4 ms·
The brain in a vat that you predict in a couple of decades could be a brain in a vat that thinks they have put a brain in a vat. This type of assumption is _not
by southpawgirl 13y ago
The brain in a vat that you predict in a couple of decades could be a brain in a vat that thinks they have put a brain in a vat. This type of assumption is _not_ falsifiable (like $deity existence and so on) therefore open to speculation, based on each one their own heuristics and belief, but not rock-solid science.
I personally believe that the brain in a vat doesn't pass Occam's razor... but I have no proof.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Nursie 13y agoOccams Razor is a good general rule, but you're right, not proof. The related "This is all a simulation" argument is interesting, especially as computer power increases. If we ever get to the stage where we can simulate even a simpler sentience in a far smaller universe at a fraction of real speed then how do we know that's not exactly what's happening with us... ?
- MarkPNeyer 13y agoif you believe that we can reach this stage, and that we will create simulations when we do, it seems wildly implausible that we are _not_ in a simulation - because that would imply we'd be the first people anywhere, in any universe, to do such a thing.
- Nursie 13y agoWell yes, as a thought exercise I started idly wondering the other day how, if/when we reached the stage of development ourselves, we might go about making contact with the next layer up... Probably make a decent sci-fi short story. Now if only I had the talent or patience for writing...
- msherry 13y agohttp://qntm.org/responsibility http://qntm.org/responsibility is an interesting go at it, and where I first learned of the concept. His other fiction is pretty fun, as well.
- Nursie 13y agoThat's really quite cool. Thanks for that :) --edit-- My own thoughts were along the lines of - humans decide we're probably in a simulation, and try to figure out how we could attempt communication with the simulators. To do so we decide to build our own simulation, then run it at double speed and watch how they try to communicate with us. Then recurse... If you ever read a story like that, you'll know someone with the same idea but more motivation than me wrote it :)
- southpawgirl 13y agoVery nice story indeed :D In the story, the characters talk about nested levels of simulation and how slightly disheartening is to know that they are not in the top layer, therefore not "real". Afai(!)k, there might as well not be a top layer but infinite nesting -- or, even more charmingly, endless recursion, each simulation containing not another layer, but another iteration of itself. This at least would eliminate the embarrassment of being "less real" than the above layer.
- yaddayadda 13y agoAlready exists, well at least the movie does - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ edited: initially linked to the wrong movie
- southpawgirl 13y agoI am not sure about the implausibility you mention. "There are worlds who are simulations" !== "Most / all worlds are simulations". The second assumption is possible but by no means implied by the first. If we could create such complex simulations, it would prove only that it's possible that we live in one. On the bottom end of the stack, for such thought exercises ordered by descending charm, it could be that we live in a simulation created by someone / something that exists in the real reality, and we aren't even in a sophisticated pinnacle of technology achievement like a supercomputer, but in the real reality equivalent of a cheap videogame given away as a real reality equivalent of swag: "Universe 2000, Acme Inc special edition". Ouch. What a depressing thought.
- brudgers 13y agoThe problem with Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation for anything is: p AND ~p --> TRUE The evil demon of skepticism is both evil and a demon.