PDA

View Full Version : Simulation.



K626
9th May 2012, 13:28
Can you explain the simulation argument, and how it presents a very particular existential risk?

Bostrom: The simulation argument addresses whether we are in fact living in a simulation as opposed to some basement level physical reality. It tries to show that at least one of three propositions is true, but it doesn't tell us which one. Those three are:

1) Almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity.

2) Almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations: computer simulations detailed enough that the simulated minds within them would be conscious.

3) We're almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

"The full argument requires sophisticated probabilistic reasoning, but the basic argument is fairly easy to grasp without resorting to mathematics. Suppose that the first proposition is false, which would mean that some significant portion of civilizations at our stage eventually reach technological maturity. Suppose that the second proposition is also false, which would mean that some significant fraction of those (technologically mature) civilizations retain an interest in using some non-negligible fraction of their resources for the purpose of creating these ancestor simulations. You can then show that it would be possible for a technologically mature civilization to create astronomical numbers of these simulations. So if this significant fraction of civilizations made it through to this stage where they decided to use their capabilities to create these ancestor simulations, then there would be many more simulations created than there are original histories, meaning that almost all observers with our types of experiences would be living in simulations. Going back to the observation selection effect, if almost all kinds of observers with our kinds of experiences are living in simulations, then we should think that we are living in a simulation, that we are one of the typical observers, rather than one of the rare, exceptional basic level reality observers."




http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/


This whole simulation argument is wholly amusing. Would they travel back from the future to re-stick the past?


love

K

PurpleLama
9th May 2012, 13:38
Here, let us see if we can piss off godzilla. I would posit that, first, while the seeming physical reality is contained within another, superceding reality, which is in turn superceded by another, and so on, this structure is organic and natural, while mysterious in it's origin and destination. I would posit, secondly, that perhaps as a sort of infection, some oth the more localized portions are intersected with an inorganic conscious structure, that would endeavor to fool us into mistaking it's manifestations/emanations into the local reality for the underlying structure itself. This thought roughly corresponds to what is on one hand ideas pointing to an advanced AI, and on the other hand the ideas presented in Gnostic teachings, Archons, etc.

K626
9th May 2012, 13:45
Here, let us see if we can piss off godzilla. I would posit that, first, while the seeming physical reality is contained within another, superceding reality, which is in turn superceded by another, and so on, this structure is organic and natural, while mysterious in it's origin and destination. I would posit, secondly, that perhaps as a sort of infection, some oth the more localized portions are intersected with an inorganic conscious structure, that would endeavor to fool us into mistaking it's manifestations/emanations into the local reality for the underlying structure itself. This thought roughly corresponds to what is on one hand ideas pointing to an advanced AI, and on the other hand the ideas presented in Gnostic teachings, Archons, etc.

Yeah I like that.

Well if reality has layers it can't really be real. I mean if there is essence then there is a source, it's probably only a question then of the interface language and then later the manifestation of our synthesis with the language.


love

K