Mindscape 111 | Nick Bostrom on Anthropic Selection and Living in a Simulation
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2020
- Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
Human civilization is only a few thousand years old (depending on how we count). So if civilization will ultimately last for millions of years, it could be considered surprising that we’ve found ourselves so early in history. Should we therefore predict that human civilization will probably disappear within a few thousand years? This “Doomsday Argument” shares a family resemblance to ideas used by many professional cosmologists to judge whether a model of the universe is natural or not. Philosopher Nick Bostrom is the world’s expert on these kinds of anthropic arguments. We talk through them, leading to the biggest doozy of them all: the idea that our perceived reality might be a computer simulation being run by enormously more powerful beings.
Nick Bostrom received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the London School of Economics. He also has bachelor’s degrees in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg, an M.A. in philosophy and physics from the University of Stockholm, and an M.Sc. in computational neuroscience from King’s College London. He is currently a Professor of Applied Ethics at the University of Oxford, Director of the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, and Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology. He is the author of Anthropic Bias: Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. - Věda a technologie
Mr. Sean Carroll!
I'm a simple 24 year old, still figuring out what i want to do with my life after many disappointment. I was always interested in science and philosophy but after watching almost every video and podcast you made, i turned into quantum physics and now i decided to apply to the faculty of physics at university. Just as you, im obsessed with the final questions of life and seeking for knowledge to answer them or at least try it. I was never happier, i found my way in life. We dont even know each other but your personality and your content formed me in a really positive way. I cant tell how much i appreciate your existance.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR CARROLL!
The thing I like about Sean C is how he puts arguments forward to challenge the guest's position on areas which are not well defined, or to put another way, he finds the weak components of their ideas or hypophysis . It stimulates a richer and more interesting discussion.
You are a Masterpiece. Making videos on Mindscape as well as Biggest Ideas in the Universe. This makes you different from the others. Really love your videos
Gotta keep that big brain busy
David Deutch please!!!
Everyone is different in his own way. Is being different good or bad? Women are more generally more concerned with being different or unique.
@@ReasonableForseeability I said him different from others because he is making videos on 2 topics at the same time
wow! i've been hoping for a nick bostrom episode for a long time. thank you so much sean
After the interview with Joe Rogan this was healing. Thanks Sean!
Yes, Joe Rogan really lost it when he had Bostrom on his show. It was painful and embarrassing to watch how Rogan behaved, and actually very out of character for him.
@@MrJamesLongstreet p
@@MrJamesLongstreet O p900p9(k(()
Couldn't agree more sir. I find Mr. Rogan vaporous at the best of times and frankly, intellectually jarring. That's not a comment on the man's intelligence but rather his presentation and persona. I've no idea who Mr. Rogan is in truth and I'm simply not willing to plum that particular depth to find out.
@@CBT5777 It would be gross hubris to assume that we're the first level of the simulation. Agreed. I wonder what level we actually are in the hierarchy?
Sean Carrol is that rare prof who is both brilliant and a skilled teacher
I didn’t know anything about the simulation argument coming into this. Thank you for introducing it to me!
I was listening to the latest "Biggest Idea" video and it was almost over. And then I get the notification of Nick Bostrom on Mindscape. What a day!
Thank you for the discussion!
Your best Mindscape ever!
Have you interviewed David Deutsch as yet? Thank you for all your amazing work.
28:04 "...either one of these gives us leverage..." Hmm...no, either one of these give me a brain ache~! I am thoroughly enjoying this without being able to understand much of it and besides driving me nuts, it drives me to listen to these explanations over and again. Having listened to so many different videos on varied subjects in these fields w no true comprehension, I often wonder if it is even possible that one day I will~
This is a great episode. At its core, the simulation hypothesis actually does not directly say that we are living in a simulation. It boils down the possibility into two: either such a simulation is not possible (a.k.a, we go extinct before we can create such simulations), or we are extremely likely to live in such simulation. So it may still be possible that such simulations are not possible, but if they are possible, chances are, we are already living in one.
This is the one I've been waiting for 😁
I'm as excited as a 7yr old with a balloon.
It there a link between the many, many, many worlds of QM and the expanding universe we find ourselves in? Does this mean that in the Universal Wave Function, there is a 'version' of the Universe or like this part of it, that is expanding at a different rate?
Yes! Finally you talk with Nick!
