From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 11:27:47 MDT
Dan Fabulich wrote,
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > But what if we don't conclude that there are more simulations? What if
> > simulations are rare?
>
> Uh, you mean option (2)?
Actually, option (2) seems unlikely. I prefer a variation of option (2).
Any civilization advanced enough to simulate the entire universe certainly
can do it in a way that keeps us from finding out. It seems to me that if
they really wanted to simulate a real universe, and they really wanted to
simulate their ancestors and keep the simulation at a primitive level, this
would require that the simulated people not discover that they are in a
simulation. As such, simulations that allow us to question it are probably
very rare.
> It seems to me that all you're saying here is that we don't have enough
> evidence to pick between 2 and 3.
Agreed. There is not evidence for or against a simulation.
> For example, you ask: "what if simulations are just as boring as reality
> and nobody makes them?" and I answer: well, what are the odds of that?
> What's f[I]? .5? .25? .1? I think you'd have to be pretty confident to
> assume that the answer is even one in a hundred, say nothing of
> one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion, and I don't think we have that kind
> of confidence.
Actually, Bostrom postulates that these simulations are specifically
ancestor-based, and specifically realistic. This seems to define them as
exactly like reality in less exciting times. To me this almost requires the
simulation to be boring. It must be of things we already know and of things
we have already seen. Boring!
> Here, I think, you have missed the point of this argument. Many
> transhumanists still seem to believe that *we* will create simulated
> environments, in which it will be impossible for our simulated subjects to
> falsify the claim that they are in a simulation. This is a solid
> prediction that makes claims about what kinds of worlds there will be:
> namely, that there will be some simulated worlds that we'll make.
Name me one transhumanist who wants to build a world as mundane as this one
with our levels of tragedy and suffering. Nobody I know would build a world
just like reality is today. I think we all would want to build better
worlds that are more exciting and have less suffering. As an example, our
own goals would lead one away from this type of simulation instead of toward
it.
Hal Finney wrote,
> Again, no one is postulating that we live in a simulation. That is
> a conclusion, which should not be confused with a premise.
I think this will be news to most people reading this list. Many of them
think that Bostrom has lead them to the conclusion that we are "more likely
than not" to be inside a simulation. If people want to reduce their
position to say that there is a small but unproven chance that we might be
in a simulation, I would have no objection.
> There may be a lot of dreams, but they don't last very long, and they're
> not really that convincing, I don't think. They only seem so because
> our minds are dulled. The total measure of observer-moments in reality
> is probably quite a bit greater than in dreams.
This is my objection to the simulation premise. I believe that all
simulations will be smaller, shorter-lived, and less defined than their
parent realities. In fact, I see no reason to see simulations as any
different than dreams. The fact that they are run on silicon-based hardware
instead of carbon-based wetware doesn't seem important. Why not consider
the simulation computer to be a single entity, with the simulation itself
being its dream?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 11:42:05 MDT