Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Corona688]

I think this goes in a different thread

But mathematically, the chance is near 100% that we are.

There is a fallacy in that math, of infinite recursion.  The probability of our simulators being in a simulation is arbitrarily close to the same, and their simulators' simulators, on and on forever.

[ZeroGravitas]

I think this goes in a different thread

But mathematically, the chance is near 100% that we are.

There is a fallacy in that math, of infinite recursion.  The probability of our simulators being in a simulation is arbitrarily close to the same, and their simulators' simulators, on and on forever.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.   Given that there are infinite possible hierarchies of simulation, the chance that we're at the top is infinitely small.

[Corona688]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.   Given that there are infinite possible hierarchies of simulation, the chance that we're at the top is infinitely small.

Given that there are infinite possible hierarchies of simulation, there is no top, or at least the folks on top would have no way of knowing.  So the question, ultimately, produces no useful predictions about anything whatsoever.

[ZeroGravitas]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.   Given that there are infinite possible hierarchies of simulation, the chance that we're at the top is infinitely small.

Given that there are infinite possible hierarchies of simulation, there is no top, or at least the folks on top would have no way of knowing.  So the question, ultimately, produces no useful predictions about anything whatsoever.

That's like saying "given that there are infinite positive integers, there is no integer 1."   To be more specific:

1) This idea doesn't just imagine that there are infinite universes in an arbitrary hierarchy of simulation.  One "real" universe started out, and then,  at some point in its history, the residents of the first universe created a simulated universe that was complex enough to support a simulation within that simulation.

2) In any case, you haven't stated an objection to the idea that it's highly probable you're in a simulated universe. Just that you wouldn't KNOW that you were, and that the idea is probably useless. It doesn't mean that it's fallacious. In fact, we don't actually know if it's useless or not; it might have implications for M-theory.

[Areyar]

As I have brought up someplace else, I am getting fed up with infinite universe theories and such.
 
If the 'universe is all' paradigm is correct then there can only be one universe. If there are multiple universes, then the term UNIverse needs to be discarded or the meaning changed to include all parallel universes and dimensions, requiring a new term for the old meaning of 'universe'.
Only the current model does not allow interaction between universes and thus other universes cannot be tested or disproven.
This dilemma reminds me of theology in that God is all and thus there can be no others and besides as gods cannot be tested, cannot be disproved.
In my thinking this only proves gods or other universes are a fun mindgame and can be a great plot device in fiction, but remain very unlikely.
Maybe the very large hadron collider will generate some clues.

[Corona688]

That's like saying "given that there are infinite positive integers, there is no integer 1."

Not really.  We can identify the numeral one by specific properties about it.  Whereas a non-simulated universe has no such properties to identify it.  There's no way to tell if you're in the top-level universe or not.

In any case, you haven't stated an objection to the idea that it's highly probable you're in a simulated universe.

Just this:  What is the difference between two identical things that act completely the same in all respects?  Any distinction you make between them is an invented one, not a real one.

[Grimlocke]

Mwhahah, what a load of rubbish, of course we arnt in DF! We woulda been magma flooded ages ago!

Gee, do I suddenly feel like pulling this lever...

[Praetyre]

People's republic of china, PRC?
well it is simpler, but I'd say that they treat their citizens like shit there so... I don't know about india.

Of course it's simpler.

DISOBEY_AUTHORITY:PUNISHMENT_CAPITAL

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

[ETHIC:KILL_ENTITY_MEMBER:ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED]
[ETHIC:KILL_NEUTRAL:ONLY_IF_SANCTIONED]
[ETHIC:KILL_ENEMY:ACCEPTABLE]
[ETHIC:KILL_ANIMAL:ONLY_IF_NOT_ENDANGERED_OR_PROPERTY]
[ETHIC:KILL_PLANT:ONLY_IF_NOT_ENDANGERED_OR_PROPERTY]
[ETHIC:TORTURE_AS_EXAMPLE:ONLY_IF_GOVERNMENT_EMPLOYEE]
[ETHIC:TORTURE_FOR_INFORMATION:ONLY_IF_GOVERNMENT_EMPLOYEE]
[ETHIC:TORTURE_FOR_FUN:ONLY_IF_MID_AND_HIGHER_RANKING_GOVERNMENT_EMPLOYEE_AND_NO_REPERCUSSIONS]
[ETHIC:TORTURE_ANIMALS:SHUN]
[ETHIC:TREASON:PUNISH_CAPITAL]
[ETHIC:OATH_BREAKING:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
[ETHIC:LYING:PERSONAL_MATTER_UNLESS_GOVERNMENT_RELATED]
[ETHIC:VANDALISM:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
[ETHIC:TRESPASSING:PUNISH_SERIOUS_CAPITAL_IF_GOVERNMENT_RELATED]
[ETHIC:THEFT:PUNISH_SERIOUS]
[ETHIC:ASSAULT:ONLY_IF_GOVERNMENT_RELATED]
[ETHIC:SLAVERY:JAPANESE]
[ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_OTHER:JAPANESE]
[ETHIC:EAT_SAPIENT_KILL:JAPANESE]
[ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAME_RACE:JAPANESE]
[ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_SAPIENT:JAPANESE]
[ETHIC:MAKE_TROPHY_ANIMAL:ACCEPTABLE]


Singapore would need a whole new class of punishment. Something like PUNISH_ULTRA_SERIOUS for vandalism, theft and trespassing. And ONLY_IF_DIFFERENT_RELIGION is clearly used in RL for the Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists. That, and BARE_FEMALE_FLESH is PUNISH_CAPITAL in some places.

[jaked122]

wow another thread that I started turned into a debate just like my thread in the LCS section about president bush