• Stop coping, and start posting. Register an account in order to gain full access to Lookism's features.

It is PROBABLE that we are living in a computer simulation says science

assburger

Megastar
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
8,608
Reputation
7



fukin NTs pissing me off n shit

look how dumb and unwarrantedly happy they look
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
1,824
Reputation
1
cuckadoodledoo2 said:
Supreme Gentleman said:
In a few years from now, when they develop simulations, I will live out my dreams as a extroverted NT MM in high school 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain
@"Narrator"
only legit if we cant edit memories.  i want to forget about this shit life

I want to figure out a way to somehow get the AI to trick my brain into thinking that this entire life was just one big dream, and that I have woken up to the "real" world as a MM
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
414
Reputation
0
The objective is to LMSmax and the only cheat cope is surgery. But even then, it doesn't really matter, because in the end, you're destined for a horrible and painful death. The only way to truly win is to realize nothing really matters and shut the simulation down (aka suicide).

:visitgandy:
 

primetime

Regular
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,459
Reputation
1
Cloud said:
At least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman” stage;

(2) Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their own evolutionary history(or variations thereof)

(3) We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.


If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3). Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[video=youtube]
Cliffs:
In “Are you living in a computer simulation?”, Nick Bostrom presents a probabilistic analysis of the possibility that we might all be living in a computer simulation. He concludes that it is not only possible, but rather probable that we are living in a computer simulation.This argument, originally published in 2001, shook up the field of philosophical ontology, and forced the philosophical community to rethink the way it conceptualizes “natural” laws and our own intuitions regarding our existence. Is it possible that all of our ideas about the world in which we live are false, and are simply the result of our own desire to believe that we are “real”? Even more troubling, if we are living in a computer simulation, is it possible that the simulation might be shut off at any moment? In this paper, I plan to do two things. First, I hope to consider what conclusions we might draw from Bostrom’s argument, and what implications this might have for how we affect our lives. Second, I plan to discuss a possible objection to Bostrom’s argument, and how this might affect our personal probability for the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation.

What's this mean for you and me? It means that because it is probable that we do not even actually "exist" we might want to start taking a few more risks in life as we are not even "real". But then again, even if we really are just bits of data, its still a miracle that we exist as bits of data in our simulated world.

 

Cloud

Machine
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
6,657
Reputation
7
primetime said:
Cloud said:
At least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman” stage;

(2) Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their own evolutionary history(or variations thereof)

(3) We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.


If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3). Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[video=youtube]
Cliffs:
In “Are you living in a computer simulation?”, Nick Bostrom presents a probabilistic analysis of the possibility that we might all be living in a computer simulation. He concludes that it is not only possible, but rather probable that we are living in a computer simulation.This argument, originally published in 2001, shook up the field of philosophical ontology, and forced the philosophical community to rethink the way it conceptualizes “natural” laws and our own intuitions regarding our existence. Is it possible that all of our ideas about the world in which we live are false, and are simply the result of our own desire to believe that we are “real”? Even more troubling, if we are living in a computer simulation, is it possible that the simulation might be shut off at any moment? In this paper, I plan to do two things. First, I hope to consider what conclusions we might draw from Bostrom’s argument, and what implications this might have for how we affect our lives. Second, I plan to discuss a possible objection to Bostrom’s argument, and how this might affect our personal probability for the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation.

What's this mean for you and me? It means that because it is probable that we do not even actually "exist" we might want to start taking a few more risks in life as we are not even "real". But then again, even if we really are just bits of data, its still a miracle that we exist as bits of data in our simulated world.


 

fincel

Regular
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
1,336
Reputation
0
more that leads us nowhere


out of nothing theory vs inteligent design by a super god of infinite age theory

both copes
 

asiancel

Champion
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
14,268
Reputation
314
the entire theory is based on an unproven assumption. why the fuck do humans have to run simulations? who says humans will even want to run simulations in the future?
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,616
Reputation
541
asiancel said:
the entire theory is based on an unproven assumption. why the fuck do humans have to run simulations? who says humans will even want to run simulations in the future?

