Is our world a simulation?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#181  Postby ughaibu » Nov 08, 2018 11:12 pm

scott1328 wrote:My position is that Occam's razor should be applied.
Surely Ockham's razor cuts out the unnecessary and irrelevant simulating world.
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.
So Ockham's razor tells us to reject realism about simulation arguments.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#182  Postby gobshite » Nov 08, 2018 11:21 pm

Destroyer wrote:
gobshite wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
gobshite wrote:You said as a counter to newolder:


newolder is explicitly saying that it makes no sense for the same reason that you are. Hence the reductio ad absurdum.


Clearly you have not understood the argument. newolder is not saying that it makes no sense for the same reasons that we were. He is saying that it makes no sense because it amounts to special pleading.


No he's not. His reductio ad absurdum - that an infinite regression of simulations without an original that is distinct from the simulation - is exactly the same as yours I just quoted above. You are confusing his argument. His special pleading is not in reference to the reductio ad absurdum (i.e. an infinite regression). His special pleading is related to the contention that there must be a distinct original. You need to carefully reread what he has written. You are confused.


I have no more time to waste with you; you simply have no idea what you are talking about.


That's fine. It's clear you are confused.
gobshite
 
Posts: 43

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#183  Postby scott1328 » Nov 09, 2018 12:02 am

ughaibu wrote:
scott1328 wrote:My position is that Occam's razor should be applied.
Surely Ockham's razor cuts out the unnecessary and irrelevant simulating world.
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.
So Ockham's razor tells us to reject realism about simulation arguments.

Don’t know what you are saying here. Occam’s razor tells us not to add unnecessary hypotheses. Without evidence or a compelling argument to explain the lack of evidence, there is no reason to draw a conclusion on the subject.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8203
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#184  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 12:20 am

scott1328 wrote:Occam’s razor tells us not to add unnecessary hypotheses.
No, Ockham's razor tells us that if competing hypotheses are otherwise equivalent, we should prefer the one with fewer assumptions. Clearly the simulation hypothesis requires extra assumptions.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#185  Postby scott1328 » Nov 09, 2018 12:27 am

You should learn Latin. Yes the simulation hypothesis is unnecessary.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8203
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#186  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 5:05 am

scott1328 wrote:the simulation hypothesis is unnecessary.
So, have you abandoned this claim:
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#187  Postby Destroyer » Nov 09, 2018 8:24 am

The whole point about the simulation argument is this: anyone willing to entertain the hypothesis, for the sake of argument, must accept a distinct original. newolder is not willing to entertain the hypothesis because he assumes that it will ALWAYS require special pleading to posit any such original. Anyone who does not understand this are opening themselves up to looking stupid if they permit shite to come out of their gob.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1596
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#188  Postby zoon » Nov 09, 2018 9:48 am

ughaibu wrote:
scott1328 wrote:the simulation hypothesis is unnecessary.
So, have you abandoned this claim:
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.

It seems to me there’s no contradiction in dismissing the simulation hypothesis for most practical purposes (it’s unnecessary), while accepting that the possibility remains, there’s no definitive proof (there’s no reason to come to any conclusion). I take this line with gods and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Humans happen to have evolved with brains that use simulations all the time, mostly for second-guessing other people: this works because human brains are very similar to each other. As an extension of this capability, we’ve also evolved to be good at lying to each other, and setting up situations which are not what they seem to be, for example fake websites. Unsurprisingly, we tend to be hypervigilant for this kind of thing. It’s easy to imagine that something’s a simulation when it isn’t, in the same way that it’s easy to imagine that there are spirits or gods out there when there aren’t.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2987

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#189  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 10:02 am

zoon wrote:It seems to me there’s no contradiction in dismissing the simulation hypothesis for most practical purposes (it’s unnecessary), while accepting that the possibility remains, there’s no definitive proof (there’s no reason to come to any conclusion).
"Definitive proof" isn't required to justify a conclusion. Bostrom's argument is for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be one third. So, even if we accept this, we should hold that we probably do not inhabit a simulation. But, if we have another argument, with more plausible premises than Bostrom's, for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be significantly less than one third, then we have a very good reason to reject both Bostrom's argument and simulation hypotheses in general.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#190  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 09, 2018 10:32 am

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:It seems to me there’s no contradiction in dismissing the simulation hypothesis for most practical purposes (it’s unnecessary), while accepting that the possibility remains, there’s no definitive proof (there’s no reason to come to any conclusion opinion).
"Definitive proof" isn't required to justify a conclusion an opinion.


FIFY. Thanks to both of you for helping to clear that one up.

When is justification significant? Not in filosofeeziing, as you (both) demonstrate so inintentionally. In your capable hands, justification is comedy gold.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26755
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#191  Postby zoon » Nov 09, 2018 11:00 am

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:It seems to me there’s no contradiction in dismissing the simulation hypothesis for most practical purposes (it’s unnecessary), while accepting that the possibility remains, there’s no definitive proof (there’s no reason to come to any conclusion).
"Definitive proof" isn't required to justify a conclusion. Bostrom's argument is for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be one third. So, even if we accept this, we should hold that we probably do not inhabit a simulation. But, if we have another argument, with more plausible premises than Bostrom's, for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be significantly less than one third, then we have a very good reason to reject both Bostrom's argument and simulation hypotheses in general.

You appear to be arguing that a probability of, for example, one in a million should be regarded as equal to a probability of zero. I’m not sure whether statisticians or computer designers would be happy with that?