Regarding the Doomsday argument, the urn analogy does not seem fitting. A large part of what defines "you", and in this thought experiment setting perhaps the only part that is important, is that "you" are a product of a process that evolves through time, and if or when "you" will come into existence depends on the previous steps of the process. Thus, it makes no sense to model the occurrence of "you" in this process with the draw of a random ball from a set of balls in an urn, where no interdependence between the balls is considered. Instead, think of this analogy: There is a machine creating balls one after the other. For the nth ball, number n is assigned to the ball by the machine and this is the only difference between the created balls. The balls are designed with complex mechanisms that generate consciousness and they become aware of their existence their numbers and probability theory (they can apply logic and do the necessary math and calculations). They are also aware of the fact that the machine is programmed to either generate 10 balls with 0.5 probability, or 1,000,000 balls with 0.5 probability. What do you think ball number 7 should infer about the number of balls that will be generated? It is obvious that it should assign 0.5 probability that 10 balls will be generated and 0.5 probability that 1,000,000 balls will be generated. Thus, it is clear that the order of appearance of the conscious ball in the process does not affect its inference on the estimated probabilities. If you are still not convinced consider that the machine could even delay the random selection until after the 10th ball is created.
The analogy I have proposed provides another insight. It highlights that the probabilities that the conscious ball estimates are actually on whether it is created by a machine programmed to generate 10 balls or by a machine programmed to generate 1,000,000 balls. However, this tells very little about the probability that actually 1,000,000 balls will be created even if the machine is programmed to do so. Parameters that can not be accounted by the ball's model of the world (e.g. the availability of actual materials used by the machine for the generation of the balls, power supply of the machine, malfunctions, accidents, external users of the machine interrupting the program, etc.) may occur and prevent the machine from generating the programmed amount of conscious balls. This indicates that the best thing you can do is model the process generating "you" utilizing all the available knowledge you have, perform the probabilities estimation of the evolution of the process (while ignoring the fact that "you" occurred in the certain part of the process that "you" occurred, i.e. dismissing the erroneous Doomsday argument), but be perfectly aware that your estimates can be greatly wrong depending on the knowledge you have on the process and what can interfere with it. So there is no shortcut to estimate the longevity of the human race with dubious arguments based on misuse of the information that the generation of a conscious observer occurred. The only way to do it is by constantly increasing your knowledge on the process and what affects it, generating better models that provide more informed estimates of the probabilities. In my analogy, I have merely generated the simplest possible observers that only observe their own number in order to highlight better my arguments using this marginal case.
Sean I know you don't necessarily like suggestions for guests, but Mindscape seems like a perfect place to interview Robert Sapolsky.
Fantastic
Great talk about what essentially boils down to entropy. Disorder is the overwhelming likely outcome of random distribution. The argument that any given observer is unique in this system is akin to saying you have a machine that is capable of producing limitless energy. while is doesn't technically violate the laws of thermodynamics, it does discount the beyond extraordinary likelihood of occurrence. So much so that I'm sure if one were to approach most rational people with their concept of such a machine, we would casually dismiss such claims without a second thought. Almost sounds like a presumptuous philosopher.
Having Mr. Bostrom on episode 111.
Nick is next level
Super to invite Nick Broström.
Although should our universe be a simulation, small scale measurements would reveal strange results.
Cant wait to watch this 😎
Watch ?
Having tried to listen ... I found I needed subtitles !
So yes watch. : )
It seems to me that a simulation would require a resolution limit, and that an obvious resource savings could be realized by not fully executing at granularities approaching the smallest quantity until an observation takes place. Just saying.
Yeah, I've had a similar thought. People are always caught up on how much processing power it would take to simulate everything in the universe at once, but you wouldn't need to. Modern 3D video games save a lot of processing power by only rendering what is being directly observed and how closely it's being observed. They could ostensibly do the same thing to our universe.
Being the soliphist, I need to remember that everything I sense is filtered/determined by simulated body. I only need to convince myself that you and the universe exist.
Yes, I created all of the great literary works, musical compositions, scientific discoveries and all of the people that think they are so. Maybe those things are not that great, but how would I know?
@@ivane_k It doesn't have to be huge. It just has to appear huge. Assuming humanity (or even better, just you!) are the only conscious observers in the universe, we have ostensibly no access to the universe outside of our solar system. As for why the programmer decided to make it as big as it happens to be is neither here nor there. Assuming they're as smart to us as we are to an ant, we have no way to question their motives.
