Usenet discusssion - started April 15th. 2007 by me.
comments by Greg Egan and more.
THE SIMULATION ARGUMENT IN SCIENCE FICTION - AND BEYOND
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: SimonLaub.mail@gmail.com
Date: 15 Apr 2007 10:10:56 -0700
Local time: Sunday. 15 Apr. 2007 19:10
NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures
Subject: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once in a while comes along a book with breathtaking speculation.
Certainly, Marcus Chowns "Dispatches from the frontline of science"
fits the description. As Brian May (Queen guitarist) says: "Marcus
Chown rocks".
After you have read the Marcus chown book you certainly begin to
wonder where the borderline between science and science fiction really
is. I especially enjoy Chowns simulation speculations.
Nick Bostroms simulation argument is covered over some chapters in the
book
(See http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/simulationarg.htm). To
me this is pure Greg Egan stuff/speculations coming true -some 50 year
before I had expected it.
Sure, it is kind of difficult to tell whether we are living in a
simulation or not - but these simulations seems to creep up on us from
all sides in The Marcus Chown book - E.g. take the brilliant/
outrageous approach of the Frank Tipler resurrection scheme - at the
end of time - on some infinite "end of time computer" -
(see http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/neverendingdays.htm)
Greg Egans simulation stuff has arrived and is now spreading -
eventually we will all be convinced that we are really living in a
simulation ..
-Simon
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lol/1165/index.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:31:39 -0700
Local: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 02:31
NewsGroup: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
SimonLaub.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> Once in a while comes along a book with breathtaking speculation.
> Certainly, Marcus Chowns "Dispatches from the frontline of science"
> fits the description. As Brian May (Queen guitarist) says: "Marcus
> Chown rocks".
> After you have read the Marcus chown book you certainly begin to
> wonder where the borderline between science and science fiction really
> is. I especially enjoy Chowns simulation speculations.
> Nick Bostroms simulation argument is covered over some chapters in the
> book
> (See http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/simulationarg.htm). To
> me this is pure Greg Egan stuff/speculations coming true -some 50 year
> before I had expected it.
> Sure, it is kind of difficult to tell whether we are living in a
> simulation or not - but these simulations seems to creep up on us from
> all sides in The Marcus Chown book - E.g. take the brilliant/
> outrageous approach of the Frank Tipler resurrection scheme - at the
> end of time - on some infinite "end of time computer) -
> (see http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/neverendingdays.htm)
> Greg Egans simulation stuff has arrived and is now spreading -
> eventually we will all be convinced that we are really living in a
> simulation ..
I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of merit. If
you're living in a properly-designed simulation, then you'd never know
it. So what you're hoping to look for is flaws in the simulation, but
you have no idea what those flaws might be, or how they might manifest
themselves -- or, moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might
have discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to look
for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that whatever universe
the simulation is running in has laws even remotely similar to ours.
It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy of real
scientific study as speculation about whether God is real: Any "proof"
you find is subject to interpretation and questionable at best.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
The slaying of multitudes should be mourned with sorrow. / A victory
should be celebrated with the funeral rite. -- Laotse, ca. 6th C. BC
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures
From: "Greg Egan"
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:29:20 -0700
Local Time: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 04:29
Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
On Apr 16, 8:31 am, Erik Max Francis wrote:
[snip]
> I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of merit. If
> you're living in a properly-designed simulation, then you'd never know
> it. So what you're hoping to look for is flaws in the simulation, but
> you have no idea what those flaws might be, or how they might manifest
> themselves -- or, moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might
> have discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to look
> for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that whatever universe
> the simulation is running in has laws even remotely similar to ours.
> It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy of real
> scientific study as speculation about whether God is real: Any "proof"
> you find is subject to interpretation and questionable at best.
I agree with Erik on this 100%. I think Bostrom's arguments are
logically flawed, but also (and I know this is subjective) immensely
pessimistic. As I argued in another recent thread, evolution is not
the kind of thing nice people inflict on anyone, and I don't believe
"our" descendants would be so stupid and sadistic as to inflict what
nature did to their ancestors upon a new set of beings, all over
again. It becomes *slightly* more plausible if we assume that the
simulators bear no relation to "us", so they're less likely to hold us
in their affections, but it's still a repugnant prospect. At least
Tipler wanted the simulation to be Heaven; Bostrom's vision implies
that the number of deliberate simulations that include something like
Auschwitz is vastly greater than the number of times this kind of
thing has happened in nature
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Fra: "Michael S. Schiffer"
Dato: 16 Apr 2007 03:40:55 GMT
Lokalt: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 05:40
Nyhedsgrupper: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures
Emne: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
"Greg Egan" wrote in
news:1176690559.982598.27260@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 16, 8:31 am, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> [snip]
>> I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of
>> merit. If you're living in a properly-designed simulation,
>> then you'd never know it. So what you're hoping to look for is
>> flaws in the simulation, but you have no idea what those flaws
>> might be, or how they might manifest themselves -- or,
>> moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might have
>> discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to
>> look for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that
>> whatever universe the simulation is running in has laws even
>> remotely similar to ours.
