|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 12, 2017 18:26:32 GMT
Lets say I claimed that we are in a simulation. I could make a pretty compelling case actually. We know there is Artificial Intelligence, we know there are simulations, the technology of those is likely to vastly improve, and the simple fact that there would be far more simulations than real worlds means the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world. And keep in mind, if you were in a simulation, it wouldn't be obvious. You would simply accept everything you saw and interacted with as the way reality works.
Now, you and I don't believe we're in a simulation, but why not?
Simple, there's not sufficient evidence to live our lives as though that is true.
If people were running around trying to get uploaded to the real world, you would find them to be insane. And yet here we have people running around praying and claiming a god motives and even instructs their life, and somehow that is accepted as believable.
Why? Name anything that makes a god more credible, and if you can't, really really really think about that.
What makes a god belief any more believable than thinking we're in a simulation, when you could make logical but evidence free claims for either. I hope you can see now, that thinking it makes sense that a god exists, doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 22:13:09 GMT
Truth is relative.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 12, 2017 23:46:55 GMT
We know there is Artificial Intelligence, we know there are simulations, the technology of those is likely to vastly improve, and the simple fact that there would be far more simulations than real worlds means the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world.
In this kind of scenario I'd be inclined to say that the "simulation" is actually just part of the real world. There are still trees, cars, people, mountains, etc, it just turns out that their fundamental metaphysical nature is not what we initially thought. To me, that's not really any different to discovering, for example, that all objects are mostly empty space. How exactly would living one's life as though it is true differ from living one's life as though it is false? If some God-like being came down and informed me that I was living in a simulation of the sort that you describe, it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the way I live my life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 0:41:58 GMT
Lets say I claimed that we are in a simulation. I could make a pretty compelling case actually. We know there is Artificial Intelligence, we know there are simulations, the technology of those is likely to vastly improve, and the simple fact that there would be far more simulations than real worlds means the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world. And keep in mind, if you were in a simulation, it wouldn't be obvious. You would simply accept everything you saw and interacted with as the way reality works.
Now, you and I don't believe we're in a simulation, but why not?
Simple, there's not sufficient evidence to live our lives as though that is true.
If people were running around trying to get uploaded to the real world, you would find them to be insane. And yet here we have people running around praying and claiming a god motives and even instructs their life, and somehow that is accepted as believable.
Why? Name anything that makes a god more credible, and if you can't, really really really think about that.
What makes a god belief any more believable than thinking we're in a simulation, when you could make logical but evidence free claims for either. I hope you can see now, that thinking it makes sense that a god exists, doesn't make it true. Maybe "God" and the creator of the simulation are the same being.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 3:16:29 GMT
We know there is Artificial Intelligence, we know there are simulations, the technology of those is likely to vastly improve, and the simple fact that there would be far more simulations than real worlds means the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world.
In this kind of scenario I'd be inclined to say that the "simulation" is actually just part of the real world. There are still trees, cars, people, mountains, etc, it just turns out that their fundamental metaphysical nature is not what we initially thought. To me, that's not really any different to discovering, for example, that all objects are mostly empty space. How exactly would living one's life as though it is true differ from living one's life as though it is false? If some God-like being came down and informed me that I was living in a simulation of the sort that you describe, it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the way I live my life. It may or may not require us to live our lives differently, but the point is we still do not accept it as true for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence.
The question remains, how is the idea of a god any more believable?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 3:18:29 GMT
Maybe "God" and the creator of the simulation are the same being. A: you don't accept the simulation argument as true, and for good reason. It's the same exact reason that a god shouldn't be accepted as true.
B: if it turns out we can create such simulations, it doesn't make us gods, and it wouldn't make a person who programmed our simulation a god either.
C: The question remains, how is god any more believable?
