Not a bad little introduction, but I disagree with the argument that if any simulations of reality can be run, then we're likely to be living in one because there are more simulations than realities. That such simulations can be run does not automatically mean that vast numbers of simulations actually are being run. That's like saying that because we exist, other beings like ourselves must exist somewhere else. We don't have any real evidence for this at all.
More fundamentally, proceeding on the assumption that if we ourselves could advance to the point of running reality-based simulations ignores that there would be no constraint for beings like ourselves to run simulations that resemble reality in any way whatsoever. Perhaps the "real" world has no concept of mass or energy or cause and effect. And then of course one can extend this to inception-style nested simulations... leaving us with the age-old unanswerable question best discussed in a pub, "what is reality ?"
Furthermore, there is no need for super-advanced computers for any of this : I can run entirely convincing simulations of the Universe in my head by falling asleep. "Entirely convincing", of course, does not mean that if I described to you that one about the enormous duck that ate everybody you'd find it plausible in the slightest. It means that when I'm asleep the mental filters that check for consistency are disabled, so my experience of it at the time was compelling. How do we know such procedures aren't in effect anyway ?
The answer is that we don't. We have to assume that what we're seeing is the fundamental level of reality in order to make any meaningful assessment of it. If our memories are constantly being altered by malevolent programmers / capricious deities (for the "we're in a simulation argument" is identical to, "we're all part of the mind of God", except that by throwing technology at it it's for some reason more palatable to atheists) then no inferences that we make can be trusted, and everything is utterly pointless. Yet, if we're not anything more than shadows and dust, Maximus, then everything is surely pointless too...
A very good friend of mine recently asked, "why even allow this to be an assumption at all ?", i.e. why is the burden of proof on those of us who believe reality is real rather than on those who don't ? The answer to this is that both cases are fundamentally unprovable. There's no good reason to prefer one over the other based on the evidence alone, because evidence itself is inapplicable if your idea is that... well, evidence is meaningless. But by admitting that we're making an assumption, we can get on with our lives and be able to entirely legitimately call out Flat Earthers as the nutters they are whilst still allowing room for a very fundamental doubt.
That's my morning philosophy rant for you. Now back to science.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/11/it-might-be-angels-instead.html
Originally shared by Martin Krischik
https://youtu.be/tlTKTTt47WE
I think the weak point in the argument is that, after postulating the existence of reality simulations, the writer automatically infers a larger number of simulations vs realities.
ReplyDelete