Posted: Nov 14, 2018 3:59 am
There is nothing to debunk. The simulation hypothesis/argument doesn't say that we are living in a sim or even that it is likely. It just says that is one of 3 only logical and mutually exclusive possibilities (or 4 depending on which version you read).
The first of which is that "such simulations are physically impossible to construct". For all we know that's the vastly more probable one.
Also, you have to assume that consciousness is just a form of computation for the argument to even make sense. And that's pretty questionable. We have very little grasp on what consciousness is. We could simulate billions of worlds and not one agent inside them turns out to be conscious. In which case the simulation hypothesis is incomplete at best.
The reality is that we don't have the faintest idea what we're talking about here.
The first of which is that "such simulations are physically impossible to construct". For all we know that's the vastly more probable one.
Also, you have to assume that consciousness is just a form of computation for the argument to even make sense. And that's pretty questionable. We have very little grasp on what consciousness is. We could simulate billions of worlds and not one agent inside them turns out to be conscious. In which case the simulation hypothesis is incomplete at best.
The reality is that we don't have the faintest idea what we're talking about here.