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Mar 13, 2017 3:28:53 GMT
I'm at the point where I think me or maybe all of us being in a simulation is more possible than being a god. There's so many god theories either all of them have a little bit of truth of them or they're just completely false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 3:40:59 GMT
Lets say I claimed that we are in a simulation. I could make a pretty compelling case actually. We know there is Artificial Intelligence Um, no, we don't. There's so much talk about AI that it's easy to forget that we haven't actually managed it yet. And it's entirely possible that we never will. I agree with your thesis, though. It's entirely possible that we are living within a computer simulation, as in The Matrix. There's just no particular reason to believe that we are.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 13, 2017 3:51:01 GMT
In this kind of scenario I'd be inclined to say that the "simulation" is actually just part of the real world. There are still trees, cars, people, mountains, etc, it just turns out that their fundamental metaphysical nature is not what we initially thought. To me, that's not really any different to discovering, for example, that all objects are mostly empty space. How exactly would living one's life as though it is true differ from living one's life as though it is false? If some God-like being came down and informed me that I was living in a simulation of the sort that you describe, it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the way I live my life. It may or may not require us to live our lives differently, but the point is we still do not accept it as true for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence.
The question remains, how is the idea of a god any more believable?
I don't believe in god. I was just responding to some of your comments about the simulation. Also, I have a question. You say "the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world." Surely if that's the case, we certainly shouldn't believe that we are living in the "real world". You shouldn't believe what you think is not likely to be true. And if simulation is the most likely scenario in general (which would be the case on your view if "simulation" and "real world" are the only relevant alternatives), then it seems to me that we should believe that we are living in a simulation, or at any rate it's not unreasonable to believe it. Indeed, I don't see much difference between these propositions: (1a) X is very unlikely to be true (2a) Y is very likely to be true and these ones: (1b) I believe that not-X (entailing "I don't believe that X") (2b) I believe that Y I suppose that (1b) and (2b) do not commit you to (1a) and (2a) respectively, since for example you might believe that Y, but hold that Y is certain to be true. But it does seem like if you assert that Y is very likely to be true, you're committed to believing that it's true. So I'd say that if somebody has given a sound argument that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation, then we have sufficient evidence to believe that we are living in a simulation, hence we should believe that we are living in a simulation. The same is true for god. My own view is that neither simulation nor god are very likely (I'm not sure I'd say these hypotheses are unlikely either; rather, I'm inclined to assign a completely unknown probability to both). Anyway, my question is, if you think that it's very likely that we're not living in the real world, how is it coherent to continue holding the belief that we are living in the real world?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 9:20:19 GMT
Lets say I claimed that we are in a simulation. I could make a pretty compelling case actually. We know there is Artificial Intelligence Um, no, we don't. There's so much talk about AI that it's easy to forget that we haven't actually managed it yet. And it's entirely possible that we never will. I agree with your thesis, though. It's entirely possible that we are living within a computer simulation, as in The Matrix. There's just no particular reason to believe that we are. Sure we have. I believe the measurement is that it has the intelligence of a fairly small child, so if you just mean it's not perfect, then yes I agree. But that's why I said it is reasonable to expect it to improve.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_intelligence#2010s
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 9:21:06 GMT
It may or may not require us to live our lives differently, but the point is we still do not accept it as true for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence.
The question remains, how is the idea of a god any more believable?
I don't believe in god. I was just responding to some of your comments about the simulation. Also, I have a question. You say "the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world." Surely if that's the case, we certainly shouldn't believe that we are living in the "real world". You shouldn't believe what you think is not likely to be true. And if simulation is the most likely scenario in general (which would be the case on your view if "simulation" and "real world" are the only relevant alternatives), then it seems to me that we should believe that we are living in a simulation, or at any rate it's not unreasonable to believe it. Indeed, I don't see much difference between these propositions: (1a) X is very unlikely to be true (2a) Y is very likely to be true and these ones: (1b) I believe that not-X (entailing "I don't believe that X") (2b) I believe that Y I suppose that (1b) and (2b) do not commit you to (1a) and (2a) respectively, since for example you might believe that Y, but hold that Y is certain to be true. But it does seem like if you assert that Y is very likely to be true, you're committed to believing that it's true. So I'd say that if somebody has given a sound argument that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation, then we have sufficient evidence to believe that we are living in a simulation, hence we should believe that we are living in a simulation. The same is true for god. My own view is that neither simulation nor god are very likely (I'm not sure I'd say these hypotheses are unlikely either; rather, I'm inclined to assign a completely unknown probability to both). Anyway, my question is, if you think that it's very likely that we're not living in the real world, how is it coherent to continue holding the belief that we are living in the real world?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 9:28:34 GMT
It may or may not require us to live our lives differently, but the point is we still do not accept it as true for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence.
The question remains, how is the idea of a god any more believable?