>> It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy
>> of real scientific study as speculation about whether God is
>> real: Any "proof" you find is subject to interpretation and
>> questionable at best.
> I agree with Erik on this 100%. I think Bostrom's arguments are
> logically flawed, but also (and I know this is subjective)
> immensely pessimistic. As I argued in another recent thread,
> evolution is not the kind of thing nice people inflict on
> anyone, and I don't believe "our" descendants would be so stupid
> and sadistic as to inflict what nature did to their ancestors
> upon a new set of beings, all over again.
>...
I don't find the hypothesis convincing (and agree it seems
nonfalsifiable), and am treating it as a thought experiment.
However, even stipulating that all those views reach consensus,
consensus isn't the same as universal. Slavery is outlawed in
(AFAIK) every country by now, but there are still some slaves in
the world. Murder is outlawed everywhere, but there are still
murders. Depending on how resource-intensive such a simulation is
by the standards of the civilization in question, and how many
individuals it holds, it seems possible that some might slip
through the cracks even if they're viewed the way the modern West
views cannibalism. If one in a billion individuals racks up as
many simulated Earths as a modern serial killer does bodies in his
basement before getting caught...
Mike
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Greg Egan:
On Apr 16, 11:40 am, "Michael S. Schiffer"
wrote:
[snip]
> I don't find the hypothesis convincing (and agree it seems
> nonfalsifiable), and am treating it as a thought experiment.
> However, even stipulating that all those views reach consensus,
> consensus isn't the same as universal. Slavery is outlawed in
> (AFAIK) every country by now, but there are still some slaves in
> the world. Murder is outlawed everywhere, but there are still
> murders. Depending on how resource-intensive such a simulation is
> by the standards of the civilization in question, and how many
> individuals it holds, it seems possible that some might slip
> through the cracks even if they're viewed the way the modern West
> views cannibalism. If one in a billion individuals racks up as
> many simulated Earths as a modern serial killer does bodies in his
> basement before getting caught...
I wouldn't dispute for a moment that there are *possible* scenarios
where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs
me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying
"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations
are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to
be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like
the Drake equation, there are enough free parameters in a serious
treatment of this issue to make the numbers go any way you like.
I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping into the
argument. Simulated worlds feature in current SF and futurology for
obvious cultural reasons surrounding current technology. I don't
doubt that our descendants will probably always be doing *some* things
that come under the general banner of "realistic-ish VR", but I
suspect most will be voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching
off a TV. This particular current obsession might well end up as
obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep.
It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly.
Unless you're either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other ways
to get the job done
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Damien Sullivan:
Greg Egan" wrote:
>where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs
>me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying
>"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations
>are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to
>be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like
Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us
within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer
could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is
someone really going to bother?
Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate
different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own
history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many
planetary simulators in general.
-xx- Damien X-)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Eivind Kjorstad:
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us
> within our universe.
It's silly anyway, way into philosophy lala-land.
IF you buy the argument that we're almost certainly simulated, then by
the very same argument, you could argue that almost certianly, *you* are
simulated, and all the rest doesn't exist, not even in the simulation.
Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating
an entire universe.
Eivind Kjørstad
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Michael Grosberg:
On Apr 16, 8:16 am, "Greg Egan" wrote:
> I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping into the
> argument. Simulated worlds feature in current SF and futurology for
> obvious cultural reasons surrounding current technology. I don't
> doubt that our descendants will probably always be doing *some* things
> that come under the general banner of "realistic-ish VR", but I
> suspect most will be voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching
> off a TV. This particular current obsession might well end up as
> obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep.
That's a very good point. It reminds me of the fear of being burried
alive, which was a surprisingly common concern in the 19th century. It
spawned countless horror stories (Poe made quite a career out of it)
and even some patents for devices that were meant to allow the not-
quite-dead-yet to alert people to their situation from inside the
coffin. I guess being trapped in a VR is our modern day equivalent.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DJensen writes:
> "Greg Egan" wrote:
> >where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs
> >me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying
> >"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations
> >are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to
> >be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like
> Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us
> within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer
> could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is
> someone really going to bother?
> Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate
> different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own
> history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many
> planetary simulators in general.
DJensen:
The simulated world/universe can be a fun thought experiment, but it's
more 'useful' for coming up with unfalsifiable variations on the
nature of the simulation. I don't think it's really worth
investigating too deeply: I'm real and plugged in; I'm the only fully
simulated person; humans (or a subset) are plugged in or fully
simulated; only what we/I currently experience is being simulated; the
whole world is fully simulated, but it ends one kilometre up and the
rest is approximated... It's solipsism in high definition video with
surround sound. And what's to be gained even if you could prove any of
it? At some point, somewhere in the simulation's ground rules, there
will be arbitrary values or a random number generator of some kind,
throwing out any hope you might have for determining the nature of
Real Reality or the Simulators.
(In _The Algebraist_ [and perhaps other Culture books, I don't know]
it's speculated that once a certain percentage of all intelligent
organisms believe the universe is simulated, the simulation will end.)
--
DJensen
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Erik Max Francis
Organisation: Alcyone Systems
Date: 16. april 2007 11:22
NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
"Erik Max Francis" wrote in message news:...
> Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
>
> > Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than
> > simulating
> > an entire universe.
>
There's Occam's razor dropping. More like Occam's guillotine, really.
--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Chastity the most unnatural of the sexual perversions.
-- Aldous Huxley
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Michael Ash:
In rec.arts.sf.science Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
>
>> Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating
>> an entire universe.
>
> There's Occam's razor dropping. More like Occam's guillotine, really.
A single mind is simpler than the entire universe, and reality is simpler
than simulation. Solipsism, here we come!
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Sea Wasp
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> "Greg Egan" wrote:
>
>
>>where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs
>>me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying
>>"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations
>>are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to
>>be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like
>
>
> Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us
> within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer
> could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is
> someone really going to bother?
>
> Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate
> different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own
> history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many
> planetary simulators in general.
If the *actual* resources available to the civilization in question
are a few dozen orders of magnitude greater than what *we* think is
the universe, then your premise is flawed -- it's like, say, Ken
Masters from Street Fighter arguing that there's no way he's part of a
video game, because the entire universe he sees would require entire
megabytes of data resources to simulate. If the equivalent of the
simulator's PCs have the necessary resources, then it's not a problem.
ObSFVideoGame (Spoiler):
Spoiler ------------>
Ahoy!
In the video game "Star Ocean 3: To the End of Time", it turns out
the main characters are ALL just AI characters in a video game run for
entertainment by an exceedingly advanced civilization which is,
nonetheless, basically run by human beings. The main characters are
like their creators because their creators, obviously, would like to
play games with characters that ARE like them. Just as I play human
beings in my own RPGs, and assume human or humanlike characters
throughout the world.
--
Sea Wasp
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From James A. Donald
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:50:26 -0400, Sea Wasp wrote:
> If the *actual* resources available to the
> civilization in question are a few dozen orders of
> magnitude greater than what *we* think is the
> universe, then your premise is flawed
Indeed, simulations are almost always run smaller than
the original - a chinese garden simulates a wilderness,
World of Warcraft simulates a universe in which you can
walk from one end of the universe to the other in a few
hours. Even if the main point of the simulation is to
tell us something about the real world, you usually want
to isolate a single point of interest concerning the
real world.
If we were producing a simulation of the real world,
occupied by AI NPCs, the main town would likely have
half a dozen shops, and an inn in which you will likely
meet every significant character sooner or later, and
you could circumnavigate the planet in an afternoon
stroll. If we wanted to simulate ancient greece, the
three hundred Spartans would become the seven spartans,
and they would constitute a good third of the entire
Spartan army, and Sparta something like a third of the
population of Greece, and Greece would have the great
majority of all fully simulated or fully scripted NPCs,
and a sizable fraction of all PCs. It would be a thirty
minute run from Sparta to Athens. The battle of
Thermopylae would pit seven spartans and two dozen Greek
bit players against four or five hundred persian bit
players, with one fully realized Xerxes, and a couple of
fully realized minions of Xerxes. A single farm would
be the size of a modern suburban house, and would be
capable of supporting several townsmen.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Mart Atwood:
Eivind Kjorstad writes:
>
> Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating
> an entire universe.
ObSF: "A Colder War"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Gene Ward Smith
On Apr 15, 10:16 pm, "Greg Egan" wrote:
> It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly.
