POLL: Are we Living in a Computer Simulation?

[Jäeger]

I've been noticing the recent lack of entertaining discussions of diverse things like the paranormal, space / time travel and cyborgs on the beloved TFHC. I'm sorry, but "is Obama a secret communist?" and assorted idiocy are not in keeping with the lineage of the TFHC, which was once the best and most entertaning board here. When coupled with the abundance of overly serious posturing about political "reality" on the main board, and in honour of the return of Mr. Duncan-Binns, I decided to posit a truly TFHC worthy question. Are we living in a computer simulation? The man quoted below (who is by no means a crank) offers three possible hypotheses. What sayeth the maniacal denziens of the TFHC?

The notion that we exist solely in someone else's computer simulation isn't as sci-fi as you might think. It wouldn't be like in "The Matrix", in which unconscious people were plugged into the simulation. Instead, the most likely alternate-reality scenario is that we're bits of information in an algorithem running on an incredibly powerful computer built by a super-advanced post-human civilisation that is interested in learning about how their ancestors lived and evolved as a society.

I arrived at this idea by positing that one of the following hypotheses has to be true:

One: Humans will become extinct before building computers powerful enough to run simulations capable of creating entire virtual worlds full of people with virtual intelligence.

Two: An advanced post-human civilisation will have these computers but no desire to run simulations of their ancestors.

Three: We're probably already living in the simulation, and this page - like you - is just a series of 0s and 1s.

These are the only options, and because there is no real reason to choose one over the other, each has a probability of one third. My gut feeling is that, in fact, there's just a 20 percent chance that we're living in a simulation. That hunch, however, inflates the chances of options one and two, which is a bit upsetting because I'd like to think that we as humans will not go extinct - and that we're interesting enough to warrant complex simulation.

Dr. Nick Bostrom - Future of Humanity Instiitute, University of Oxford

[Sri Lanky]

The universe has already created people with virtual intelligence. Everything I see is a virtual image created by my brain and it is only one of many dimensions. The ability for humans to create computers that do this is a reflection of what the universe does.

Dimensions within dimensions.

The universe is sneaky.

[Jäeger]

The universe has already created people with virtual intelligence. Everything I see is a virtual image created by my brain and it is only one of many dimensions. The ability for humans to create computers that do this is a reflection of what the universe does.

Dimensions within dimensions.

The universe is sneaky.

True enough. I suppose that if we accept that there are an infinite number of dimensions / universes within the multiverse, and that the idea of a virtual dimension / universe is possible, it would also be necessarily actual for that virtual dimension / universe to exist somewhere within the multiverse.

[Sri Lanky]

It's playing a game with itself. The same game you and I are playing with ourselves right now.

[Jäeger]

It's playing a game with itself. The same game you and I are playing with ourselves right now.

Yeah, but if we accept the premise that all that is possible is necessary and not contingent, the universe (and us) cannot paly "games". What is happening anytime is not a game per se, but what must be in this dimension. There is no choice in the matter.

[Woodsman]

We are all part of the great hydrocarbon experiment.

I would cover this screen with a bunch of 0s and 1s, but I am way too lazy for that.

[Sri Lanky]

The power of choice. I like to think that I choose to do the next right thing.

I like to think that I can be "good" without God.

My biological progamming,cultural upbringing,and yes Swain(my ego) drive me to do things I'm not conscious of....no doubt.

So,what choice do I have then?....assuming I'm in the dimension of choice.

Surrender,irregardless.

This is why we need to engage in an ongoing "search" for ethics. There is a risk of excluding religious voices and/or secular voices if we reduce things to only the material.....this causes lot of division in our society.

Some argue that the power of choice is part of what makes us human.

[Herr VOLKMAR]

An advanced post-human
civilisation will have these
computers but no desire to
run simulations of their
ancestors.

We are currently
The simulations.

An advanced civilization
Is currently running a
Simulation now of us all:

WE ARE THEIR ANCESTORS!

[Jäeger]

Sri Lanky:

The power of choice. I like to think that I choose to do the next right thing.

I would contend that there is no power of choice. The "power of choice is illusory. This is especially true if we are a computer simulation. However, the circumstances of our lives and the imperatives of our genetics and biological nature ensure that even in the absence of a computer simulation, we have no "power of choice". An infinite number of things have placed us where we must be.

I like to think that I can be "good" without God.

No doubt.

My biological progamming,cultural upbringing,and yes Swain(my ego) drive me to do things I'm not conscious of....no doubt.

