Bostrom's Simulation Argument: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Bostrom's Simulation Argument » Bostrom's Simulation Argument

Bostrom's Simulation Argument
Are we living in a simulation?

Page: 1 2

Bostrom's Simulation Argument

GeorgeHawkins
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 14

Posted 10/19/09 - 04:01 PM:	#11
Wouldn't the fact that the post human's reality would be very likely to be a simulation if post humans decide to create simulations be a very good reason for post humans to decide not to create simulations? Simulated post humans would create simulations if the post humans they were simulating did so by not they'd be ensuring that post humans don't create simulations and so that they're real. Also wouldn't the possibility that the simulation could end at the point where the first simulation was created to avoid simulations within simulations be even more of a reason not to create simulations? Presumably ending ones reality is something to be avoided after all.
"What I understand by "philosopher": a terrible explosive in the presence of which everything is in danger." - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 10/23/09 - 10:26 PM:	#12
Seems far more likely that I am a bored Boltzmann Brain.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/24/09 - 06:59 AM:	#13
StarOcean anybody? Part of the problem with the whole simulation theories to date is that almost all of them assume that simply because you are consious then all observables will be of equal quality. In other words - large proponents of these argue that enclosing George inside a cave is equivilant to a simulation. Yet; merely enclosing the subject(consiousness B) inside a cave is not sufficient evidence to claim that they have 'less reality' then consciousness A. Pt. 2 first paragraph is really limited. Substrate-indpendence is shown mathematically viable through the membrane/line arguments. (If you have a membrane such that each division is 1 cm apart and draw a line 3 centimetres long you can transcribe said line to a different membrane while still keeping the length at 3 cms - Even if the new membrane claims 14 quantities for the line to its' original 3.) As such - you could argue that consiousness is substrat-independent. But do we have proof of such? Is it not more accurate to claim that any substrate is consciousness-dependent? Part of the question remains because of the aspect that attribution-to-multiple-X is the sole definition of substrate. (I unfortunately can't argue this claim yet.) Part 3. Argument for computation mostly looks like a claim to PositiveGenius's claim concerning Derrida and 'absolute presence'. It essentially argues that language-to-reality or consiousness-to-reality has no absolute presence therefore 'absolute presence' does not exist. On account of this arguement being applied as a 2-party system instead of a 3 party reality-perception-knowledge system - no presence at all can exist. As such no computation can exist since there is no data that can be actually acquired or x-lineated to any form. Yawn Why don't I just question "which is reality?" It's soo much easier to claim that that flying monkey flying in front of Banno is a part of the true reality. Banno cannot claim that it is not a part of reality on account of his being simulation. All viewpoints Banno makes are obviously not reflectant of the 'true' reality and are therefore not truth.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 390

Posted 10/24/09 - 09:14 AM:	#14
I think Death Monkey has refuted the core argument pretty well. I just want to add my opinion/observation that....our reality sure doesn't seem simulated. I mean, if we were to look for tell-tale signs that this universe is a simulation; those signs don't seem to be there. If I lived in a utopia, or a particularly interesting historical time, or profound and surprising things kept happening, or of course if there were glitches, then I'd be more inclined to think I were in a purposefully-created simulation. In fact, I think the purpose of a simulation would probably be obvious to any sentient inhabitants. (Unless of course it's preferred to program the inhabitants in some way, such that they do not reach this conclusion. But if we're inhabitants of such a simulation, all bets are off, since our own reasoning is necessarily flawed). Yeah I know: this is hardly a proof of anything, just another tangent for the discussion

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 11/02/09 - 04:56 PM:	#15
Mijin wrote: I think Death Monkey has refuted the core argument pretty well. I just want to add my opinion/observation that....our reality sure doesn't seem simulated. I mean, if we were to look for tell-tale signs that this universe is a simulation; those signs don't seem to be there. If I lived in a utopia, or a particularly interesting historical time, or profound and surprising things kept happening, or of course if there were glitches, then I'd be more inclined to think I were in a purposefully-created simulation. In fact, I think the purpose of a simulation would probably be obvious to any sentient inhabitants. (Unless of course it's preferred to program the inhabitants in some way, such that they do not reach this conclusion. But if we're inhabitants of such a simulation, all bets are off, since our own reasoning is necessarily flawed). Yeah I know: this is hardly a proof of anything, just another tangent for the discussion It is interesting that you should mention "glitches." Some proponents of the simulation argument have in fact proposed that there are aspects of reality that would seem to make a certain sense in a computing context. For instance, I seem to recall its being proposed that quantum superposition could be a means of conserving memory.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.