|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 14, 2017 23:51:08 GMT
Surely if there is a "good mathematical case" for the simulated universe, that would count as evidence for the simulated universe? Do you mean "evidence" as in just empirical or a posteriori evidence? Yes, this seemed to be what the OP was meaning by "evidence" since he seems to accept that there is some a priori grounds for the simulated universe theory. He seems to be saying we need a posteriori reason to accept it - if I understood him correctly at least. Thanks for clarifying that. You also say: However, on your account, heliocentrism was accepted only when it was shown to be simpler and more elegant. Would you say that simplicity and elegance are demonstrated empirically? It seems to me arguable that neither simplicity nor elegance is an empirical matter, in which case they should not count as evidence per your usage of the term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 23:54:56 GMT
Just another atheist thread. Tedious preaching.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 15, 2017 0:11:22 GMT
However, on your account, heliocentrism was accepted only when it was shown to be simpler and more elegant. Would you say that simplicity and elegance are demonstrated empirically? It seems to me arguable that neither simplicity nor elegance is an empirical matter, in which case they should not count as evidence per your usage of the term. Fair point, me being a bit slapdash I'm afraid. What I meant was with heliocentrism, there were new observations recorded from telescopes. Kepler's heliocentric model explained these observations more elegantly than the geocentric models or rival heliocentric models did. With the simulated universe theory, there are no observations to show it as a more elegant model than the non-simulation theory.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 15, 2017 1:09:18 GMT
If you think that you are being productive... You are fa aaaaaarrrrr more delusional than anyone you claim to be. No, I'm fully aware most people like you don't care to discuss anything productively. However, not everybody is as intellectually lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 15, 2017 9:15:33 GMT
If you think that you are being productive... You are fa aaaaaarrrrr more delusional than anyone you claim to be. No, I'm fully aware most people like you don't care to discuss anything productively. However, not everybody is as intellectually lazy.
You think you're being intellectual?... You're more delusional than I originally thought.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 15, 2017 14:25:50 GMT
You think you're being intellectual?... You're more delusional than I originally thought. I rest my case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 16:24:00 GMT
I don't rule out the possibility that the reality that we live in is somewhat like a simulation. In fact, there is some evidence to support that assertion.
As for the existence of God: If you're looking for scientific proof of a supernatural being, you're not going to find any. But that's to be expected, as a supernatural being -- by definition -- would exist outside of our natural world.
So we're dealing with philosophical arguments here (not scientific ones). I would argue that a universe that exists without a creative force behind it is ultimately meaningless. There is no purpose to anyone or anything. Is that philosophically satisfying? Does it ring true to our natural experience? I don't think so.
But accepting that some sort of creative force exists outside of our reality doesn't mean that we understand what that being is like. So that leads to another question: Has that creative force -- which we'll call God -- revealed himself to us? If the answer is no, then we can leave it at that. If it's yes, then you have to look at the available options that we have and decide what makes the most sense.
Of course, you could always so back to the original question though and decide that the universe is ultimately meaningless. But I don't find that to be a very satisfying or reasonable choice.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 15, 2017 16:29:40 GMT
So we're dealing with philosophical arguments here (not scientific ones). I would argue that a universe that exists without a creative force behind it is ultimately meaningless. There is no purpose to anyone or anything. Is that philosophically satisfying? Does it ring true to our natural experience? I don't think so. Purposes and meanings are subjective. Yes, to me that seems totally "philosophically satisfying" and also in line with my experiences. What exactly is it that you find philosophically unsatisfying about this?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 15, 2017 16:37:49 GMT
Yes, this seemed to be what the OP was meaning by "evidence" since he seems to accept that there is some a priori grounds for the simulated universe theory. He seems to be saying we need a posteriori reason to accept it - if I understood him correctly at least. Would you say that simplicity and elegance are demonstrated empirically? Just to jump in here: it depends on what you think falls under the rubric of "empirical," but simplicity and elegance can be demonstrated mathematically as in Solomonoff Induction and the general idea of computational complexity (in which objects, hypotheses/theories, etc. can be modeled in binary).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 15, 2017 16:42:01 GMT
The simulation theory is difficult for me to gauge via Occam. On the on hand, if you assume that such simulations are possible, then it seems likely that at some point they would've been created and, given the possibility of nearly infinite trials, we would be more likely to be living in one; on the other hand, the conjunction fallacy would seem to vote against it, ie, that "reality" is simpler than "reality+simulation." I'm not sure if the notion of "possibility" in the former, of our ability to imagine that simulations are possible, negates the conjunction fallacy enough in order to declare the former more likely given that it's a priori less likely.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 15, 2017 16:43:52 GMT
. . . We know there is Artificial Intelligence Um, what??
