Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
scottaaronson.com
Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
1–10 of 285 posts
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#2I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it".
Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#3I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.
To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles. This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-computational component to human consciousness.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#4I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.
Could you define "explanatory" in this context?
When you say "God did it" - how did he do it?
The simulation idea often involves concepts like computers and turing completeness. Not sure those meet your idea of "explanatory" here. But they explain how it could be done. While I never saw an explanation how God did it.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#5I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much simpler theory of "God did it". Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not an argument at all.
To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles. This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-computational component to human consciousness.
I don't experience any qualia. And I don't believe you that you do. Do you have any arguments that could convince me to believe you?
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#6Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation argument specifically:
The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws.
1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistical view of the potential future ordered states of the universe, there are FAR more potential future states in which we don't exist, than states in which we do. The chances we are living in a simulation now are equally as small.
2) Bostrom hypothesizes that our descendants will try to simulate us. But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's basic thermodynamics. So simulation proponents argue that our simulated reality is running in a more complex universe than we experience. But if that is the case, then the beings running the simulation are not our descendants! They're the descendants of whatever more complex beings came before them. Once again the central logic of the argument fails.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#7I had thought about this idea and came to the conclusion that if the full universe simulation is ever possible, it is highly likely that we are living in one right now.
And the only way to prove it is possible, is to attempt to simulate one.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#8[deleted]
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles. This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-computational component to human consciousness.
I don't experience any qualia. And I don't believe you that you do. Do you have any arguments that could convince me to believe you?
Well that's because you're a zombie.
Re: Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation
#10Until someone demonstrates a jailbreak, I'm going to regard this hypothesis as moot.