Also, kinda interesting to see someone else with Georgian heritage! Gamarjoba!
Funny thought...most of us nowadays are spending less time observing the world around us and more time observing phones, television,etc. So the rendering power necessary would be even less... Technically to render the day of a kid in front of a gaming console would take only the "power of the console" to render his/her reality. Except for the times they get up to go to the bathroom, eat,etc...
@@sagittariusa2008 you mean solipsist?
Hooray!
I’ve never quite got that so much reasoning for extra universal possibilities relies on intra universal probabilities. Surely the first supersedes the second?
1:04:20 Is this correct reasoning, that evidence for (3) is evidence against (1) and (2)?
You asked him what predictions could be made for the simulation theory, I have a couple. How about indications that certain things don’t render unless observed in order to save computing power ie the two slit experiment. Almost all paranormal events could be explained. Ghosts are just old programs malfunctioning. What we think of as aliens are actually the developers making sure things are functioning properly and when they aren’t they may pick someone up and work on their DNA (coding). Sean should look into video Game development. I’m sure he could make sense of a few things in quantum physics.
57:34 i'm not sure we are conscious, to my mind we are just really good, complex simulators ourselves, and as i said in the other comment, we have no frame of reference to distinguish what is "natural" and what we might be programmed with in a simulation. certainly we think we are conscious, but i suppose it depends on the definition. it's our programmers (if we are simulated) that ultimately would define consciousness. to me our brains just process information that we require to keep being alive.
it would make the question "why are we here" a tad more relevant though, cos if we "complete our run" do we get binned?
I really don't like the doomsday argument. It assumes that my conscious experience could exist in another time in history - in some other flesh prison of a human being and that is just not the case. You can use this logic in a simulation hypothesis but not in a "real world" scenario.
David Deutch please!!!
Haha... that was great. Sean: "This is my opinion and thought", - Bostrom: "Nope." I'll hand it to you Sean, you have no qualms going up against the greatest minds. Still, I'd ask you keep in mind that this man is not only brilliant, you're in his backyard, talking about subjects he's spent a lifetime considering. You're brilliant too, but even the best of us can only truly understand so much.
In the vastness if the universe, do we even matter? And even on Earth, how many life forms are there, are those others not observers?
The first argument about the doomsday hypothesis makes the assumption not just that your birth order is random, but that the birth order of a person doing this experiment is random.But it isn’t. I person doing this experiment may be far more likely to be in a certain birth rank. For example, it cannot be the 10000th human. That human could not construct the argument. Maybe this question will be solved in the future, or a better thought experiment constructed. That would mean that an unknown number of higher birth ranks are also unavailable.
the doomsday counter argument seems like the right answer.
it's the same line of thinking but perfectly cancels out to give you zero information.
Sean I love your podcasts and lectures. But this topic is a little tired now, don''t you think?
Poor Joe Rogan couldn't wrap his mind around this concept (simulation theory) when he spoke with Nick. It was....an interesting podcast.
I understand Joe Rogan's perception. When something is so obviously a crock of shit, you have to reject it.
Sean was also struggling to keep up with Bostrom, at 21:00 and 34:00 for example.
Dude please have a debate between Bostrom and Yann Le Cunn or someone that is against AI safety
Deepest Subjects:
Mind, consciousness, simulation argument and their connection to physics.
Very complex issues...
love me some nick bostrom
On the bit about assuming you are a typical observer: seems to me like a cosmologist can say, "the cmbr is observed to be2.74k" without making claims about what hypothetical observers might see, or about what that observation says about unknown or inaccessible regions. A humbler, perhaps solipsistic claim, but perfectly consistent. "X is what we observe." As honest as it gets. Likewise you can say you were the ~100,000,000,000th human without trying to determine how likely that was. I think secretly this is how Bostrom thinks, which is why he is ever reticent to positively affirm the hypotheses he outlines. He suggests wild pathways but is too conservative to walk down any particular one.
This question of what the proper reference class would be for this line of reasoning is interesting. I mean, why are we not including Homo erectus? Why are we not including all animals with brains, for that matter? I mean I understand that the reference class is supposed to be all conscious """""intelligent""""" observers capable of this line of reasoning, but it's not clear to me what EXACTLY counts as intelligent. Colloquially I understand the thought, but upon inspection the borders of that class seem ill-defined I think. I mean, do we include H. sapiens who were cognitively capable of thinking this, but not sufficiently educated in probability theory to adequately understand the argument? If so, why? Do we include, say, the child Genie who never learned to speak due to parental abuse isolating her from any exposure to language? Why or why not? Genetically speaking she IS an "intelligent observer" -- she has no genetic defect whatsoever. Her cognitive impairment is due purely to environmental factors.
