For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
But what if there are no "real" laws of nature, only simulation. Perhaps we can dismiss "reality" as a failed concept.Richard Baron wrote:To put it another way, there are two options:
1. The real laws of nature are like we think they are...
2. The real laws of nature are not like we think they are, because we are in a simulation.
It would be interesting to see that position developed. I don't myself find it very plausible in its undeveloped state. If the choice is between hanging on to the concept of reality and regarding everything as a simulation (of what?), my instinct would be to plump for the former.Notvacka wrote:But what if there are no "real" laws of nature, only simulation. Perhaps we can dismiss "reality" as a failed concept.
Well, what greatly interests me is that we're already, as of now, well on our way there, and it doesn't seem to be slowing us down.Debating with yourself would get boring rather fast, I would imagine.
Indeed. We are software seeking software. The net bots we are creating will have to be pretty sophisticated to replace our online friends, and once they get to that level, they may get bored with us, and prefer to talk to each other instead.I am software, by the way. And so are you.
But not generous enough to meet your conversational needs, or you wouldn't be here, eh?To me, the most interesting That sounds like the math of the free market, which is completely inaccurate. People are usually rather generous outside of oversimplified economic models.
Not sure why you don't think that 'thinking' or talking to oneself has always been part of language?Typist wrote:Well, what greatly interests me is that we're already, as of now, well on our way there, and it doesn't seem to be slowing us down.
As in many of the interactions in real life, or at least in the cities. Although gender and age is missing but people also pretty much guess that close even on the interweeb. Notvacka looks like a little bird to me at present.You are Notvacka. Whatever that is, I have no idea. And neither do I know the very first thing about you. I don't know who you are, what you are, where you are, your gender, your age, nothing. We share no history, no future, no common place. Each of us is disposable on the slightest whim, without notice or apology.
You think the ability to communicate with others all around the world has stripped away human connection? Compared too what? How was there more human connection when humans could only communicate within a few miles? I think it a very big leap to produce a turing-capable piece of software.The majority of human connection has already been stripped away. It's not that big a leap to replace what's left with software.
But by your above words this is what you are already doing?For you and me, people who've lived in a time before the digital age, a leap to replacing online friends with software is probably too great. But for the people who are coming behind us, it will be no big deal, it will seem obvious and natural.
As it becomes to the grannies I've taught, so much so that their kids complain!To our grandparents, even our parents in some cases, chatting on forums would have been a strange alien experience. But to us, it's obvious, effortless, no big deal. Like that.
Your slips are showing but not necessarily. Not that I doubt that many will come to consider software a helper rather than a machine but 'friend' may be beyond our capability and our sense as it'd mean we have a software program that may act in what it considers is our best interest and not ours.Future netizens will choose software as friends for the same reason you and I have chosen this conversation. Control of the experience.
And? Since I live in a city its not hard to find such things but my experience is that you can have these conversations with most people, its how you introduce them and listen too the replies.In the face to face world, it's a challenge to find people who want to have philosophic type conversations at these lengths, on the very specific topics that interest us most at any given moment in time. So, you and I are investing our time here, choosing invisible friends we know nothing about, so we can have a particular kind of experience that is very tailored to our specific individual needs.
Then you are on the side that you are probably in a simulation right now, as the argument is(and I'm getting a suspicion that its one of these Bayesian thingys) that if we can create such a thing in the future then the odds are that you must already be in one, as what are the odds that you are in the pre-simulation, i.e. the first non-simulated ones.I have no idea whether future or alien civilizations have us in a simulation, but it's clear we're creating a simulation for ourselves as fast as we can. That's more interesting to me, because it's happening here and now, right before our eyes. It's not a theory.
I think we are wetware or meataware and that if you wish to create such a 'bot' then you'll have to start from them preferring to talk to each other, as I don't think the ability to be bored, or self-emergence, will occur from just a single language parser now matter how sophisticated it is.Indeed. We are software seeking software. The net bots we are creating will have to be pretty sophisticated to replace our online friends, and once they get to that level, they may get bored with us, and prefer to talk to each other instead.
I don't know what you mean "turing-capable".I think it a very big leap to produce a turing-capable piece of software.
