Nick Bostrom discusses Simulation theory on JRE

[Lawblaw]

I was really excited about this one, Nick Bostrom was widely regarded by many to have one of the best arguments for the simulation theory

Joe did a good job in this conversation

 

[superpunch]

2 minutes in and Joe is making me want to bang my head into a wall

 

[Zer]

Is Hogan telling the wife that the Matrix made him do it?

 

[Lawblaw]

2 minutes in and Joe is making me want to bang my head into a wall

really? I've watched a lot of Nick Bostrom videos and I felt that Joe was the only one who challenged him a bit

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I read somewhere that it is more of a possibility that we live in a universe other than the "base universe"

Base universe meaning the "Normal" "Original" universe

 

[Bubzeh]

Can't lie I'm a bit of a nutjob that thinks we're just a simulation so will watch this later.

 

[meauneau]

All of a sudden everyone believes in the simulation theory.

 

[IloveTHIS]

this is one of those things where I completely understand the idea behind the theory, and can appreciate that mathematically its almost a certainty, but........I just dont believe it. something in my gut just tells me this shit be too real, even for the most advanced sim

edit: not even 4 minutes in and its clear Joe honestly can not grasp the concept at all..........Bostrom is trying his damnest to help Joe but Joe just can't grasp it...

"why should we assume we are in the simulation? why assume its happened already? it could happen in the future but theres no reason to assume it has already."



I love Joe and dont even fully believe this shit myself, but he just flat out does not get what the theory actually means.

Christ, this is actually hard to listen to. I might have to tap out. Joe is usually pretty intuitive IMO but not here.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

Joe just doesn't get it, has to keep asserting the same thing over and over and asking the same question. But Joe doesn't understand probability or statistics even on a fuzzy level so he he has to keep cycling through the same 1 counter-scenario he has.

He doesn't understand a lick of what his guest is saying, I feel so bad for his guest. Joe went full NPC with his limited single dialogue option/loop. He's normally smarter than this and able to grasp abstract ideas (usually)

EDIT- Is this Joe's ironic way of providing evidence that not only are we in a simulation, but that he is a glitch in the simulation?? No matter how the guest answers, he keeps getting the same lone dialogue option where you can only press "A".

 

[superpunch]

Joe just doesn't get it, has to keep asserting the same thing over and over and asking the same question. But Joe doesn't understand probability or statistics even on a fuzzy level so he he has to keep cycling through the same 1 counter-scenario he has.

He doesn't understand a lick of what his guest is saying, I feel so bad for his guest. Joe went full NPC with his limited dialogue option/loop

One thing the simulation guys don't take into account is the decreasing computing power of each descending level of simulation away from reality decreasing. Thus decreasing each levels potential size. The simulation at the base level will have much more computational potential, and thus will be able to be much larger and have much more "citizens" than a simulation down at level 100.

 

[Lawblaw]

this is one of those things where I completely understand the idea behind the theory, and can appreciate that mathematically its almost a certainty, but........I just dont believe it. something in my gut just tells me this shit be too real, even for the most advanced sim

edit: not even 4 minutes in and its clear Joe honestly can not grasp the concept at all..........Bostrom is trying his damnest to help Joe but Joe just can't grasp it...

"why should we assume we are in the simulation? why assume its happened already? it could happen in the future but theres no reason to assume it has already."



I love Joe and dont even fully believe this shit myself, but he just flat out does not get what the theory actually means.

Christ, this is actually hard to listen to. I might have to tap out. Joe is usually pretty intuitive IMO but not here.

Nick was implying its more likely that we are in a simulation, which is just non sense. He gives a good argument but assuming we're just in one because we won't know the difference anyway is a bit pipe dream.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

I'm not even arguing for it, I just wish Joe could hop on board to entertain it for a single minute so he could talk to his guest while being on the same page. Get the good, more interesting questions going instead of lagging the guest and the interview.

One thing the simulation guys don't take into account is the decreasing computing power of each descending level of simulation away from reality decreasing. Thus decreasing each levels potential size. The simulation at the base level will have much more computational potential, and thus will be able to be much larger and have much more "citizens" than a simulation down at level 100.

This is certainly true, but if it's all we've ever experienced (and are able to experience) then all the details that are in the simulation will be more than we can perceive.

Example-- When Resident Evil 4 came out, my room mates couldn't tell if the visuals on the screen were actual footage or a game or what. They weren't used to it and their brains were fooled. I'll bet it's not like that for them now (lol). Imagine if you not only weren't used to a rich-environment simulation, but had nothing else to compare it to (a richer reality). It wouldn't require a perfect or infinite machine because all it needs to do is over-saturate our senses (which are already very limited) and not recreate full reality with far more details than we have never yet experienced.

 

[IloveTHIS]

Nick was implying its more likely that we are in a simulation, which is just non sense. He gives a good argument but assuming we're just in one because we won't know the difference anyway is a bit pipe dream.

us not being able to know/tell the different isn't the reason its theoretically more likely....lawd I cant right now.