They also drive you to do what you are concious of. We are simply not concious to the things that drive us. This is why many cling to the illsusion of choice.

So,what choice do I have then?....assuming I'm in the dimension of choice.

Surrender,irregardless.

That's the thing. A "choice" of surrender works out to be an acceptance of the fact that there are no choices.

This is why we need to engage in an ongoing "search" for ethics. There is a risk of excluding religious voices and/or secular voices if we reduce things to only the material.....this causes lot of division in our society.

All voices must be heard. You are correct. But everything must reduce to the material as there is nothing outside of it. Even our "spirituality" reduces to physical and chemical action in the brain / body. The search for ethcis will be finally resolved when the body and its irrationality is discarded. Only then will an ethic of pure reason exist.

Some argue that the power of choice is part of what makes us human.

I believe they argue incorrectly. It is uncontrolled biology and instinct that holds us back from self-perfection.

[Sri Lanky]

You confuse the irrational with the trans-rational......not to be confused with asexual and transexual.

The transrational is transverbal.

It's not supposed to be spoken about.....it can't be.

[Sri Lanky]

The surrender then is still a choice to accept that there is no choice......and some people will go as far as suicide to preserve the illusion that they can control. It's the last stance of ego. It seems that there is always some kind of contradiction then when dealing with absolutes.

Once the surrender is made then I realize that the choices are made by something more powerful than myself......what is that power?

I get really fucked up trying to intellectualize or rationalize this stuff. I prefer to refer to meditation which I believe is the only way to connect with the world beyond concept and words. Sometimes answers will come this way. This is what I mean by trans-rational....it's a kind of clarity that comes without thought.

Sorry if I appeared condescending in the above post. I'm sure you know what the difference is between irrational and trans-rational.

[Jäeger]

Sorry if I appeared condescending in the above post. I'm sure you know what the difference is between irrational and trans-rational.

It's alright, I never took it that way.

[flipflop]

I wanted to vote for the first option:

"Humans will become extinct before building computers powerful enough to run simulations capable of creating entire virtual worlds full of people with virtual intelligence. "

But, just as my tin-foil hat was slipping off my head I hit the 2nd option by mistake. Master Yorick (where is the great man nowadays?) has disabled, quite rightly, the edit function on the TFHC, so fuck it.

As some of you may have guessed already I have a very pessimistic view of the human species in general, we are a nasty bunch of cunts compared to most other species. So, naturally I must go for self-obliteration before we can build technologically advanced computers that are powerful enough to run these simulations. As individuals plenty of people are ok, as groups and tribes we are venal, greedy, despotic, irrational, murderous and not worth bothering about. We will find a way of killing ourselves off, god knows we've tried hard enough up to now.

I still love the scenario in "The Terminator" - where our Frankenstein's monster, Skynet, finally achieves Turing's dream of AI and becomes sentient. But the twist in "The Terminator" is ingenious, and it's certainly not what Turing would have wanted - no cuddly R2-D2 here folks. The fantastic bit about this twist on the AI idea is that Skynet, instead of helping us all out and ushering in Utopia, this artificial equivalent of Genghis Khan realises what a waste of time us slimy pieces of meat really are and sets about dispatching us without feeling, emotion, malice or understanding - it just goes about it's business like a toaster or a food mixer - brilliant.

Other great examples of the genre are HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and my personal favourite - Fred Saberhagen's "Berserkers" - man those puppies like them a bit of human ass (and every other form of life in the universe).

Everytime I watch "The Terminator" I root for the red-eyed robot stormtroopers as they crush the human skulls underfoot while drone laser fighters (a later version of today's predator?) roast the ground in front of them. But I've always been odd like that - rooting for the movie bad guys, the Orcs, the shark in Jaws (pure - like a machine), the baddies in Tarzan, The Aliens (pure, like machines)The Empire and Darth Vader in Star Wars - baddies are just cooler and more fun - look at Heath Ledger's Joker - he was an ace guy, better than that wooden twat Batman.

But, I digress, we'll not reach a version of Skynet, we're too stupid and will perish soon - I reckon 400 years hence maximum, then "pop" we're out of here.

Cheers

[Caliban]

What flipflop said.

Except I hit the first button correctly - AI in action

[Sri Lanky]

I've always have a problem with one thing. Prior to the advent of the computer age it was all refered to as the blueprint or map.

The maps never included the maker of the map.

The computer simulations also don't include the simulator(stimulator?) unless we see it as simulations within simulations in which case we are yakking about infinity.

This is when my head starts hurting.