enough energy and compute power to create a simulation that could contains billions of those consciousness? - Believe that if we are able to do so, we will do it (aka no governmental body will prevent a simulation from happening because of ethical concerns, and if a ban happen, not all private entity will respect the ban). If your answers to all 3 questions is YES, then you believe we likely live in a simulation. My only yes is to the question 3, because i'm cynical. The 1 is a big "i don't know", because i know enough to have no idea, and my answer to 2 is "no way" because i don't know the subject at all, but my brain think adjacent knowledge is enough to form an opinion this absolute.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    There are people who engage in the thought exercise without believing it's true, but there are definitely people who believe it's true. See: Elon Musk (at least he did a few years ago)
  - rizzom5000 3y ago
    I also don't have an absolute opinion, but the math of the simulation hypothesis does appear to check out and it's not difficult to believe, scientifically, that intelligences dramatically superior to human-level are possible. (1) is likely achievable if we gain a better understanding of biology and the human nervous system, which seems likely given a timeline of continuous scientific progress. (2) is even easier for me to grasp as we already know how much energy the human brain uses and we have billions of them now. So far we're not aware of any serious show stoppers for this scenario, but we might be talking timelines of 100's of years.
  - Vegenoid 3y ago
    - Believe that we will be able to create a true AI, with self-consicousness? To believe this with any kind of certainty is no different from believing in deities.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Disagree. Its as unfalsifiable, but the opposite position is disprovable, at least (if we create a self-aware IA). Hence why i wrote > The 1 is a big "i don't know", because i know enough to have no idea
      - Vegenoid 3y ago
        As far as I’m aware, we have no method by which to prove something is conscious. Self-awareness and consciousness (by which I mean qualia) are different. Many believe that self-awareness implies consciousness, but I’m not aware of any method to prove that.

Erem 3y ago

I mean an entity that created the coordinate system and all the constants and laws that allow particles to exist and move is effectively divine with respect to the lowly inhabitants therein right?

lenerdenator 3y ago

If there's a simulation and we as a species are living in it, and bound by its rules (laws of physics, etc.) then you get into the question of who made said simulation with the rules that constrain us. Since this simulator sysadmin has control over us in ways we cannot comprehend or push back against in a meaningful way, I'd say it counts as a higher power. Since its existence cannot currently be proven false through empirical means, belief in its existence relies on faith. A person who believes in simulation theory in which someone created and administrates the simulation can be said to believe in a higher power than humanity, on faith. It's a creation myth as explained by a bunch of engineering majors who never bothered to pay attention during their anthropology classes as freshmen.

orwin 3y ago
No, the origin beliefs in this case aren't really faith. Let me frame that as questions: do you: - Believe that we will be able to create a true AI, with self-consicousness? - Believe that we will some day have enough energy and compute power to create a simulation that could contains billions of those consciousness? - Believe that if we are able to do so, we will do it (aka no governmental body will prevent a simulation from happening because of ethical concerns, and if a ban happen, not all private entity will respect the ban). If your answers to all 3 questions is YES, then you believe we likely live in a simulation. My only yes is to the question 3, because i'm cynical. The 1 is a big "i don't know", because i know enough to have no idea, and my answer to 2 is "no way" because i don't know the subject at all, but my brain think adjacent knowledge is enough to form an opinion this absolute.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  There are people who engage in the thought exercise without believing it's true, but there are definitely people who believe it's true. See: Elon Musk (at least he did a few years ago)
- rizzom5000 3y ago
  I also don't have an absolute opinion, but the math of the simulation hypothesis does appear to check out and it's not difficult to believe, scientifically, that intelligences dramatically superior to human-level are possible. (1) is likely achievable if we gain a better understanding of biology and the human nervous system, which seems likely given a timeline of continuous scientific progress. (2) is even easier for me to grasp as we already know how much energy the human brain uses and we have billions of them now. So far we're not aware of any serious show stoppers for this scenario, but we might be talking timelines of 100's of years.
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  - Believe that we will be able to create a true AI, with self-consicousness? To believe this with any kind of certainty is no different from believing in deities.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Disagree. Its as unfalsifiable, but the opposite position is disprovable, at least (if we create a self-aware IA). Hence why i wrote > The 1 is a big "i don't know", because i know enough to have no idea
    - Vegenoid 3y ago
      As far as I’m aware, we have no method by which to prove something is conscious. Self-awareness and consciousness (by which I mean qualia) are different. Many believe that self-awareness implies consciousness, but I’m not aware of any method to prove that.