[ExI] simulation stat goofiness

Fri Sep 18 14:53:35 UTC 2020

True, although it is pretty much impossible for me to prove that a Xian god
doesn't exist.   However, based on the lack of evidence, and our knowledge
of how biological processes work, I would put the chances of an afterlife
at near zero.   Although I would assign higher odds that we're in a
simulation since I could envision a mechanism, I'd still put them extremely
low.

Tipler (the physics guy) wrote an interesting attempt to reconcile how the
Xian resurrection would be possible once a certain computing horsepower was
reached before the simulation hypothesis was really out there in the
popular culture.   I haven't read it in years but it's worth checking out
if you haven't:
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200918/44269d74/attachment.htm>