I don't believe in god. I was just responding to some of your comments about the simulation. Also, I have a question. You say "the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world." Surely if that's the case, we certainly shouldn't believe that we are living in the "real world". You shouldn't believe what you think is not likely to be true. And if simulation is the most likely scenario in general (which would be the case on your view if "simulation" and "real world" are the only relevant alternatives), then it seems to me that we should believe that we are living in a simulation, or at any rate it's not unreasonable to believe it. Indeed, I don't see much difference between these propositions: (1a) X is very unlikely to be true (2a) Y is very likely to be true and these ones: (1b) I believe that not-X (entailing "I don't believe that X") (2b) I believe that Y I suppose that (1b) and (2b) do not commit you to (1a) and (2a) respectively, since for example you might believe that Y, but hold that Y is certain to be true. But it does seem like if you assert that Y is very likely to be true, you're committed to believing that it's true. So I'd say that if somebody has given a sound argument that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation, then we have sufficient evidence to believe that we are living in a simulation, hence we should believe that we are living in a simulation. The same is true for god. My own view is that neither simulation nor god are very likely (I'm not sure I'd say these hypotheses are unlikely either; rather, I'm inclined to assign a completely unknown probability to both). Anyway, my question is, if you think that it's very likely that we're not living in the real world, how is it coherent to continue holding the belief that we are living in the real world? Indeed, I was phrasing it as though I were making the case, and it may very well be possible those things are likely. However, we don't know that to be the case, or to even have any evidence that it will likely be the case, and therefore I don't believe it.
However, while I know you don't believe in a god, I'll reiterate that there is no better evidence for a god, and I would argue the evidence is much more poor than that for a simulation, which is to say, the only kind the exists is like making shapes out of clouds.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 10:59:18 GMT
No it isn't. It is demonstrated by evidence, and can only be demonstrated by evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 13, 2017 11:31:10 GMT
Lets say I claimed that we are in a simulation. I could make a pretty compelling case actually. We know there is Artificial Intelligence, we know there are simulations, the technology of those is likely to vastly improve, and the simple fact that there would be far more simulations than real worlds means the odds are simply that we are much more likely to be in a simulation than in the one real world. And keep in mind, if you were in a simulation, it wouldn't be obvious. You would simply accept everything you saw and interacted with as the way reality works.
Now, you and I don't believe we're in a simulation, but why not?
Simple, there's not sufficient evidence to live our lives as though that is true.
If people were running around trying to get uploaded to the real world, you would find them to be insane. And yet here we have people running around praying and claiming a god motives and even instructs their life, and somehow that is accepted as believable.
Why? Name anything that makes a god more credible, and if you can't, really really really think about that.
What makes a god belief any more believable than thinking we're in a simulation, when you could make logical but evidence free claims for either. I hope you can see now, that thinking it makes sense that a god exists, doesn't make it true. Were you a member of the original RF&S on IMDb when I first arrived? I said that the atheists there seemed "dull witted, artless and pedestrian." Of all the atheists there or here you do seem the most confined to rather elementary concepts. If you can imagine artificial realities why must they also be at an elementary level of understanding? To well educated people who believe in a god it not an anthropomorphic one at all. It is a complex and nebulous set of forces in nature and society. Can you honestly say there are no complex and nebulous forces in nature and society? I don't believe you can. Why must you crimp and cramp the discussion of them with your feeble grasp? That's before we even begin to consider your feeble grasp of science. Science has not concluded and does not say what you think it does. It is further true that science is useless at solving problems where there is no agreement what the problem is. If everyone could agree that we need more potatoes, science could arrange for lots more rather easily. Everyone does not agree. Most issues in society are issues because everyone does not agree what the problem is. Your idea to apply science to them is absolutely futile and always will be. One exception, one time science did solve a social problem is the rest room stall. It is private and safe. The latch is simple and easy to see when it's working and difficult to sabotage. It's just a plain metal slab. There is an opening at floor level for several inches through which a medical emergency can be noticed and aid might be rendered. Otherwise there is no invasion of privacy whatever. There is no reason for anyone to make any noise about their preferences which are irrelevant to others in the rest room anyway. That is a rare exception though. Science cannot solve any other of the major issues in society. They require more art than science. They require religion. You are the one with the disturbingly flawed worldview. Simulation or not is irrelevant.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 11:39:33 GMT
Now, you and I don't believe we're in a simulation, but why not?
