Physics envy, physics envy everywhere.
From the page: Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct.
Pretty much sums it up. This article leans on the same crutch as the technological singularity prophets - that computers are going to be (literally) mind-blowingly awesome in the future. And this crutch is itself leaning on another crutches.
Fancy, entertaining fantasy.
I read over the paper, and it seems to be a bit unsatisfying. I will read it more closely later. But as of now, even if this argument did have weight, I'm not sure it would actually be good news for religious people.
hehehe an interesting analysis of the simulation argument from a probabalistic pov... whether we're in a simulation or not though... we gotta buy into this reality anyway.
Of course, we're made of integer truth values which unfold into reality according to number theory. So it is a bit like a naturally-occurring-quantumly-to-astronomically-complex-conway's-game-on-a-qbit-turing-reality... not a simulation, but a naturally occurring 'program'
first principle: 'something exists' [proof is in the observation. you can do the experiment at home without any special equipment]
second principle: there's a limit to our knowledge of what the 'something' is (special relativity) - at its point of origin we can only treat it as an integer truth value' [the smallest discernably discreet part of the universe that we can observe at the big bang is the universe itself]
third principle: 'we're made up of fractions of that something' [the universe is dividing (dividing, not expanding) into increasingly larger numbers of 'smallest discernably discreet parts' ... alternatively as we move from the point of origin forwards towards our 'now' more 'smallest discernably discreet parts of universe' become observable... same thing from our point of view]/
conclusion: qcd lattice/fundamental interactions are emergent properties of number theory.
There are way too many assumptions that cannot be correlated with evidence. Just like religion, this idea falls flat. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plus if an advanced society had no interest in running ancestor simulations, why the hell would this existence in itself be a computer simulation?!?!? So if we exist then we exist. Sorry, but this smacks of a bad rendition of Descartes. Thumbs down.
Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?
From the page:This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
From the page: "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."
That's almost the exact same thoughts I already had on the subject, just spelled out in more detail than I had considered.
We are SIM
From the page: "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation." I don't think I need to elaborate further on my choice of thumb direction.
I thought of this kind of thing when I was seven.
postmodern brain-in-a-vat argument
Interesting idea, but completely unfalsifiable, much like the existence of God. The only way you can answer this question is if you step outside the bounds of the simulation, which you can't unless our simulation has networking and then you'd just be in another simulation.
No we are not but the hypothesis and the arguement is sound. It is more likely that we are all an extension of me.
From the page: "ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?"