The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Putting to sleep God and our theories of the origins of the universe!

Putting to sleep God and our theories of the origins of the universe!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
As you point out Pericles it is all speculation but its coherent to say that one of the three must be true. If not please insert a forth option of your choice which will make the argument more cohesive.

“(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations have been able to extend human life indefinitely” With current genetics I cant see why in a few hundred years humans wont for all practical purposes live forever - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/10/1060454075552.html

“(3) You will almost certainly live for ever.” I don’t believe this one the correct third option is “You are almost certainly living in a simulator. “

I should also add how many people today would be interested in going back and living at the time of the Romans or Capitan Cook to see what life was like then? I think it would be rather interesting and it would give you a whole new perspective on life.

And Just remember it does not have to be humans who build these machines it could be any civilisation in the universe who does.

All it takes is one of these machines which puts us at a 50% chance of us living in one. If there are 2 of them well that makes it a 67% chance that we live in one. If there are 1000’s of them well I guess that makes it about 99.9999% chance that we live in a simulated universe. A humbling thought
Posted by EasyTimes, Monday, 8 October 2007 1:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the idea that there is some kind of proof is ludicrous (the non-existence of God appears to be an assumption behind the proof, not something that is proven), the 'theory' that we are in a simulation has been around for a while:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187644798/7#7
Posted by freediver, Monday, 8 October 2007 1:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, EasyTimes, but I think the answer is that you have to be an Oxford philosopher to actually kick around this particular football.

The rules of logic that apply to philosophers are far less rigid than those we tend to employ in our daily lives. While it may be true statistically that we are in fact just a player in someone else's computer game, it is only via the use of "extreme statistics", i.e. when you can multiply a number that is only notionally "not-zero" and arrive at a world where the product of those two numbers approaches infinity.

This is little more than post-grad games. And I strongly take issue with your statement "Oxford University Philosophers would not be taking an interest if many people did not think so" That should read "Oxford University Philosophers would not be taking an interest if other [Name] University Philosophers did not think so."

The objective of philosophy is to allow us to ponder on the human condition. Asking ourselves "what would you do differently if you realized you were only a simulation" is hardly going to advance that thinking more than a millimeter or two.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 8 October 2007 2:08:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles we are not asking what we would do differently if we all thought we lived in a simulator just whether or not it is a possibility!

I doubt we will ever be able to prove much but I think we can try to narrow things down and I think the simulator argument is the best theory of everything I have heard. Although perplexing it is the closest we have come so far and is quite logically a very real possibility.

Speculations as to what computers might one day be capable of are commonplace, but Frank Tipler takes things a good deal further than most. Tipler argues that if our descendants develop computers as far as they can be developed, given known physical constraints, we can all look forward to being resurrected in the far-future. Intriguingly, he suggests that our resurrection will not depend on our descendants having detailed knowledge of what our lives were actually like. The deduction runs thus:

(1) The computational conception of the mind is true. Any mental life, any stream of consciousness, can be replicated on a suitably programmed computer.

(2) There total number of possible human-like streams of consciousness (of finite duration) is finite.

(3) The processing power of the ‘universal computer’ that our descendants will develop will be effectively infinite.

(4) The universal computer will easily be able to simulate every possible human stream of consciousness (of finite length
In fact, Tipler goes further. It is not just minds that will be simulated: ‘an emulation of all possible variants of our world – the so-called visible universe – would require at most 10 to the 10 to the 123 bits of computer capacity … this amount of computer capacity will be available in the far future.’

(5) Hence our resurrection is all but inevitable: ‘The dead will be resurrected when the computer capacity of the universe is so large that the amount of capacity required to store all possible human simulations is an insignificant fraction of the entire capacity.’
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 12:49:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a lot of guff. Who invents this rubbish? Must be people with no grasp of reality. Is this is what happens when they spend too much time in 'cyberspace'?

If I was a simulation, I'd be due an upgrade by now.
Posted by Jack the Lad, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 10:26:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EasyTimes, I am not so sure just "being a possibility" is enough.

>>Pericles we are not asking what we would do differently if we all thought we lived in a simulator just whether or not it is a possibility!<<

While browsing the various commentaries on Bostrom's work, one of the more interesting themes I found was one that pursued the argument "so, if we know we are in a simulation, should we behave differently, and if so, how?"

The discussion quickly became bogged down in the usual issues with predestination and free will, but it was good while it lasted.

In my view, the only valid use of philosophy is to generate responses to such questions - asking them for the sake of asking them does seem to me to be the height of self-indulgence.

The same goes for the "resurrection via computer" meme.

Whether or not it is a load of old blether - which in my opinion it is, because it has to park a lot of unknowns on the way to its conclusion - it ought to generate discussion on the meaning, intent and desirability of such "resurrection".

For me, it immediately raises the questions of distinction between the concepts of soul and personality versus being and thinking. Whereas it is possible to postulate that sufficient computing power will exist to re-create "every possible human stream of consciousness", it is difficult to envisage the "why" that accompanies it.

Just because it is possible, doesn't mean it has to be done.

But an interesting digression nevertheless.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 10:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy