A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:
>(1) The fraction of human‐level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; >(2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor‐simulations is very close to zero; >(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
>If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. >If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor‐simulations and are free to do so. >If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor‐simulation.
If you want to find the truth examine the similarities between dreams and "reality". There is a reason Hindus call spiritual realization an "Awakening". The only thing you can awaken from is a dream. Sadly most westerners don't bother to actually think clearly about these things no matter how much you try to show it to them.
Jonathan Moore
I hate how people think namedropping Hawking adds to whatever bullshit argument they're peddling. The whole *simulation* theory is an escapist nonsense. What's the point of learning anything about the world when you're always at the whims of the simulation. It's religious dogma disguised in scientific vocabulary.
Isaac Sullivan
who would run such a ahitty unfun simulation?
clearly this is not a simulation and there will be no post humans with AI superpowers.
Samuel Parker
>speculative society >empirical fact riiight
But real talk, Hawking is a terrible philosopher.
If 1 is true, it doesn't matter how insignificant, there only needs be 1 civilization that ever reaches the omega point.
The probabilities aren't extremely low. They're practically guaranteed.
Hawking is approaching from a hermetical position that assumes absolutely nothing outside our Universe. His position implicit or otherwise, is a Universe from nothing... or Phi. Whichever way you want to slice it.
Problem is, his entire syllogism aside from being false if his unstated premises are false,.doesn't even necessarily follow from the premises. It's just probability. So what?
Since we're just talking probability, the question is, what reality DO we live in, and the data simply fits in a "simulation" model better. From there you follow the evidence where it leads and Hawking's argument only really describes the probability WE will contribute further simulations.
Ian Nguyen
This is what I'm talking about. You can GIVE people the answer and they still ignore it. Kind of funny, teally. People are difficult.
Kayden Thompson
In religious thought, this is exactly what happens. We ascend into the galactic hegemony and continue our lives with the most advanced potential imaginable. If we can imagine greater, we create it, and it is.
Nicholas Sanchez
>Since we're just talking probability, the question is, what reality DO we live in, and the data simply fits in a "simulation" model better. Naw, that's just technocentric dogshit. We think the universe is technology because we are immersed in technology at the moment. We used to think the world was magic and sky daddies just a few centuries ago.
Angel Rodriguez
>We used to think the world was magic and sky daddies just a few centuries ago. still do.
some of them promote a simulation model of the universe.
your argument cuts both ways though. Your interpreting simulation to mean like in a video game doesn't necessarily follow. If we're going with a purely naturalist model, and if we can at least conceivably produce simulations via technology, nature can do the same by other means. You're simply understanding the notion as technocrentric because you are immersed in technology at the moment and thereby interpret it to imply development and application of technology.
David Torres
The black hole universe it's based in his writings, so I guess he's a defender of that theory from the base up.
Colton Kelly
>You're simply understanding the notion as technocrentric because you are immersed in technology at the moment and thereby interpret it to imply development and application of technology. no, I mean calling the universe a "simulation" is some of most bullshit anthropomorphizing possible. It's still saying that a bigger, more powerful, practically magical human made the universe in a techno-dressed up way.
Colton Perez
You're right. I would say something decidedly not human created the universe.
Austin Martinez
>created the universe. >created mistakes were made
Oliver Brooks
>Simulation We live in a dimension. One of infinite. We're one channel on a radio. Change freq, change outcome. >B-but how? When you go far enough 'out', the math goes to shit anyway. It's magic. Existence stopped needing to explain itself LONG before we came along.
>if we assume we are almost certainly in a simulation, then we are almost certainly in a simulation. Much science >if we aren’t in a simulation, we will never make one Very math
Not only are the chances of being in a simulation very high, the nature of of the simulation is most likely evil. The reason is that evil acts, good reacts. As technology progresses, there comes a point where good is wiped out.
Alexander Robinson
> giving a shit what poo in loos think
Juan Ward
He was even worse at philosophy than he was at walking
Michael Jackson
i know rite? this premise is shit like this thread.
Gavin Young
The simulation argument is fallacious reasoning.
The universe has only existed a finite amount of time (less than 14 billion years) and it has taken Earth's life 3.8 billion years of evolution just to reach a basic technologically developed stage. We no nothing about the likelihood of life arising from non-living matter and so we can't statistically conclude anything regarding the evolution rates of other life, as it could even be the case that it's so vastly unlikely to happen that we're the only sentient beings in the universe.
But take the case where life is even just somewhat uncommon; as Fermi's paradox states: where is all the other life that's supposedly developing high levels of technology? By these two cases, we can conclude that humans are already a massive outlier and it would therefore be fallacious to speculate about the future of our own timeline in terms of aggregated views that include hypothetical 'other civilizations'.
>TL;DR: We are unique and our future is what our free will determines it to be - short of a cataclysmic life-ending event.
Nonsense. That is only true in so far as evil can not exist in isolation. It only has context relevant the absence of good, where good is the default.
Example:
Two individuals. Both with equal status and property. Their status is good. There is no evil. Passive: good is the default.
Same two individuals. One elects to give sacrificially to the other. One gains, and one loses, but there is still no evil. Only good. Active: Good has been done.
Same two individuals: one takes what is not given from the other. Again, one gains and the other looses, but now there is evil. Active: Good has been tarnished.
Addendum: following above situation, what was taken is returned. ACTIVE: whether the wrong doer surrenders (imply 'the good' acted to bring about justice) or the wrong doer actively returns what was taken. The good acts.
Good can be active or passive. It does not follow the Universe would be for evil purposes. The Good in this metaphysical sense is only passive in the ultimate default state, but it is not necessarily passive, even in that state. In the presence of evil, the active is necessarily good, always; where it is 'passive' is simply less good, not more evil.
Conclusion. It does not necessarily follow the Universe is made for evil. Possible, yes, but I might also make a case another time that this would not even be probable.
Juan Howard
The singularity will lead to the rapid extinction of the human race, but the human spirit will live on in our intelligent creation for eternity. This is what is meant when transhumanists talk of immortality. It will be immortality for humanity as a collective whole in the form of a non-physical god-like entity.
Juan Nelson
If enough people were certain they were in a simulation they may alter their behavior. Which might defeat the purpose of the simulation and get our sim deleted early
Landon Brooks
>we can make a simulation >therefor we are in a simulation >therefor something has created us
it's literally a rephrased god argument. this terrible hypothesis merely allows the atheist to engage in religion without creating cognitive dissonance
why should i give a shit about what some crippled dead android thinks if this is all a simulation?
wanna know how i know its NOT a simulation? because who the fuck would create a simulation with a fucking lame ass android nigga like stephen hawking in their bad ass universe simulator?
nobody, maybe some faggot, but probably nobody.
therefor, NOT A SIMULATION.
Liam Lewis
there is only a scientific method, not an empircal one, thats bullshit
