[ExI] simulation stat goofiness

[Will Steinberg]

Still, that's a belief.  What's to say that some kind of tiny physical
processes like the exact moment and direction of atomic decay aren't
actually ordained by a master?

Plus, if it can exist in the physical world, it's hardware imo.  Maybe they
have machines that not only can create a singularity but also read
everything inside it and possibly affect things inside it like
aforementioned.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:40 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Well, while I don't know how matter arises from a singularity, once it
> does, I believe in a clockwork universe of cause and effect from the
> initial event.   A newly created universe unfolds over time with a chain of
> causation (arguably).   I don't consider that the same thing as a
> simulation where a universe is actually running on some kind of hardware.
> I think a lo fidelity simulation IS possible, but it seems very unlikely
> that a simulation at this level of fidelity exists unless as you say, there
> is nothing there beyond a wave function until we look.
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:26 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Well, some say that universes can be created naturally within our
>> universe due to physical processes.  If that's possible, why not a
>> simulation?  But yes, I do believe the simulation argument is pretty much
>> identical to how many religions work, I just don't think it's impossible.
>>
>> It's also possible that there are computation-saving tricks which
>> manifest particularly (lol I guess that's a pun pun) as wave-particle
>> duality.  None of the particles are there unless we look.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure someone smarter than me has addressed this, but it seems
>>> obvious to me that there is absolutely no chance we are in a simulation
>>> (ok, close to none).  I don't believe the processing power exists to
>>> accurately simulate the number of atoms we have access to, even on the
>>> immediate planet, let alone the visible universe.  This isn't even
>>> considering subatomic particles, momentum, particle interactions, and other
>>> important pieces of information.
>>>
>>> The simulation argument appears strikingly close to a religion to me.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:02 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have always thought there were a few issues with the simulation
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> One that I keep coming back to is the reality of the simulator's world
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say that K_0 is equal to the number of worlds that are simulated
>>>> with fidelity in the neighborhood of the fidelity of ours.  This means
>>>> that, comparing all the simulated worlds with the original world, there is
>>>> a 1/K_0 chance that we are in the original world.  And we reject the null
>>>> hypothesis that we are in a real world, as long as 1/K_0 is less than some
>>>> chosen probability which we can call p_real.
>>>>
>>>> However, can't you make a similar argument for the world of the
>>>> simulator?  How many worlds are there with a fidelity close to theirs?
>>>> Well, I would say that, since it requires more processing power, the amount
>>>> of worlds like that is less than K_0, call it K_1.  So comparing all the
>>>> worlds like that to the world of their potential simulator, there is a
>>>> 1/K_1 chance they are real.  This is still likely less than p_real.
>>>>
>>>> But if you keep applying this argument, eventually we reach a world
>>>> which has so many levels of simulation in its simulations, that it's rare
>>>> enough that their world is likely to be real.
>>>>
>>>> The next question is, what the hell is that world like?  Does that
>>>> world simply have access to more processing power?  Why?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200918/1c88d8c5/attachment.htm>