Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Bostrom: The simulation argument addresses whether we are in fact living in a simulation as opposed to some basement level physical reality. It tries to show that at least one of three propositions is true, but it doesn't tell us which one. Those three are: 1) Almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity. 2) Almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations: computer simulations detailed enough that the simulated minds within them would be conscious. 3) We're almost certainly living in a computer simulation. The full argument requires sophisticated probabilistic reasoning, but the basic argument is fairly easy to grasp without resorting to mathematics. Suppose that the first proposition is false, which would mean that some significant portion of civilizations at our stage eventually reach technological maturity. Suppose that the second proposition is also false, which would mean that some significant fraction of those (technologically mature) civilizations retain an interest in using some non-negligible fraction of their resources for the purpose of creating these ancestor simulations. You can then show that it would be possible for a technologically mature civilization to create astronomical numbers of these simulations. So if this significant fraction of civilizations made it through to this stage where they decided to use their capabilities to create these ancestor simulations, then there would be many more simulations created than there are original histories, meaning that almost all observers with our types of experiences would be living in simulations. Going back to the observation selection effect, if almost all kinds of observers with our kinds of experiences are living in simulations, then we should think that we are living in a simulation, that we are one of the typical observers, rather than one of the rare, exceptional basic level reality observers. The connection to existential risk is twofold. First, the first of those three possibilities, that almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity obviously bears directly on how much existential risk we face. If proposition 1 is true then the obvious implication is that we will succumb to an existential catastrophe before reaching technological maturity. The other relationship with existential risk has to do with proposition 3: if we are living in a computer simulation then there are certain exotic ways in which we might experience an existential catastrophe which we wouldn't fear if we are living in basement level physical reality. The simulation could be shut off, for instance. Or there might be other kinds of interventions in our simulated reality. Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Pulled this out of the terrorism thread cos it's a subject of it's own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43015 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 If we are and I'm stuck at fucking work for no reason, it can fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The Parky Virus has assimilated the Happy Face Programme. Abort simulation. Abort simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Interesting notion though. We can't be (relatively) far off producing fully conscious simulations can we? Another hundred years developing World of Warcraft and Artificial intelligence and processing power....you'd have to be close to pressing start on the game and watching a world grow out of it. Either any civilisation geting close to that becomes extinct first.....or we're one of the simulations that's been created....and some snotty 13 year old will switch us off to go for his tea soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 This is from an Oxford professor by the way...not one of your ex-Coventry goalkeepers trying to make a few bob that Parky likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The Parky Virus has assimilated the Happy Face Programme. Abort simulation. Abort simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 This is from an Oxford professor by the way...not one of your ex-Coventry goalkeepers trying to make a few bob that Parky likes. This is from an Oxford professor by the way...not one of your ex-Coventry goalkeepers trying to make a few bob that Parky likes. OOoooOO! Lah di dah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43015 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Parky, have you read Them by Jon Ronson? Might be a bit powder puff for a hardcore lunatic like you, but they infiltrate the Bilderberg Group annual get together. Strange bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 This interesting notion fits into the 'collapse of the real' 1990's hysteria and it suffers its same shortcomings. I cannot stand a lot of Derrida, though i find theories such as this could benefit from a 'there is nothing outside of the text' deconstructing. It only serves to reanimate the dead author, or in this case, a God or similar entity. The 'existential risk' he talks of would not be possible under the safe fold of technological maturity or scientific purity (both of which are infinite in their processes in my opinion). It would become some weird fucked up nihilistic dependancy on something bigger than the self, like a religion. The idea that we are in a simulation only exposes the existential crisis we suffer as we struggle to acknowledge that in the technology we can create nowadays, we are not the simulated, but the simulator. We are God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7065 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Does it make any difference whatsoever if we are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Parky, have you read Them by Jon Ronson? Might be a bit powder puff for a hardcore lunatic like you, but they infiltrate the Bilderberg Group annual get together. Strange bunch. Yeah read it. Some really strange and funny goings on. The scary thing is that the elites (for want of a better word) really believe in some wierd shit. You couldn't make it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Does it make any difference whatsoever if we are? not at all. but the fact that the question has been asked is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43015 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Somebody got to ADP. His first response was different. Cracks appearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43015 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Yeah read it. Some really strange and funny goings on. The scary thing is that the elites (for want of a better word) really believe in some wierd shit. You couldn't make it up. Aye what a weird carry-on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Somebody got to ADP. His first response was different. Cracks appearing. It is because Im fighting a losing battle at Durham trying to tell a lot of self-aggrandising theorists that their jib is pointless. And i have to justify it all the time, like I'm on trial. My first post in this thread still stands though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Here's the first reply from my conspiracy board............ Re: Simulation. "Here, let us see if we can piss off godzilla. I would posit that, first, while the seeming physical reality is contained within another, superceding reality, which is in turn superceded by another, and so on, this structure is organic and natural, while mysterious in it's origin and destination. I would posit, secondly, that perhaps as a sort of infection, some oth the more localized portions are intersected with an inorganic conscious structure, that would endeavor to fool us into mistaking it's manifestations/emanations into the local reality for the underlying structure itself. This thought roughly corresponds to what is on one hand ideas pointing to an advanced AI, and on the other hand the ideas presented in Gnostic teachings, Archons, etc..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Does it make any difference whatsoever if we are? Makes extinction all the more of a burning issue. We generally look at natural phenomena like asteroids, climate change, disease, the sun dying etc. as causing our inevitable demise, but we've been fine for hundreds of thousands of years on those criteria, so chances are we will be for a while. Man made impacts like weaponry and worsening climate change increase our chances of a faster demise. But being a simulation would make our odds much worse. The owner might decide they need the server space for porn.....or have a power cut. Could happen tomorrow. There's much more at the link in the OP than what I quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7065 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) My point was that we would never know, which makes our extinction as meaningful/less as ever. Edited May 9, 2012 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 My point was that we would never know, which makes out extinction as meaningful/less as ever. EXACTLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Makes extinction all the more of a burning issue. We generally look at natural phenomena like asteroids, climate change, disease, the sun dying etc. as causing our inevitable demise, but we've been fine for hundreds of thousands of years on those criteria, so chances are we will be for a while. Man made impacts like weaponry and worsening climate change increase our chances of a faster demise. But being a simulation would make our odds much worse. The owner might decide they need the server space for porn.....or have a power cut. Could happen tomorrow. There's much more at the link in the OP than what I quoted. I disagree. The simulation would have a back up. Edited May 9, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7156 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 In the context of the argument what constitutes a civilisation and what constitues extinction of said civilisation? What are the technologically mature civilisations? And for that matter what constitutes technological maturity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 My point was that we would never know, which makes our extinction as meaningful/less as ever. Well that's the same if you get shot in the back of the head by Chris Partlow tomorrow. Our entire existence is meaningless whether it's a reality or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7065 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think effectively infinite porn constitutes technological maturity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7065 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well that's the same if you get shot in the back of the head by Chris Partlow tomorrow. Our entire existence is meaningless whether it's a reality or not. Agreed, I just put meaningful there in case I offended anyone who thought this was all important. I'm not as ham fisted as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now