I would agree, given the (lack of) evidence, that the probability of our being in a simulation is well under one in a million, and that for most practical purposes it can be dismissed. However, we cannot actually prove that we are not in a simulation (any more than we can prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or any number of other wild possibilities), and I see no reason to claim otherwise; this position is entirely compatible with robustly debunking attempts such as Bostrom’s to make the probability appear higher than the evidence warrants.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 2987

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#192  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 11:16 am

zoon wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Bostrom's argument is for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be one third [ ] if we have another argument, with more plausible premises than Bostrom's, for the conclusion that we should hold the probability that we inhabit a simulation to be significantly less than one third, then we have a very good reason to reject both Bostrom's argument and simulation hypotheses in general.
You appear to be arguing that a probability of, for example, one in a million should be regarded as equal to a probability of zero.
I can't see why you would think that. The point is that we don't need a probability of zero to reject Bostrom's argument, or to reject any simulation argument.
zoon wrote:any more than we can prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster
The flying spaghetti monster is fictional, are you seriously suggesting that we should hold that all fictional objects possibly exist? If I state that there is a demon on your shoulder that causes you to write these bizarre things, do you have to entertain this as a possibility? I can't imagine why anyone would think that they need do so.

In any case let's get back to the point about Ockham's razor, if one is going to adopt a stance apropos this question, justified by appealling to Ockham's razor, then the stance one adopts is that we do not inhabit a simulation, isn't it?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#193  Postby GrahamH » Nov 09, 2018 11:35 am

ughaibu wrote:
In any case let's get back to the point about Ockham's razor, if one is going to adopt a stance apropos this question, justified by appealling to Ockham's razor, then the stance one adopts is that we do not inhabit a simulation, isn't it?


On what basis? The argument has only a few premises. How many assumptions are you going to allow in any argument?

How are you counting entities/assumptions ?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#194  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 11:43 am

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:In any case let's get back to the point about Ockham's razor, if one is going to adopt a stance apropos this question, justified by appealling to Ockham's razor, then the stance one adopts is that we do not inhabit a simulation, isn't it?
On what basis?
As explicitly stated, on the basis of Ockham's razor. To remind you:
ughaibu wrote:Ockham's razor tells us that if competing hypotheses are otherwise equivalent, we should prefer the one with fewer assumptions. Clearly the simulation hypothesis requires extra assumptions.
GrahamH wrote:How many assumptions are you going to allow in any argument?
It's not a question of how many assumptions, it's a question of how many extra assumptions, and number allowed by the razor is zero.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#195  Postby GrahamH » Nov 09, 2018 11:59 am

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:In any case let's get back to the point about Ockham's razor, if one is going to adopt a stance apropos this question, justified by appealling to Ockham's razor, then the stance one adopts is that we do not inhabit a simulation, isn't it?
On what basis?
As explicitly stated, on the basis of Ockham's razor. To remind you:
ughaibu wrote:Ockham's razor tells us that if competing hypotheses are otherwise equivalent, we should prefer the one with fewer assumptions. Clearly the simulation hypothesis requires extra assumptions.
GrahamH wrote:How many assumptions are you going to allow in any argument?
It's not a question of how many assumptions, it's a question of how many extra assumptions, and number allowed by the razor is zero.


No, it's a comparative measure. The hypothesis with the fewer assumptions is generally preferred. So how are you counting assumptions in this instance?

Be careful not to throw out all hypotheses in favour of current knowledge.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#196  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 12:09 pm

GrahamH wrote:The hypothesis with the fewer assumptions is generally preferred.
Quite, and the null hypothesis, that the world is not a simulation, employs no assumptions. Whereas, the "competing otherwise equivalent hypothesis" requires that computational theory of mind is correct, that universes can be simulated, that there are societies sufficiently technically advanced to run such simulations, etc.
Why are you asking me to spell out the piss-bleeding obvious, it's boring and wastes my time. Or are you again pretending to be too stupid to figure things out yourself?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#197  Postby GrahamH » Nov 09, 2018 12:48 pm

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:The hypothesis with the fewer assumptions is generally preferred.
Quite, and the null hypothesis, that the world is not a simulation, employs no assumptions. Whereas, the "competing otherwise equivalent hypothesis" requires that computational theory of mind is correct, that universes can be simulated, that there are societies sufficiently technically advanced to run such simulations, etc.
Why are you asking me to spell out the piss-bleeding obvious, it's boring and wastes my time. Or are you again pretending to be too stupid to figure things out yourself?

If you apply the razor in that way you can never entertain any hypothesis. Every conjecture makes more assumptions than what is already known, but we don't use it that way, because we want to entertain new ideas. Can't you see how absurd your stance is?
Use Occam's Razor to pick between hypotheses that each make assumptions because it tends to help focus effort on the shorter odds, but son't use it so shut down ideas just because they speculate a little.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#198  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 12:52 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:"competing otherwise equivalent hypothesis"
If you apply the razor in that way you can never entertain any hypothesis.
Of course you can, because the razor only applies in cases of competing otherwise equivalent hypotheses.
Again, why are you pretending to not know this?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#199  Postby scott1328 » Nov 09, 2018 1:50 pm

ughaibu wrote:
scott1328 wrote:the simulation hypothesis is unnecessary.
So, have you abandoned this claim:
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.

Are you thick? I never made the claim. In fact, I have repeatedly disclaimed belief.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8203
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#200  Postby ughaibu » Nov 09, 2018 1:54 pm

scott1328 wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
scott1328 wrote:the simulation hypothesis is unnecessary.
So, have you abandoned this claim:
scott1328 wrote:There is no reason to come to any conclusion on the matter.
Are you thick? I never made the claim. In fact, I have repeatedly disclaimed belief.
Are you completely fucking nuts? The above post, that you quoted, links to the post in which you made the claim!
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4221

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest