There's a major flaw with Bostrum's argument from statistic. It assumes that new digitally generated realities are spawned with grater frequency than new "naturally" generated realities are spawned. It's entirely possible the latter happens more frequently, which would mean we're more likely to have be part of a natural reality.
I don't dismiss the idea but I think the theory often ignores human natures ability to self destruct/self sabotage. Whether it is a simulation or not we (humans) seem to have a undeniable tendency to destroy each other, a preference to tear each other down and compete more than cooperate. So while technology is looking like one day it might have the capacity to become this realistic, this detailed and advanced, you'd first have to assume that human nature is capable of letting us exist long enough to perfect this technology. We (humans as a whole) will self-sabotage the effort pursuing our own "tribes" needs or wants (tribe being ideological, national or racial). We will eventually ruin it and it will never come to fruition. Even if you look at the pyramids, the history we were taught is obviously wrong. Obviously some society existed that had more technology than we believe possible back then, yet there's ample proof we are wrong and a primitive cabal of truths keepers or a cult of historians refuse to allow any other conversation to exist in their sphere of influence... mostly due to their egos. BUT if the alternative theory's, to which there seems to be credible proof, are true it would shows that "we" got to a technological peak some time before and that society did not survive save a few nigh indestructible and lucky artifacts. One could argue this proves our (human) nature and it makes us incapable of allowing ourselves to get to that level of required technological advancement without tearing ourselves apart first.
Coleman, imagine a vary vivid dream, one that seems absolutely real. Your body is not moving, yet your experience the dream is you are moving. All that vivid experience is simply signals within the brain. So if you can build a device that provides all the signals to your brain to completely fool you and all your senses, how would you know? Memories function, touch, tastes, smell, sound and vision are ALL electrical signals. Even when you awake, it’s all signals. A condition like pain … what is that? Pain exists nowhere except in the brain.
Yogys an sages been talking bout something like this hundreds and thousands of years ago. Just as they didn't had a word simulation they called it illusion. So then the thing they called incarnation could be just connecting your neurolinc to the computer
I just watched part of the conversation of Jordan Peterson and sir Roger Penrose... Penrose said that consiousness is non-computational... If this is true, would that disprove a simulated world? Or is that still something that could be simulated? Or does this create a paradox?
Human consciousness is computational, but it's not digital. There are a lot of analog processes happening in the brain. It could be simulated in a digital computer, it would just take an insane amount of computational power, and a far greater understanding of neuroscience than we have now.
@@My_Personal_RUclips how are you so cirtain? You speak as if consiousness is something that we could understand completely via neuroscience... I dont agree with that. Humans have no clue what consiousness is or why it exists or even what it actually does... You make the assumption that consiousness is merely en (by)product of the brain... How would you demonstrate that? To be consious is not the same as consiousness.
@@ikik3406 Neurons are literally computational nodes. Also, we do know that consciousness resides in the brain because of the way brain injuries and brain developmental disorders affect consciousness.
I think this argument fails to pick up on simulation inefficiency. No simulation will contain as many parts as what simulated it. Suppose we can make a simulation so efficient there's a 2-1 ratio of atoms in our computer to atoms in the simulation (most will never get to that point). Even if every atom in the universe is used to make the simulating computer, we've now cut the potential number of conscious beings in half. If the simulated reality does the same, it gets cut in half again, and again, and again. If you add up the number of simulated atoms after doing that an infinite number of times, it adds to approximately the same number of atoms that exist in the base-level reality. And that's only if every atom is doing the simulating: not being used for persons. An example of this is that people have made computers in Minecraft (m.ruclips.net/video/tDxKhiJfgY/видео.html), but they have significantly less processing power (and atoms) than the physical computer the game is played on, in the neighborhood of billions-to-one (for reference, most computers run at ~3GHz, 3 billion times faster than that 1Hz computer in MC). Even with simulation optimizations you're looking at high ratios. Far more atoms, and therefore people, can exist in the base reality than in the simulated ones. For that reason, the probability that you live in the base-level reality with respect to being a person is high.
I'd say that's assuming that it's all processed at the same time? Which really doesn't need to be the case. Sequential simulation might just be as likely
If we were in a simulation we could never know it was the basic summary of this argument every time. how do we know the real reality isn't made out of crayons and Play doh? And the way everything looks to us right now looks simplistic and stupid to those crayon play doh people? We will never know this and quite frankly neither will they. They will never know if they are in a simulation, and if somebody simulated them, those simulators would never know that they were in a simulation either. And if there's a God, how could he know if hes not in a simulation too and just under the illusion that hes God? Just go buy your favorite cereal and watch your favorite show and eat it that's all you can do really lol
@@firephilosopher7645 ...... because the answer is so clearly and solidly and immediately evident. I go by the evidence of the senses. The evidence of my senses. I'm 80 years old, and it has been one hundred percent correct so far.
@@joedavis4150 Every shred of empirical evidence you have that the confirms the hypothesis that you are in a non-simulation also confirms the hypothesis that you are in a simulation. If that's not evident to you, you simply don't understand the problem.
@@thomasgardner2493 ...... Thomas, thanks for answering.... do you think you are living in a simulation? Or do you think you are not living in a simulation? Or do you think you can't tell?... or do you think something else?...
There's a major flaw with Bostrum's argument from statistic. It assumes that new digitally generated realities are spawned with grater frequency than new "naturally" generated realities are spawned. It's entirely possible the latter happens more frequently, which would mean we're more likely to have be part of a natural reality.
Been waiting for this since you mentioned it on Rogan. Gonna buy the book soon and take notes
4.06: ...on the other hand we put a person on the moon..."
Just because you are fooled by the simulation, doesn´t mean it´s real, bro.
I don't dismiss the idea but I think the theory often ignores human natures ability to self destruct/self sabotage. Whether it is a simulation or not we (humans) seem to have a undeniable tendency to destroy each other, a preference to tear each other down and compete more than cooperate. So while technology is looking like one day it might have the capacity to become this realistic, this detailed and advanced, you'd first have to assume that human nature is capable of letting us exist long enough to perfect this technology. We (humans as a whole) will self-sabotage the effort pursuing our own "tribes" needs or wants (tribe being ideological, national or racial). We will eventually ruin it and it will never come to fruition.
Even if you look at the pyramids, the history we were taught is obviously wrong. Obviously some society existed that had more technology than we believe possible back then, yet there's ample proof we are wrong and a primitive cabal of truths keepers or a cult of historians refuse to allow any other conversation to exist in their sphere of influence... mostly due to their egos. BUT if the alternative theory's, to which there seems to be credible proof, are true it would shows that "we" got to a technological peak some time before and that society did not survive save a few nigh indestructible and lucky artifacts. One could argue this proves our (human) nature and it makes us incapable of allowing ourselves to get to that level of required technological advancement without tearing ourselves apart first.
Coleman, imagine a vary vivid dream, one that seems absolutely real. Your body is not moving, yet your experience the dream is you are moving. All that vivid experience is simply signals within the brain. So if you can build a device that provides all the signals to your brain to completely fool you and all your senses, how would you know? Memories function, touch, tastes, smell, sound and vision are ALL electrical signals. Even when you awake, it’s all signals. A condition like pain … what is that? Pain exists nowhere except in the brain.
You wouldn't know if it was a sim or not that's why it makes no difference one way or the other, it doesn't matter.
Even if we are in a simulated world, it's not meaningfully different from being in a real world.
Based and pragmatism pilled.
Yogys an sages been talking bout something like this hundreds and thousands of years ago. Just as they didn't had a word simulation they called it illusion. So then the thing they called incarnation could be just connecting your neurolinc to the computer
Knowing we're not in a simulation is as simple as being able to tell s h i t from Shinola.
I just watched part of the conversation of Jordan Peterson and sir Roger Penrose...
Penrose said that consiousness is non-computational... If this is true, would that disprove a simulated world? Or is that still something that could be simulated? Or does this create a paradox?
Human consciousness is computational, but it's not digital. There are a lot of analog processes happening in the brain. It could be simulated in a digital computer, it would just take an insane amount of computational power, and a far greater understanding of neuroscience than we have now.
@@My_Personal_RUclips how are you so cirtain? You speak as if consiousness is something that we could understand completely via neuroscience... I dont agree with that. Humans have no clue what consiousness is or why it exists or even what it actually does... You make the assumption that consiousness is merely en (by)product of the brain... How would you demonstrate that?
To be consious is not the same as consiousness.
@@ikik3406 Neurons are literally computational nodes. Also, we do know that consciousness resides in the brain because of the way brain injuries and brain developmental disorders affect consciousness.
@@My_Personal_RUclips when i blow at a fire, it has effect on the fire, yet i didnt nessicairely created that fire... Fals reasoning...
@@ikik3406 Your experiment doesn't show blowing to be necessary for fire. We have shown that the brain is necessary for thought.
I think this argument fails to pick up on simulation inefficiency. No simulation will contain as many parts as what simulated it.
Suppose we can make a simulation so efficient there's a 2-1 ratio of atoms in our computer to atoms in the simulation (most will never get to that point). Even if every atom in the universe is used to make the simulating computer, we've now cut the potential number of conscious beings in half. If the simulated reality does the same, it gets cut in half again, and again, and again.
If you add up the number of simulated atoms after doing that an infinite number of times, it adds to approximately the same number of atoms that exist in the base-level reality. And that's only if every atom is doing the simulating: not being used for persons.
An example of this is that people have made computers in Minecraft (m.ruclips.net/video/tDxKhiJfgY/видео.html), but they have significantly less processing power (and atoms) than the physical computer the game is played on, in the neighborhood of billions-to-one (for reference, most computers run at ~3GHz, 3 billion times faster than that 1Hz computer in MC). Even with simulation optimizations you're looking at high ratios.
Far more atoms, and therefore people, can exist in the base reality than in the simulated ones. For that reason, the probability that you live in the base-level reality with respect to being a person is high.
The link is m.ruclips.net/video/tDxKhiJfgYk/видео.html , it wasn't supposed to have a right parenthesis.
I'd say that's assuming that it's all processed at the same time? Which really doesn't need to be the case. Sequential simulation might just be as likely
It would explain all the NPCs :)
If we were in a simulation we could never know it was the basic summary of this argument every time. how do we know the real reality isn't made out of crayons and Play doh? And the way everything looks to us right now looks simplistic and stupid to those crayon play doh people? We will never know this and quite frankly neither will they. They will never know if they are in a simulation, and if somebody simulated them, those simulators would never know that they were in a simulation either. And if there's a God, how could he know if hes not in a simulation too and just under the illusion that hes God? Just go buy your favorite cereal and watch your favorite show and eat it that's all you can do really lol
Of course we're not living in a simulated world. It's stupid to even ask the question.
Nice logic. Why is it stupid to ask the question?
@@firephilosopher7645 ...... because the answer is so clearly and solidly and immediately evident. I go by the evidence of the senses. The evidence of my senses. I'm 80 years old, and it has been one hundred percent correct so far.
@@joedavis4150 Every shred of empirical evidence you have that the confirms the hypothesis that you are in a non-simulation also confirms the hypothesis that you are in a simulation. If that's not evident to you, you simply don't understand the problem.
@@thomasgardner2493 ...... Thomas, thanks for answering.... do you think you are living in a simulation? Or do you think you are not living in a simulation? Or do you think you can't tell?... or do you think something else?...
@@joedavis4150 "You think that's air you're breathing?"