Have you made an effort to track down anybody who has left this forum to see how they're doing? Me neither. It seems that, generally speaking, in this environment we're all pretty much totally disposable.You think the ability to communicate with others all around the world has stripped away human connection?
Yes. The concept of reality is rather useful in everyday life. And the word "simulation" is indeed inappropriate for my position anyway, since it implies the existence of something that is being simulated, that something more "real" than the simulation is to be found at the bottom of it all, whereas I'm a turtles all the way donw kind of guy. It's all data.Richard Baron wrote:It would be interesting to see that position developed. I don't myself find it very plausible in its undeveloped state. If the choice is between hanging on to the concept of reality and regarding everything as a simulation (of what?), my instinct would be to plump for the former.Notvacka wrote:But what if there are no "real" laws of nature, only simulation. Perhaps we can dismiss "reality" as a failed concept.
Very perceptive.Arising_uk wrote:Notvacka looks like a little bird to me at present.
Here is where I'm coming from: http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/kre ... notvackan/I don't think so at all. You seem to be a guy that I could hang out with, Typist. I like wildlife photography too, you see. But if it was not for the interwebs, we would never have come in contact with each other at all, since you live in Florida and I live in Sweden. I find that I have a lot in common with Arising_uk too. He seems to share most of my political views, for instance. I would never trade either of you for a simulation.Typist wrote:It seems that, generally speaking, in this environment we're all pretty much totally disposable.
Same to you, sir, madam, or um Swedish wildlife, as the case may be.You seem to be a guy that I could hang out with, Typist.
Ha, ha, thank you for illustrating the point. If you have a lot in common with Arising's political views, you are unlikely to enjoy hanging out with me as much as you guess.I find that I have a lot in common with Arising_uk too. He seems to share most of my political views, for instance.
I've had this conversation many times, and it always amuses how every time everybody always says that they would never chose a simulation, while they are on the very edge of actually doing exactly that.I would never trade either of you for a simulation.
I have, actually, a few times. But I usually find that Arising does a tremendously good job of it, and that I have little to add. Besides, it would be unfair to gang up on you.Typist wrote:I notice you don't engage my political rantfests here on the forum, which I respect and have no problem with. But this option would not be available to you if we were sitting around a table at the pub, especially if Arising was there and the brew was flowing.
Richard Baron wrote:I am not sure that this sees off the argument. I agree that if we are in a simulation, we have no good reason to suppose that the natural laws of the real world outside the simulation are like the laws as they are to us, inside the simulation. But that is only an issue if we are in a simulation, which is what Bostrom is trying to show us may well be the case. If we are not in a simulation, the prospect of laws of nature that are quite unlike what we observe goes away.bytesplicer wrote:In fact, a quick perusal of the paper (very quick, so I may be wrong about all of this) suggests that all of the assumptions are based upon factors within our universe, in particular human progress. This is nonsensical, inferring properties of the simulator from a human perspective.
As does the simulation itself. I think it does see off *this* argument, but cannot see off the idea that we are in a simulation, or indeed a better argument.. It's essentially the same as the idea of a creator, we simply do not have information that can tell us either way, and we may never. In the case of a creator, can we make declarations about 'the kingdom of heaven' based upon our experiences here? Erm, well we do in the case of religion, but that comes down to belief, not a logical argument.
To put it another way, there are two options:
1. The real laws of nature are like we think they are (although our understanding is not yet perfect, and it might even change radically in the next few centuries). Then it is perfectly possible that we are in a simulation. We can project our technology forward a few centuries, and see how large-scale simulations of societies would be possible.
Ok, imagine a few centuries forward, where we have indeed built a perfect simulator, simulating the laws of nature as we know it, or indeed, simulating completely different laws. Does this really tell us whether we ourselves are in a simulation or not? No, it doesn't even give us a probability. Conversely, if we NEVER attain the ability to simulate a universe, does this tell us whether we are in a simulator or not. No, it tells us nothing. We may be in a 'first generation' simulator that does not allow recursive instances, or we may not be in a simulation at all.