Simple, there's not sufficient evidence to live our lives as though that is true.
Here's Nick Bostrom's paper, Are you living in a computer simulation? If computational power and scientific theories of mind are progressive, future research and recreation still deemed necessary, and no doomsday scenario, then it is highly likely that you're living in a computer simulation. What is it about the theory that is not sufficiently evidential to believe? If you believe in a heliocentric solar system, do you still say sunset and sunrise?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 13, 2017 11:43:25 GMT
Because it's a theory that we don't subscribe to.
Yeah... because that's a theory that they subscribe to. People are allowed to have beliefs, a-hole. Live with it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 18:38:05 GMT
Were you a member of the original RF&S on IMDb when I first arrived? I said that the atheists there seemed "dull witted, artless and pedestrian." Of all the atheists there or here you do seem the most confined to rather elementary concepts. If you can imagine artificial realities why must they also be at an elementary level of understanding? To well educated people who believe in a god it not an anthropomorphic one at all. It is a complex and nebulous set of forces in nature and society. Can you honestly say there are no complex and nebulous forces in nature and society? I don't believe you can. Why must you crimp and cramp the discussion of them with your feeble grasp? That's before we even begin to consider your feeble grasp of science. Science has not concluded and does not say what you think it does. It is further true that science is useless at solving problems where there is no agreement what the problem is. If everyone could agree that we need more potatoes, science could arrange for lots more rather easily. Everyone does not agree. Most issues in society are issues because everyone does not agree what the problem is. Your idea to apply science to them is absolutely futile and always will be. One exception, one time science did solve a social problem is the rest room stall. It is private and safe. The latch is simple and easy to see when it's working and difficult to sabotage. It's just a plain metal slab. There is an opening at floor level for several inches through which a medical emergency can be noticed and aid might be rendered. Otherwise there is no invasion of privacy whatever. There is no reason for anyone to make any noise about their preferences which are irrelevant to others in the rest room anyway. That is a rare exception though. Science cannot solve any other of the major issues in society. They require more art than science. They require religion. You are the one with the disturbingly flawed worldview. Simulation or not is irrelevant. It's amazing how often you try to be insulting and yet that nonsense was all you came up with. I'll let it stand on it's own merits for everybody, and I don't think there's a reason to converse with you again.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 18:42:32 GMT
Now, you and I don't believe we're in a simulation, but why not?
Simple, there's not sufficient evidence to live our lives as though that is true.
Here's Nick Bostrom's paper, Are you living in a computer simulation? If computational power and scientific theories of mind are progressive, future research and recreation still deemed necessary, and no doomsday scenario, then it is highly likely that you're living in a computer simulation. What is it about the theory that is not sufficiently evidential to believe? Because what you just provided isn't evidence. Evidence is testable and falsifiable. I don't know why you need to ask why the evidence isn't sufficient when there isn't any evidence at all.
Now, I agree that the steps in getting there make some level of sense, but that does not constitute evidence, and in fact there are several "if's" along the way.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 13, 2017 18:46:05 GMT
Because it's a theory that we don't subscribe to.
Yeah... because that's a theory that they subscribe to. People are allowed to have beliefs, a-hole.
Wrong. You don't subscribe to it, because there isn't sufficient evidence, and for the record, neither are theories. They aren't even hypotheses although the simulation idea is verging on being a hypothesis.
The question remains why they do subscribe to god idea without sufficient evidence?
And nobody said they weren't allowed to have beliefs. I don't know why people like you act like I'm trying to pass a law against it. Deal with the fact that I can question it, and will. Deal with it.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 19:21:18 GMT
Here's Nick Bostrom's paper, Are you living in a computer simulation? If computational power and scientific theories of mind are progressive, future research and recreation still deemed necessary, and no doomsday scenario, then it is highly likely that you're living in a computer simulation. What is it about the theory that is not sufficiently evidential to believe? Because what you just provided isn't evidence. Evidence is testable and falsifiable. I don't know why you need to ask why the evidence isn't sufficient when there isn't any evidence at all.
Now, I agree that the steps in getting there make some level of sense, but that does not constitute evidence, and in fact there are several "if's" along the way. Do you know what, my atheist brother from a different mother, I can't be arsed. Do yourself a favour and actually read the paper.
|
|