That's one of the 3 possibilities. That humans will have the capability, but not the desire to run simulations.

But the most realistic, is the possibility that humans will neither go extinct before reaching technological maturity, nor refuse to run simulations. Instead, they will both have the means and the will to run artificial universes.

So in that case, the total number of universes in year 2100 is 1 quintillion, and only 1 of those is real.

So if you find yourself in a universe, as we do currently, it's almost impossible that it is real.
 

Cloud

Machine
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
6,657
Reputation
7
asiancel said:
the entire theory is based on an unproven assumption. why the fuck do humans have to run simulations? who says humans will even want to run simulations in the future?

You know nothing about how humans think/function. We are curious we will never stop looking for new answers, its inherit in all of us.

"We cannot stop scientific development." (Messerle, 1977)

"An attempt to stop the development of a proven scientific advance has never succeeded." (Marffy, 1977)

"Progress cannot be and will not be stopped, and I know that Plowshare [use of nuclear explosives for natural gas production, canal digging, etc.] will proceed." (Teller, 1970)





Science and technology

The idea of the autonomous development of science and technology is that scientific and technological development inevitably follows a particular path in the long run, independent of the subjective desires of individual scientists or the pressures of social, political and economic circumstances (though such pressures may lead to temporary delays or detours in progress along this path). Of course, the path of scientific and technological development is not usually predictable beforehand; the idea is that the objective truth associated with nature - whatever it may turn out to be - will lead eventually to the same end result in terms of scientific knowledge and technological innovation.

Concern over scientific and technological development is almost always to do with applications or implications for the wider society. Those concerned about Darwinism in the 1800's were worried about its impact on religious belief or its contribution to social policy-making. Those involved with 'scientific management' in the early 1900's were interested in changing the organisation of the production process. In practice, when reference is made to the "development of a proven scientific advance", "development" refers to a social or economic impact, which is more usually called an "application". Indeed, the idea of 'technological development' is generally associated with application of the technology that is developed. Automobiles, rockets and bottle openers are built to be used, and not out of an abstract mechanical interest. Therefore, it is worth expanding somewhat on the relation of scientific development and technological application.

First, not all scientific discoveries have immediate or obvious implications in terms of applications. Examples are the general theory of relativity and plate tectonics. More accurately, major applications on a societal scale of such discoveries are out of the question, given current knowledge and technical capabilities. Therefore it is trivial to stop the application of such scientific discoveries, since few people desire the enormous commitment of resources required to apply the discovery, only to attain minimal benefits.

Second, technological developments often are not based on scientific knowledge but instead on observation and experimentation. Examples are the steam engine (which predated thermodynamics) and animal breeding (which predated genetic theory). Indeed, until roughly the middle of the last century, practical developments usually preceded, and often inspired, the scientific discoveries which explained them (see, for example, Mason, 1956). Scientific knowledge and technological development today are much more closely linked, with each providing a stimulus for the other. So rather than speak of "scientific development" it would be somewhat more accurate to speak of "scientific and technological development".

The belief in autonomous science and technology, in terms of its normal implications, could be formulated in this way: "An attempt to stop the (widespread) application of an applicable scientific and technological development has never succeeded.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/78astj.html
 

asiancel

Champion
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
14,268
Reputation
314
why does discovering and innovation have to take the form of simulations? i find the concept of simulations to be primitive tbh. i run simulations myself on my home pc. a god tier intellect wouldn't give a shit about simulaitons, they'd be too busy slaying.
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,616
Reputation
541
The Nick Bostrom simulation is only one level.

It says there was 1 real universe, and later another zillion fake ones were made in a PC.

But other theories state that even the 1st universe wasn't real. That's the twcjr44 theory.
 

Chadcel

Banned
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
8,397
Reputation
9
i cant believe so many ppl fall for this simulation crap. computer programs are and will never be self aware like real people. so
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,616
Reputation
541
Chadcel said:
i cant believe so many ppl fall for this simulation crap. computer programs are and will never be self aware like real people. so

What if you simulated every neuron.

Current games don't do that, but Bostrom is discussing year 3000 etc.
 
Top