To Sean's point, indeed, it seems each consciousness is totally unique in innumerable ways. Obviously we all have mutually intelligible concepts, and in that sense we are united, but then again so do humans and African grey parrots. So it seems some clarification is needed on what counts as an "observer" in the argument.
In fact -- does this argument apply to life itself? "Assume I am a randomly sampled organism, it's unlikely that life continues to propagate that much farther because it's unlikely that I would by random chance be born that early in life's history if that's true, ipso facto by the powers of logic, life on Earth is not likely to last much longer." ("Much longer" meaning on the scale of billions of years, of course. Or hundreds of millions, if we're talking multicellular life.)
Because I mean, if not then why not? Obviously the response is, "I am not a randomly sampled organism, I am a human being capable of making the argument, therefore by the anthropic principal... yadda yadda..."
But you're also a human being who exists at a point in our history after the math of probabilities was sorted out. So: are stone age people within your reference class? Or does a modified anthropic principal not equally apply, "I am a human being who exists after the math of probabilities was sorted out."
And then, "I am a human being who exists after the doomsday argument was first proposed in 1983," "I am a human being alive after 1983 who's HEARD of the doomsday argument..." reductio ad absurdum.
Wouldn't the probably of simulated civilizations also depend almost entirely upon the probability of the original real civilization existing in the universe? If the values of something like the Drake Equation result in there only being one technological civilization in the universe, the probability of it successfully creating a simulation seem to be almost zero, which would skew stimulated vs real observers in the universe massively towards the real.
Seth Lloyd designed the first buildable working quantum computer. The way he figured this out was by studying How the Universe Works and it works like a giant quantum computer that created this simulation made of Stardust your planet and everything that you see including yourself is made of Stardust. Therefore how can this not be a simulation. 👁
the probability of being the 1st human is the same as the probability of being the 1,890,478,417th human its just 1/the total number of humans... i dont really get this
16:21 Guess I'm left on the doormat because I understood none of that
The urn analogy if flawed at elementary level. The correct analogy would be that after picking a ball we would be told that the number is any value larger than 7 ! This is because what we know is that we are alive now, not that we just went extinct or will definitely go extinct at some specifc predictable future date. Interestingly, this means that the logical assumption is that it is more not less likely that the ball was sampled from an urn that holds the larger number of balls. If an urn has 10 balls the chance that the pulled number was 7 or higher is 40%. If it has 1000 the probability is 99.4 %!
How can someone dislike those videos
Perhaps they just don't like the implications? Clicking "I dislike this" doesn't say anything about the other videos, just this one..
It doesn't say "I dislike this video", so they perhaps whoever clicked the button thought "I don't like how this topic makes me feel".
But if you were asking for directions on how to dislike this video, then click the thumb icon which points downwards that you see under the video on the right. Does that help/ :P
I dislike this videos because I envy such great people. Someone's gotta do it...
If I live in a red house, what’s the probability that I live in a red house?
Not trolling. Just trying to point out what I see as the absurdity of the doomsday argument.
@@johnelwood5049 In order to point out the absurdity of the argument, it might be useful to understand it. A more appropriate example would be; you live in a red house on a street with 5 red houses and blue houses. In the future, more houses will be developed and you're asked to determine the probability of two scenarios; 10 more houses will be built on the block ( 5 more red, 5 more blue), or 100 billion blue houses will be built. Which is more likely? That you happen to find yourself in one of the only red houses among 100 billion or among 20 with an equal number of blue and red? Personally, I think the original doomsday argument is more transparent and less awkward that this. You should go back and study it a bit closer.
It would suggest that humans may have a preference for red houses or that for some other reason red houses are over represented in the population. I am not trying to be rude but you are misunderstanding the argument.
This wasn't really the happy node you prefer to go out on 😬
I've been thrashing around in my Matrix pod, trying to unplug myself, because this simulation is not at all believable anymore.
What you mean?
@@andrewdiaz5107
It's a movie reference. Too much to explain.
Let's just say that I'm not participating in this game anymore.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself oh okeei lol
Main problem with the "Doomsday Argument" is that _somebody_ has to be in the first fraction of a percent of all people who will ever exist. It's incredibly unlikely to be you, but someone has to be it. Congratulations! You "won"!
Hindsight is 20/20. But for every single one, based on the knowledge they had at the time, the optimal strategy was to bet against it. Any other strategy would have caused more of them to lose.
we're the lucky ones.. if you get 100 lottery winners together, it would be weird to think they're all in one place, but.. well.. they are.
that isn't a problem since it's a probabilistic argument. the fact still remains that that is an incredible unlikelihood which should be assumed to be false and if it turns out not to be it doesn't make it a wrong assumption to have made.
I think this is a serious case of an overactive imagination. I will buy his book about AI though
one of the things about god's plan is that if at some point in the unspecified distant future it all makes sense, that plan is no earthly use to us, and we are cannon fodder for it, likewise, if this is a simulation (i happen to think it's mine cos no one else is in this brain watching what's going on) then there is an awful lot of stuff that will be around for a very long time that does absolutely nothing. gods and alien simulators are very wasteful.
good to hear someone else say "there's no reason to think that although the stats might say otherwise, we might actually be the only intelligent life, certainly in our galaxy, and likely in our neighbourhood" i think we have to act like we are all there is, get off this planet and turn it into a nature preserve.
a syndicate DID buy 13 million lottery tickets, and they did win the jackpot, but that's assuming they were intelligent enough to put a different and unique number on each ticket, if you make the same mistake with life, that is not making unique life forms on every planet, and effectively you've used the same, wrong, number on a million lottery tickets, life might indeed be common, but the extinction of that life might be common too.
life might be common, but extinction might be even more common.
when it comes to trickery in the simulation, it's a bit like the fine tuning, if we are in a simulation, then everything WILL appear perfectly natural, who can say that the cosmological constant is actually a number that works, and not just a number that was plonked into the simulation, WE would have no way of telling the programming of the alien simulators would we? i mean, if we were blobs of jelly floating in space, that would be perfectly natural to us, we would have no point of reference to say otherwise.
Are we gonna talk about the click bait at some point Dr. CARROLL
I wanted to find these two individuals talk together because I have a theory that both of them are correct. The simulation would simulate every possible outcome. Which connects to Sean Carrol on many worlds theory. Many worlds is simply a simulation computing every possible outcome.
@56:53 - Dr. Carroll, it is perplexing to hear that you are on board with a simulated environment yet question the feasibility of a simulated human brain *as if* it were not a part of the simulated environment. Do you not see the contradiction? I'm not suggesting that I actually believe we are simulated but, for example, if your brain is simulated then would not your understanding of the physical nature of a brain only be based on simulated human brains?
In other words, if you are a simulated brain then how would you know how complicated it would be to simulate a physical brain given you've never seen one.
Dear Professor Carroll please interview Garret Lisi. I found Eric Weinstein's interview (czcams.com/video/8_uiqjO1IEU/video.html) with Garrett to need more of a Physicist's Physics based critique. Thank you for both podcasts:"The Biggest Ideas In The Universe" and "Mindscape" as they are intellectually entertaining, instructive and accessible. Best regards! (Spinners??)
Doomsday argument seems just absurd to me. Even if there are an infinite humans in the future it wouldn't change the present or past in any way, we just need to past and present to have any future at all. And the whole "find yourself at a point with relatively few humans" is just weird. That is implying there is some sort of choice in where you went, and disconnecting yourself from time and space itself.
"We should all be Indian, because that is the highest probability of a human by nation."
By this logic a proto-human shaman back when there were 100 thousand proto-people on the planet should say that "the end is nigh".
Anyway the whole Doomsday argument is a waste of neurons, it has no usability. You can not even make any bets with it because it offers no possibility of seeing the result of a bet.
Anyway he seems to have some problems with the pigeonhole principle and the anthropic principle and embraces the "why me God" principle.
Here are two issues with the doomsday argument;
1. There is no reason to assume humans/Homo sapiens exclusively constitute an observer in this context. We can expect a vast number of other organisms to exist on/in the planet/universe, all of which constitute observers, and only a fraction of organisms to evolve past us (including simulations). It is only valid to use humans as a reference class in the context of predicting the physical/chemical/biological conditions (laws/substrates) required for equally intelligent/sentient agents to evolve/subsist; ie classic anthropic reasoning.
2. It is invalid to apply the random selection/sampling argument to spatio-temporal coordinates in of themselves: Ie it is invalid to claim that it is any more probable (in of itself) to be born at one time/space in the universe than another. For example, out of a framework of 10 space/time coordinates, there is equal probability of finding oneself at coordinate 7 as coordinate 1 or 10. The cosmological principle still holds however; when for example predicting whether we should likely expect/find ourselves to exist in a rare local minimum/maximum with respect to some varying physical property (e.g. CMB temperature), absent priors/evidence influencing our bayesian analysis, we should sample (monte carlo) between all possible observers and predict the most probable observation within these. Contrarily, if we have no theoretical predictions regarding physical property expectations, then there is no reason to assume our observable universe is any different than that beyond our horizon in this respect. Likewise, one can't propose a multiverse (simulation) and then declare we are more likely to exist within it (ie be in a simulation rather than being on the basement level), because there is no known/hypothesised/predicted physical property which can differentiate between these.
Tentative conclusion: If the doomsday argument holds, then it is operating on assumptions not inherent in either classic anthropic reasoning or the cosmological principle.
I'm not nearly educated enough on these subjects to say anything with any confidence, but some thoughts:
1.
We know we're human. Let's assume that there are 100 quadrillion non-human intelligent entities that will ever exist across the totality of existence/reality. We don't need to consider the general case of an observer when reasoning about what particular biological type of observer we are when thinking about the set of all humans, because we already know we're each human observers. (What we don't know is the total number of humans that will ever be born.) Additionally, we should expect some dependent factors to be involved for each reference class; the total lifespan of a civilization is likely largely a factor of the nature of that civilization, and not the existence or actions of other civilizations that may exist at that time, and/or before it/after it (in part because they're all likely very, very far away from each other). That is, however long humans last, it probably won't directly depend on whether there are 100 quadrillion non-humans, or 5, or 0.
So I think using human observers as the reference class rather than all possible observers makes sense when considering this argument. It's not P(born in middle of total humans | observer), but P(born in middle of total humans | human observer). And I think the same is true of any other intelligent life (the reference class will be just that one civilization, and not others, when thinking about how many more of themselves will be born and where they're placed among that set). It may make sense to filter this downward based on other factors (Wikipedia suggests "WMD era humans" and "human observer-moments"), but I don't think it's relevant to expand upward when considering the DA. It may make sense when thinking about other problems (e.g. the simulation hypothesis), but I don't think it makes sense for the DA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
As you say, this all just depends on what assumptions one holds. If one holds the position that we can't make reasonable predictions/hold reasonable expectations about the universe past the observable horizon, then I'd say they're rejecting the cosmological principle. (Which I think you're also saying? But I'm a bit uncertain.) The cosmological principle is a prediction/expectation/assumption stating we can say meaningful things about the non-observable universe (specifically, that it's similar to the observable universe, everywhere). If one says we can't make such an assumption, then the cosmological principle is rejected, and I'd say there's no reason to assume either that it is or isn't similar to the observable part. (In reference to your statement that "there is no reason to assume our observable universe is any different than that beyond our horizon in this respect" - there's no reason to assume that, but also no reason to assume the converse.)
Bostrom's simulation argument shares an important property with the cosmological principle: it claims that we can make meaningful predictions about non-observable reality, based on certain kinds of reasoning (which are laid out in the argument). Whether or not that's actually true, the simulation argument is just a certain kind of axiom or framework, and in that framework we can assess the probability of which universe we're in (i.e. a simulated or base one) within the larger hypothetical multiverse. In order to refute this, I think one needs to directly tackle the simulation argument head-on.
I think part of the issue I'm having following your conclusions here is that there are lots of different topics at play, which have some relation to each other but are still quite distinct: the doomsday argument, the simulation hypothesis, the simulation argument, the cosmological principle, the anthropic principle, Bostrom's self-sampling assumption, Bostrom's self-indication assumption, analysis of the physical properties of the universe, and anthropic and probabilistic reasoning in general.
Again, I only have a very shallow understanding of most of these topics and no understanding of some of the other things mentioned by Bostrom in this podcast and in your comment, so forgive me for any errors or misunderstandings.
"simulated"
One of those episodes wherein questions and observations were superior to the answers..
The doomsday argument relies on the silly premise that humans will stop evolving and that human lifespans will remain fixed and rates of procreation static. The simulation hypothesis has no problem allowing for these things, and if anything is strengthened by such lines of thought. Constantly equating Bostrom's argument to the Doomsday argument is either a lack of imagination or a cheap tactic used to attack a weaker straw man stand in for the simulation argument.
The computation has to be done in parallel for consciousness to appear. You can't iterate the brain program in sequence to get a conscious feeling.
This makes it impossible to simulate a brain without creating the brain.
All known conscious programs run in parallel.
Who would have thought that God was a writer of computer games.
I don’t listen to podcasts. But this one is going to be the exception to the rule.
I was wrong. Shouldn’t have assumed this would be worthwhile. If I had no prior knowledge this would have been a total loss.
The MUCH larger urn would have the million balls !
Would that even larger urn again be bigger than Polya's?
Yee yee!
What you call a civilisation with millions of years of technological advancement, let's say the farthest evolution of a system , is a quantum end: Nature with all its complexity or/and Death: everlasting information signal.
Your world, or construct, I prefer is the two at once.It is a quantic construct where time space doesn't really exist.You are black holes dwellers, the ones who did find a way to exist and "live" in the most hostile illusion ever created.And you can do that, only because you are protected by light.
The technology path can only lead to death.
So, the Fermi paradox is not a paradox because there are no aliens. Also, we are living in a simulation created by aliens.
Haha. But those aliens would be in different universes / layers of reality, and can be subject to different probabilities of arising - it only sounds like a contradiction if you sloppily conflate "alien civilizations that are also part of the simulation and even are inside our lightcone" and "alien civilizations in the layer of reality above us that contains the computer that runs the simulation".
(Your quip feels similar to how the _"Does a falling tree make a sound, if no one is around to hear it?"_ koan stops being deep or puzzling the moment you replace the ambiguous word "sound" by either "auditory perception" or "pressure wave".)
nibblrrr Since you are only an artifact of a simulation, I’m going to ignore your reply. Also, since the majority of Earth’s population don’t speak English, it’s unlikely I read it in the first place.
@@ScotClose ...just like you, in this hypothetical scenario? Why anyone would think "simulated according to certain rigid laws to an appropriate level of detail" means "not/less real" is kinda beyond me.
Like, one scenario is that what we call "reality" is a highly abstracted emergent phenomenon from simple rigid mathematical operations that are completely estranged from how we intuitively perceive the world to be & work, and the other is that we're in a computer simulation? :^)
(Which is actually why I find the hype over that tiny part of Bostrom's pretty diverse work so annoying - **cough** Musk **cough*.* It's an interesting application of anthropic reasoning, that leads to counterintuitive conclusions, with no obvious glaring errors made in the argument (at least I haven't seen any among the "loooool stupid eggheads" snark, or in academic publications) - but it's also completely irrelevant to how we should lead our lives?)
@@nibblrrr7124 Apparently Occam's Razor has gotten dull. You should get that cough checked out. Do you have a fever?
Interesting "theory", but still just that.
Awesome I am looking forward to this .. I nearly gave birth listening to him trying to explain things to Rogan 😝 it was painful .. I was dilated about 8 cm... And im a guy
If we're simulated why is there no magic? Or are we just a boring predetermined manifold of clever fractals?
This sort of statistical speculation is silly. Saying our reality is a simulation is about as useful as saying there is no free will. Whatever you're calling a 'simulation' of reality IS reality, just as whatever you're calling the 'illusion' of free will, IS free will.
There is nothing useless about learning the world is a simulation or that free will does not exist either. Some people like to know things because it is true, and that is where their personal "use" comes from.
@@christodrew123 I don't disagree with value of knowing things. It is the job of science to describe reality. My problem with these two items is their status as a description of reality. If you can not distinguish any physical difference between the world and a 'simulation' of the world, between free will and the 'illusion' of free will, they are the same. Can you distinguish between the world and a simulation of the world, between free will and the illusion of free will?
so math and physics are simulated hmmmmm... I wonder what reality really is?
_reality_ is just another word for another simulation 😜
As needs, the senses, individuality and intellect evolve, the universe evolves with us and it grows in definition. As we look closer and closer(,) more comes into focus. Are we the computers for the universe, itself? Life needs life, so if you're efficient at helping lower the entropy for life, you would naturally be within a good place within the larger consciousness system. Many are depending on you. You could veto, because you're important. You could be wired into the quantum database, as much as you could anyway and dream as you send out drones to planets. You couldn't do this alone, you would have to be within circle of other circles.
