A good way to make yourself eligible for a braining with a barstool

[BabylonHoruv]

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

This suggests, pretty plausibly, that we are, in fact, living inside a simulation.

[Kai]

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

This suggests, pretty plausibly, that we are, in fact, living inside a simulation.
[/quote

Except regardless of philosophical masturbation, there's no physical evidence to support this.

[Telarus]

I prefer RAW's reality tunnel model.

Yes, there probably is a "really real" Reality out there, but we can never experience it in a completely unmediated fashion. We experience the simulation our minds present us with, but that doesn't mean Reality isn't out-there. We ourselves are the simulation mechanism.

This is also what I think the Taoists and the savvier Buddhists realize. All is illusion/Maya, but that shit still hurts when it hits you in the head.

[BabylonHoruv]

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

This suggests, pretty plausibly, that we are, in fact, living inside a simulation.
[/quote

Except regardless of philosophical masturbation, there's no physical evidence to support this.

Nope, it's based on statistical analysis rather than empirical evidence.  Pretty much any arguement about the basic nature of reality has to be.

[Template]

For all occupants, what's the difference?

[Kai]

For all occupants, what's the difference?

Excuse me, I meant the above quote. If I can't determine via my senses or technology as an extension of my senses that the universe is a simulation and it has absolutely no impact or difference on my life whether I know if it is or if it isn't since I can't experience anything any different than the universe as it is nor can I change it or interact with whatever is outside the simulation, then it is completely meaningless bullshit as something to care about.

[Rumckle]

.... it is completely meaningless bullshit as something to care about.

This is true for a lot of philosophy, it's still fun though

[BabylonHoruv]

For all occupants, what's the difference?

Which behaviors have a higher value as far as continued survival is concerned.

Behaviors with a high survival rating in a purely mechanistic universe resembling ours could be very different from the sort of behaviors that are preferred by whoever is running our simulation.  Not in the low level don't go dancing with rabid timberwolves sense, but more the are you going to be better off with this plan or that underlying your long term decisions.

[Kai]

I'm sorry, this whole thing is so full of The Matrix bullshit I can't even entertain it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm sorry, this whole thing is so full of The Matrix bullshit I can't even entertain it.

Good.  It's not just me, then.

[The Johnny]

Which behaviors have a higher value as far as continued survival is concerned.

Behaviors with a high survival rating in a purely mechanistic universe resembling ours could be very different from the sort of behaviors that are preferred by whoever is running our simulation.  Not in the low level don't go dancing with rabid timberwolves sense, but more the are you going to be better off with this plan or that underlying your long term decisions.

Perhaps dancing with rabid timberwolves while on fire is way more entertaining to whomever is "running our simulation".

But thats a small assumption isnt it?

******* Edit addage*****

at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

The third proposition is just trolling, please.

[Rumckle]

I find it logical, though pointless, and very much philosophical wankery, but logical

[Suu]

I'm sorry, this whole thing is so full of The Matrix bullshit I can't even entertain it.

Good.  It's not just me, then.

Good thing I took the blue pill.














...So it's 4 hours until I need to seek medical attention, right?

[Golden Applesauce]

His theory requires a second universe, if our universe is to be merely a simulation run from somewhere.

There is no reason to presume that the simulating universe would have any characteristics in common with our own.  Presuming that an intelligence of some sort would be running this simulation, he makes the implicit claim that this unknown intelligence would choose to simulate a universe similar to his own.  Even granting a humanlike intelligence, this is not a trivial assertion - a philosopher, physicist, or fiction writer would all find running possible worlds more interesting than the same ancestor simulation over and over again.  And granting a human-like intelligence is absurd, unless we make the assertion that no being clever enough to be able to simulate another mind would be creative enough to simulate a mind different from his own.  Intelligence itself is not necessary - a particularly bizarre set of natural laws might allow such a simulation to occur spontaneously!

So all of his conjectures about numbers of civilizations (why civilizations?  why not individuals?  why presume technological levels are necessary?  why assume more than one exists?) whether such a civilization would be able to run a simulation (since the simulation would be run from a different universe, we have no information on how much matter is present in that universe to construct computers - or even if that universe contains matter or some other substrate upon which computations can be done) are done in the complete absence of information, since they are conjectures about a universe which is not known.

[Golden Applesauce]

For all occupants, what's the difference?

Which behaviors have a higher value as far as continued survival is concerned.

Behaviors with a high survival rating in a purely mechanistic universe resembling ours could be very different from the sort of behaviors that are preferred by whoever is running our simulation.  Not in the low level don't go dancing with rabid timberwolves sense, but more the are you going to be better off with this plan or that underlying your long term decisions.

Do you have a method for determining what those alternative actions might be?  If not, then they are unknowable, and impossible to act upon, greatly limiting the usefulness of the theory.

If you do.... you're a theist.