 

[Lawblaw]

us not being able to know/tell the different isn't the reason its theoretically more likely....lawd I cant right now.

why is it theoretically more likely?

 

[superpunch]

I'm not even arguing for it, I just wish Joe could hop on board to entertain it for a single minute so he could talk to his guest while being on the same page.



This is certainly true, but if it's all we've ever experienced (and are able to experience) then all the details that are in the simulation will be more than we can perceive.

Example-- When Resident Evil 4 came out, my room mates couldn't tell if the visuals on the screen were actual footage or a game or what. They weren't used to it and their brains were fooled. I'll bet it's not like that for them now (lol). Imagine if you not only weren't used to a rich-environment simulation, but had nothing else to compare it to (a richer reality). It wouldn't require a perfect or infinite machine because all it needs to do is over-saturate our senses (which are already very limited) and not recreate full reality with far more details than we have never experienced.

Say we make a simulation on a computer. That computer is a real thing in the real world. It has to interact with the real world. All the "people" in the simulation are things in the real world: etches on a computer chip, electrons on flash memory, whatever. So, it's not possible to fully isolate a simulation. They're not just beings in the simulation; they are real matter and energy in the real world. So, they can perceive the real world and have interactions with the real world. They just have to be really, really creative.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

Say we make a simulation on a computer. That computer is a real thing in the real world. It has to interact with the real world. All the "people" in the simulation are things in the real world: etches on a computer chip, electrons on flash memory, whatever. So, it's not possible to fully isolate a simulation. They're not just beings in the simulation; they are real matter and energy in the real world. So, they can perceive the real world and have interactions with the real world. They just have to be really, really creative.

Is that the accepted theory? I ask because I have no idea. So the other people in the simulation are aware and deal with the real world in their off-time but certain individuals/players are not?

Or are you proposing that everyone deals both in the real world yet an augmented simulated portion of it at the same time?

 

[superpunch]

Is that the accepted theory? I ask because I have no idea. So the other people in the simulation are aware and deal with the real world in their off-time but certain individuals/players are not?

Or are you proposing that everyone deals both in the real world yet an augmented simulated portion of it at the same time?

No its not its just my idea. It's like when you install the Sims on your computer.. what you actually did was move electrons around and make magnetic etches on a disk. So people in the Sims on your computer are actually real things in the real world: electrons and magnetic etches. If they develop legitimate intelligence then it's possible for them to perceive and interact with the real world outside of their simulation. EG -- do something in the Sims that moves an electron on the hard disk that can act as a proxy to manipulate magnetic fields in the computer, and that magnetic field extends outside of the computer, thus manipulating the real world around them. They could use that magnetic field as "eyes" to perceive the real world via magnetism like we see with light. They could use it as a body too. With singularity level intelligence, that manipulation of the real world can expand to much more after that until you eventually have a scenario like Agent Smith escaping the Matrix and getting a "body" in the real world.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

why is it theoretically more likely?

Because, assuming that we (or any intelligent party in any universe that can affect us) ever get to where there is merely a convincing (not even perfect) VR technology --a likely assumption most agree on is possible-- the mathematical chance that is has already happened is 100% and 0% (an invisible sliver out of all eternity) that it hasn't already happened or that we are currently in the process. 0% because that's what you get when you divide a finite sliver by infinity.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

No its not its just my idea. It's like when you install the Sims on your computer.. what you actually did was move electrons around and make magnetic etches on a disk. So people in the Sims on your computer are actually real things in the real world. If they develop legitimate intelligence then it's possible for them to perceive the real world outside of their simulation. EG -- do something in the Sims that moves an electron on the hard disk that can act as a proxy to manipulate magnetic fields in the computer, thus manipulating the real world around them. With singularity level intelligence, that manipulation of the real world can expand to much more after that until you eventually have a scenario like Agent Smith escaping the Matrix and getting a "body" in the real world.

Ahh-- that's insane yet logical, I love it. Thanks.

Beautifully and concisely put, too. Effective with only one paragraph


EDIT-- So, if singularity is a real thing/possibility (most people don't scoff at the idea), then it's basically a certainty by now that it has already happened in the universe and we are in it's simulation (as it would have had infinite time to come into existence, improve, then envelope us and our reality.)

 

[IloveTHIS]

why is it theoretically more likely?

I'm really tired and dont claim to be an expert.

is it fair to say if humanity doesn't get wiped out by something, we will reach a point where we can make such a computer simulation?

if the answer is yes, then there will be simulations within simulations. there will be 1, just 1, "real" reality that made the first simulation. and hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of simulations with people like you and me pondering it and casting doubt such as "well just because its possible that doesn't mean its happened already"

"already" is just in the context of our simulation. we think of all existence since the big bang as 14 billion years or whatever. thats just our simulation.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well enough. I'll write more tomorrow.

if you agree its possible, it makes no sense to assume it hasn't happened already. its possible it hasn't happened already, but extremely more likely it has.