It's also not known to be possible, a fact people keep forgetting
about such questions
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From : James Killian:
Eivind Kjorstad wrote::
> Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating
> an entire universe.
Some of the stories in Lem's _Star Diaries_ use this idea. In one,
an inventor runs a set of simulated minds. In another (_Dr. Diagoras_),
there's a simulated mind (a clone of the guy from the first story, IIRC)
running in a talking clock.
--
mailto:jjk@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: James A. Donald
Date: 16. april 2007 22:27
NewsGroups:: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
"Greg Egan" wrote:
> I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping
> into the argument. Simulated worlds feature in
> current SF and futurology for obvious cultural reasons
> surrounding current technology. I don't doubt that
> our descendants will probably always be doing *some*
> things that come under the general banner of
> "realistic-ish VR", but I suspect most will be
> voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching off
> a TV. This particular current obsession might well
> end up as obscure a notion as having a human slave to
> be your chimney sweep. It's not just that it's evil,
> in the long run it's also rather silly. Unless you're
> either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other
> ways to get the job done.
I am pretty sure our descendants will be doing simulated
worlds for entertainment and research. The simulation
is more interesting, to the extent that the NPCs
approximate consciousness.
But it probably is an excessive waste of resources to
simulate an entire civilization of several billion souls
- I would expect a few important NPCs to gett a full
personality that reflects their particular simulated
history, a rather larger number of NPCs to get a
scripted personality - they are one of several standard
personalities, and they are conscious only when the
story line impinges on them, and the rest to be
simulated by a large scale model that simulates economic
forces and the like, averages over large numbers of
people, rather than individual people, instantiated as
zombies and scripted personalities when a PC or a more
fully simulated NPC impinges on them. The world,
appears in detail when a significant character
approaches, and fades away into formula, stereotype, and
nothingness, when he departs. The more fully simulated
NPCs are programmed to overlook the more obviously
discrepancies, the discrepancies that the programmers
though of, and the script driven and zombie NPCs are
incapable of noticing any discrepancies.
And when our descendants do such simulations,
simulations simulating people having a really bad time
are likely to be more interesting - they will want
simulations of evil people where the evil people have a
real prospect of getting away with it and defeating the
heroes, because in real life, (the real life of those
doing the simulation) there is genuine difficulty in
detecting evil, and genuine danger from evil. A
simulation of Tipler's heaven is likely to be boring,
and therefore unlikely to be run.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: James A. Donald
Date: 16. april 2007 22:37
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> Especially given the computational resources needed to
> simulate us within our universe. Okay, so maybe a
> Jupiter-mass quantum computer could simulate the Earth
> and what we observe of the universe, but is someone
> really going to bother?
It is likely our descendants will gain control of a
significant portion of the matter and energy in at least
the local group of galaxies. So every moderately
wealthy individual might have his own personal dyson
sphere, in which case running a full simulation of
humans on earth from prehistoric times to the
present probably costs him as much as a session of World
of Warcraft costs me.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: Gene War Smith
On Apr 16, 1:37 pm, James A. Donald wrote:
> It is likely our descendants will gain control of a
> significant portion of the matter and energy in at least
> the local group of galaxies.
Is there a line we can draw between Baysian probability
and random assertion of opinion here? I'm wondering what
evidence, if any, suggests this is "likely
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: James A. Donald
> > It is likely our descendants will gain control of a
> > significant portion of the matter and energy in at
> > least the local group of galaxies.
"Gene Ward Smith" wrote:
> Is there a line we can draw between Baysian
> probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm
> wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is
> "likely".
It is physically possible, and there does not appear to
be anyone to stop us - unless of course, we are in a
simulation and the simulation stops a short distance
above our heads. Of course we will have to remake our
biological nature, but we are already getting started on
that. Because of the large distances between the
starts, we will have to have either immortality or FTL -
but immortality seems pretty much inevitable.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From: David DeLaney
OraganizatioN: Formerly U. Tenn. Knoxville/Physics Dept.; presently extremely dis
Date: 17. april 2007 09:42
NewsGroup: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond
James A. Donald wrote:
>"Gene Ward Smith"
>> Is there a line we can draw between Baysian
>> probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm
>> wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is
>> "likely".
>
>It is physically possible, and there does not appear to
>be anyone to stop us
Disagree strongly. We are perfectly capable of stopping ourselves. (Alas.)
(The assumption that we don't stop ourselves turns it into 'will physics
stop us?', and since at present there don't seem to be invisible walls, if
we assume we don't screw it up on our own, we'll probably get Out There,
if slowly.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable
               (
geocities.com/sheepxpower)