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 15, 2017 16:46:46 GMT
The simulation theory is difficult for me to gauge via Occam. On the on hand, if you assume that such simulations are possible, then it seems likely that at some point they would've been created and, given the possibility of nearly infinite trials, we would be more likely to be living in one; on the other hand, the conjunction fallacy would seem to vote against it, ie, that "reality" is simpler than "reality+simulation." I'm not sure if the notion of "possibility" in the former, of our ability to imagine that simulations are possible, negates the conjunction fallacy enough in order to declare the former more likely given that it's a priori less likely. One problem is that you have to assume that we're in a simulation to start the argument, because if you don't assume that, then you only can conclude that such simulations are possible in the future, but we haven't created them yet. So it's pretty question-begging.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Mar 15, 2017 16:55:07 GMT
Would you say that simplicity and elegance are demonstrated empirically? Just to jump in here: it depends on what you think falls under the rubric of "empirical," but simplicity and elegance can be demonstrated mathematically as in Solomonoff Induction and the general idea of computational complexity (in which objects, hypotheses/theories, etc. can be modeled in binary). Generally, mathematics is considered a priori, though. So showing that one theory is simpler than another in the sense that it has lower Kolmogorov complexity, or whatever, is surely not going to count as "evidence" for that theory per lostkiera's usage of the term. Of course, one could argue that there is empirical evidence that theories that are simpler in that sense also tend to be correct, or at least more correct than less simple theories. It's not clear to me how elegance can be demonstrated mathematically. To me, to say that something is elegant is to say that it has not just simplicity but also beauty, style, charm, etc. That's all subjective. So elegance is certainly not an empirical virtue of a theory in my view, even if there is some sense in which simplicity could be said to be an empirical virtue.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 15, 2017 17:15:21 GMT
. . . We know there is Artificial Intelligence Um, what?? Things like Deep Blue, Siri, etc. Those are artificial intelligence.
Just for a second consider that you combine a responsive unit like Siri with the calculating ability like Deep Blue in a structure that can perform tasks. How far away are we from something like Jarvis in the Marvel films, or Hal 9000 from 2001?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 15, 2017 19:49:11 GMT
Things like Deep Blue, Siri, etc. Those are artificial intelligence.
Just for a second consider that you combine a responsive unit like Siri with the calculating ability like Deep Blue in a structure that can perform tasks. How far away are we from something like Jarvis in the Marvel films, or Hal 9000 from 2001?
But it's a serious stretch calling anything like that artificial intelligence, and it certainly doesn't amount to artificial consciousness. There's no good reason to believe that artificial consciousness is even possible. There's no good reason to believe that substratum dependence isn't the case. In other words, there's no good reason to believe that consciousness isn't a property that only arises in certain substances/certain materials (when they're in specific sorts of structures, undergoing specific sorts of processes). And calling the others AI, they couldn't pass the Turing test, for example. And that would just be a "manner of speaking" AI anyway.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 15, 2017 20:55:24 GMT
Nick Bostrom's argument isnt good, it lies on a number of assumptions.
1)Creating simulations with consciousness is possible. 2)It is possible lifeforms are advanced enough as of yet to create such a simulation. 3)Other lifeforms (assuming humans havent done it) are like humans and they would be interested in something like that. 4)That non-human lifeforms are like humans and would be interested in doing something like this but by the time they are advanced enough they have no interest in it. Maybe due to it being deemed as irrelevant or due to their personalities being altered (no longer have desire or curoisity as it exists today in humans for example)
Its a possibility but not probable as Bostrom believes.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 15, 2017 21:05:34 GMT
Things like Deep Blue, Siri, etc. Those are artificial intelligence.
Just for a second consider that you combine a responsive unit like Siri with the calculating ability like Deep Blue in a structure that can perform tasks. How far away are we from something like Jarvis in the Marvel films, or Hal 9000 from 2001?
But it's a serious stretch calling anything like that artificial intelligence, and it certainly doesn't amount to artificial consciousness. There's no good reason to believe that artificial consciousness is even possible. There's no good reason to believe that substratum dependence isn't the case. In other words, there's no good reason to believe that consciousness isn't a property that only arises in certain substances/certain materials (when they're in specific sorts of structures, undergoing specific sorts of processes). And calling the others AI, they couldn't pass the Turing test, for example. And that would just be a "manner of speaking" AI anyway. You are confusing AI with AGI, Artiifical General Inteliigience. Deep Blue, Siri etc are examples of 'narrow AI or 'Weak AI'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AI
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 15, 2017 21:22:08 GMT
But it's a serious stretch calling anything like that artificial intelligence, and it certainly doesn't amount to artificial consciousness. There's no good reason to believe that artificial consciousness is even possible. There's no good reason to believe that substratum dependence isn't the case. In other words, there's no good reason to believe that consciousness isn't a property that only arises in certain substances/certain materials (when they're in specific sorts of structures, undergoing specific sorts of processes). And calling the others AI, they couldn't pass the Turing test, for example. And that would just be a "manner of speaking" AI anyway. You are confusing AI with AGI, Artiifical General Inteliigience. Deep Blue, Siri etc are examples of 'narrow AI or 'Weak AI'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AIWhat exactly is the definition of weak artificial intelligence that allows Siri to count?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 15, 2017 21:26:24 GMT
What exactly is the definition of weak artificial intelligence that allows Siri to count? Narrow AI can achieve narrow tasks and is an intelligent agent, the latter being defined as an autonomous machine which recieves information about an environment and acts to achieve its goals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agentI dont think it needs to be explained how this qualifies Siri.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 15, 2017 21:30:39 GMT
What exactly is the definition of weak artificial intelligence that allows Siri to count? Narrow AI can achieve narrow tasks and is an intelligent agent, the latter being defined as an autonomous machine which recieves information about an environment and acts to achieve its goals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agentI dont think it needs to be explained how this qualifies Siri. Well, both "autonomous" and "acts" are highly questionable there. In philosophy, an act, for example, is characterized by intentionality. But Siri certainly has no intentionality. So we have to figure out what definition of autonomy and act we're using, too, because normal definitions would seem to be metaphorical at best. A camera, for example, functions differently depending on the light received via the aperture. Are cameras considered weakly artificially intelligent based on this definition?
|
|