From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 12:19:29 MDT
Max M wrote,
> "Nick Bostrom discusses the computational requirements needed to
> simulate human existence. He offers a proof based on the anthropic
> principle, that you are almost certainly a computer simulation and not
> "real". The idea is that given that humans don't go extinct in
> geologically short time then eventually computer capability will allow
> complete simulation of the human cortex. Consequently, there must be far
> more simulations running in future millennia than seconds since you were
> born. Thus its astronomically more likely you are a simulation
> than real ...
I've never understood this. Doesn't the anthropic principle also lead to
the Doomsday Argument <http://www.anthropic-principle.com/> that argues
humans DO go extinct in geologically short time? It seems to me that the
Anthropic Principle argues against the first assumption in the Simulation
Argument.
The statistical counting of the universes to see which is most likely seems
weak to me. There would be more dreams than realities and simulations. If
this process made sense, shouldn't we conclude that we are in a dream
instead of a simulation or a real universe?
I also question why different universes should be given equal weight in
statistical probability that we would find ourselves therein. Since
realities exist for billions of years before the first simulations appear,
wouldn't that give realities a magnitude of more probability in these
calculations?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 12:34:05 MDT