[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Dirk Bruere]

Emlyn wrote:

>The simulation argument is quite flimsy. First of all, it's quite
>possible that it is extremely difficult or impossible to reach the
>level of technology to make a simulation of equivalent complexity to
>the universe you are in. If you can't do that, you are doomed to see
>nested sims degrading in complexity until they are useless, and the
>simulation argument relies on arbitrarily deep levels of nesting.
>
>  
>
No it doesn't. One level running as multiple instances on many machines 
is quite enough.
Also, the complexity only arises if the entire universe is being 
simulated as subnuclear level.
A Matrix style simulation is almost trivial.

>Secondly, you have to assume that civilisations would find some reason
>to let universes run indefinitely. Remember that this argument say not
>  
>
Indefinately? I think not.
The simulation will stop when the desired outcome is achieved, or time 
runs out for the prog.

>only that we are basically assured of being in a sim, but that
>(because of the reliance on arbitrary depth of nesting) we must be
>arbitrarily deeply nested. So we rely on some probably very large
>number of enclosing universes not being shut down by the levels above.
>
>  
>
I think that if only a few tens of millions of instances of the prog 
were running it is still overwhelmingly likely we are in a sim. Just not 
infinitely likely.

>Thirdly, if you buy all of this, who is in the base level universes?
>  
>
Our 'real' society? The people in the final millisecond of the Big Crunch?

>Finally, the simulation argument assumes things about the nature of
>reality which are not really supportable. What can exist as a
>universe? Just us? Just universes like us? Or can wildly different
>universes exist? Does everything that you can imagine exist somewhere
>in some fashion, plus a lot of stuff that you can't? In fact, what
>does it even mean to exist at all? If every logically possible
>universe exists in some fashion (where "logic" is taken to mean all
>possible systems of logic, and "possible" stands for something a human
>probably can't define), and there's no reason to suppose that they
>don't, then the set of simulated universes are a negligible subset of
>this infinite (aleph-infinity?) set of realities, thus the simulation
>argument cannot hold.
>
>  
>
We cannot answer that Q until we have a very plausible TOE.

>Once we start talking about other universes or realities or types of
>existence, we find very quickly that we are not in Kansas any more,
>Dorothy.
>
>  
>
Maybe its run on a QC across 'Many Worlds' and whenthe answer pops up 
they all collapse to the 'answer'.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org