2. The real laws of nature are not like we think they are, because we are in a simulation.
Or because we're simply wrong about the real laws of nature. A number of reasons can be thought up for this, all as unprovable as the simulation argument. We don't know enough about this universe (the possible simulation) and none of what we know may be applicable to an 'outer' reality. We just don't know.
Would you say that the American presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were also almost under the spell of Fox News?I would not go as far as to insinuate that you are under the total spell of Fox News,
NPR, BBC, PBS, and CSPAN are my favorites. I haven't spent an hour on Fox over the last year.but if you want to follow world politics, I would recommend...
There you go, in typical fashion. Le me analyse this completely unfounded statement of yours...Typist wrote:Point being, every time somebody on this forum aims the phrase "Fox News" in my direction they are making public the fact they don't know enough about American culture and history to be qualified to participate in these conversations.
...when somebody, probably tired of your narrow political views, points out that your arguments sound a lot like what can be heard on Fox News, which admittedly is kind of a low blow...Typist wrote:"...every time somebody on this forum aims the phrase "Fox News" in my direction..."
...you dodge this critique, by telling yourself that it must come from somebody who don't know enough, rather than consider the implication that it's you who are less well informed. As for American culture and history, I dare say that people all over the world know very much about it, since American culture is a major export industry. Americans in general know far less about the culture and history of the rest of the world in comparison...Typist wrote:"...they are making public the fact they don't know enough about American culture and history..."
...and based on your faulty and quite arrogant assumption, you disqualify the participant from the discussion. As far as I can tell, you don't appear to be the most well read person on this forum yourself, which I would not normally hold against you, but when you make sweeping statements about other people's knowledge, I think it's only fair to mention this.Typist wrote:"... to be qualified to participate in these conversations."
No. He dropped two nukes. Some would argue that the bombing directly caused the Japanese surrender and prevented massive casualties on both sides. But, as with any such argument made in hindsight, you can't possibly know what would have happened, had the USA not resorted to nuclear warfare.Typist wrote:Harry Truman... dropped a nuke on Japanese fascists...
review in another thread, and we can continue there if you wish. from me. Obviously not, as FuX News has only been around as a 'force' for a few years. I also don't think anyone is under its 'spell' as all the dirty-digger cares about is his empire but that he has some political clout as he panders to the worst in America is obvious, as is its repetition of many of your views. So whether you watch it or not is immaterial.Typist wrote:Would you say that the American presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were also almost under the spell of Fox News?
Well, it was at the behest of black civil rights leaders and the actual integration didn't really happen until Vietnam.There is a decades long tradition of a liberal Democratic Party consensus here in America that is both compassionate for the less fortunate, leading the charge on human rights, and utterly clear minded in adamant opposition to fascists. All of these goals are entirely consistent.
Harry Truman racially integrated the US armed forces long before anybody had heard of Martin Luther King. He also dropped a nuke on Japanese fascists, and saved the people of South Korea from decades of the worst kind of fascist oppression.
So pretty much failed upon all accounts?Lyndon Johnson signed landmark civil right legislation, launched his War On Poverty, and also tried to save South Vietnam from North Vietnamese fascists.
That'll be because when we mention FuX News we are talking about the present.Point being, every time somebody on this forum aims the phrase "Fox News" in my direction they are making public the fact they don't know enough about American culture and history to be qualified to participate in these conversations.
I agree but note that unless the Japs had not made such a mistake in thinking you were decadent you'd still be sleeping over there despite Roosevelt. But I'm interested in why you think its a good idea to destroy countries just to get criminals? As this situation is far from being a WWII one? You appear hell-bent upon creating the thing you fear? I'm also puzzled as to why you destroyed one of the few secular-based countries in the region?My position on these issues is no different than that of Franklin Roosevelt, inventor of the welfare state here in America, and the leading liberal politician of the 20th century.
Roosevelt was clear minded and resolute in his opposition to fascists long before Pearl Harbor finally forced all the confused isolationists to wake up out of their morally corrupt self delusional stupor. Seventy years later, some of these folks are still sleeping.
Funnily enough that is how you generally respond to posts...Or would you prefer a simulated environment where you can fine tune control exactly which parts of me you get?