[ExI] A Simulation Argument

John K Clark jonkc at att.net
Mon Jan 14 21:12:17 UTC 2008


"Ian Goddard" <iamgoddard at yahoo.com> Wrote:

> The hypothesis that our visible universe is computer-generated
> is not a theory about the origins of reality, or everything.

That is a valid point. We should not demand that our theories explain
everything, just that they explain something.

> simulation theory makes [no] claim about how reality was created

Yes I agree.

> it just proposes that our universe isn't reality.

That I do not agree with. I can't remember exactly where but recently I
read a quote I quite like:

"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you are talking about what 
you feel, smell, taste, and see, then 'real' is merely electrical signals
interpreted by your brain."

> So 'wave collapse' and 'occlusion culling' *seem* on the surface
> (ie, prima facie) to share some kind of similarity.

I've heard of worse ideas, I've head of much worse ideas. Hmm, I need to
think about this.

> suppose we created a computer sim with aware occupants. They would
> not engage the tower-of-turtles problem were they to posit that they
> were in a simulation.

Well they might say it's unlikely there is an endless chain of simulations
above us because as of now we are unable to create conscious
simulations and it's unlikely we just happen to inhabit a unique 
simulation, the last one in the chain. Hey wait a minute!

 John K Clark







More information about the extropy-chat mailing list