Philosophy coming in, although, there's some evidence bear with me. For example, Kali Durga is quite reptilian brain dominant, Shiva is sensory brain dominant, Vishnu is emotionally dominant and Brahma is intellectually dominant. Right wing people tended to have larger amygdala, associated with desire, territory and competition, whereas liberal voters tended to have larger anterior cingulate cortices, associated with emotional complexity and individuality. (Biol. 2011). The Buddha lived within Hinduism, until one he chose to leave the order and go on his own, to find his own path; his individuality kicked in. To be without desire and to find peace, peace within emotions. Hinduism and Buddhism are peace and love. Emotional mastery and sensory optimization. The yin yang. Meditation and The Kama Sutra. The Tao.
The west is intellect and intuition. We migrated from Africa and we didn't go the hard route across Asia, so you could suggest most of our ancestors survived. We had flight over fight. African's remained in Africa and it's quite a heavy place to go, voodoo, cannibalism, lion, hippos, crocs, shamanism, ancient spirituality, tribalism.. it's all still there, they survived a vastly technologically and financially superior force from Europe, which pushed into power by the peninsula of Europe, between The Atlantic, Russia, The Mediterranean, The Sahara and The Middle East. Africa kept it's survival power via the fight mechanism. They kept their freedom. We learned truth with innovation.
So, back to an optimized circle of people connected to the database via future technological means, in order to stave off competition and ego, we would find our optimal groups. A reptilian dominant, a sensory dominant, an emotional dominant and an intellect dominant. They would help each other and learn from each other; they each would help their fields. This is my interpretation of what people call "the gods" and simulation managers. If somebody's trying to enslave you, you go to the reptilian. If somebody is trying to instill fear within you, you to the sensory. If somebody is hurting your feelings, you go to the emotional one. If somebody is lying to you, you go to the intellectual. I don't believe in "God", although, if somebody is corralling you into slavery and telling you you're going to a party, you ask both the reptilian and the intellectual; they together, are God.
I call it Singularitology.
His explanation of the 'doomsday' argument is a mess. Lacks clarity.
0:50:00
Simulation argument is logical everything he talked about up to that is incorrect ! The odds of you being number 1 out of 2,000,000,000,000 is the same as any other single number . If you compare it to all the other numbers then it’s 1 in 2 trillion. Lottery numbers 01,02,03,04,05,06 are same chance as any other numbers you choose. Yes I would bet the 1st 6 numbers won’t hit next week. I’m betting on the remain 120,000,000 number combinations. Simulation theory is different. None of the ???? 1,000,000,000,000 subjects know that it’s a false reality with false memories and history so weather the sim starts and restarts at the Big Bang or at the time when you got midway through my spiel ( all your memories previous and history downloaded into you) you wouldn’t perceive any difference. You could have simulations where as you do know. For my present brain I would have to be given this info that I trust in blind faith or have an unexplainable feeling . Even in a ? Current running sim we could develope ability randomly (if allowed) or because designed to or not.
11 people believes in god, just saying
Simulation: We're back to Lucretius' bow and arrow argument using 21st Century "weaponry", are we not? It lays a wonderful foundation for a new religion. I fail to see the scientific value.
21:00 Sean figures out he is 20 IQ points behind Big-Brain Bostrom.
34:00 or maybe 25 points...
More evidence of the Simulation Argument: This podcast is Mindscape #111
You’re so desperate to live in a simulation holy shit.
Let’s say there are billions of other simulations world, what’s the chance of us being in a simulated universe? Well it’s *one in a billion*
But why aren’t we in a simulated world that is already simulating another world if the chances are one in a billion? There you go, simulation hypothesis debunked.
@@sephiroth7849 what you mean? What other ways can you debunked it?
Dude is boring me to tears
Go watch a Micheal Bay movie then. Something more your intelligence level...
Nick Bostrom is so overrated it pains me.
Most philosophers are *cough cough* Daniel Dennett *cough cough*
Christian Baughn
I don’t know, I like the stuff Dennett did (or at least popularized) for starting to measure or put boundaries on the human mind.Whatever, everyone has their tastes. Probably Bostrom deserves some respect for creating institutions.
Says he guy who can't understand what Bostrom is saying.
@@PrimatoFortunato I'll give you a hundred bucks if you've read any of his books...
@@generichuman_ Deal! How do you propose we solve this? After having read Kant, Bostrom is probably light as a barbershops' magazine.