by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult
Qcmbr,
I think you are right man is going to do it reguardless of what I or a few million people want, we are hellbent that is for sure.
I wish they would have some very outspoken prominent men of wisdom would speak on this ethical question, that would be interesting.
PAK,
Not meaning to sound disrespectful but having read through the article I don't think that is what is being claimed there is that it is probable, only that it is probable if you assume that we are living in a society that reaches a posthuman stage (i.e. survived long enough to have developed technology such that we were no longer tied to our bodies) and engages in large scale historical simulations, statistical likelihoods are quoted for both events as being close to zero.
Another factor not covered in the article which probably should have been, is the possibility that we could be living in a society that goes on to reach a posthuman stage, but that historical simulations involving sentient avatars are illegal/immoral. (I was thinking something along the lines of star treks 'prime directive') If you are postulating about the possibilities of using sentient avatars in computer simulations you have to think of the moral implications, you become after all 'god'. Bear in mind that what counts as humanity would become a very blurred line in a posthuman society, its difficult not to think of sentient avatars as being 'human' when your great grandmother is also tucked up inside that pentium 5billion jar of gloop that they call a computer.
All in all nice sci-fi not good maths.
Hi Caedes - I think we've thread jacked
statistical likelihoods are quoted for both events as being close to zero
the point of the article was that one of the three propositions must be true - so either there is very low probability of human level civ reaching a tech level where these simulations are possible (called post human but doesnt require any outside body stuff just high tech levels), or they will reach this level but decide not to run simulations (your point about the morality of it is the thrust of the second proposition), or the third possibility is that there is a high probability we are in a simulation given the ratio of simulations to real civs
it is left to the reader to decide which proposition they favour
this article focused on ancestor simulations, if you expand it to general sandbox evolutionary simulations then the probability gets even higher, say one in a hundred of human level civs reach a the required tech level to run detailed evolutionary simulations with self aware sims, but they run a million evolutionary simulations (not all at once but over time until they have learnt all they can), then the probability we are in a sim is 999900/1000000 or 99.99% (figures are made up for illustrative purposes )
so the question is would they, given morals and such vs the value of the information gained - who knows but the maths is striking, although yes highly scifi
no i am not saying we are in a simulation, just that I cant see any way out of the maths (not that I am a mathmatician) so if anyone can point out flaws in the maths go for it, and I think that sometimes considering the out-there theories is fun
would you value your life any less if you were electrons in a computer memory chip rather than flesh and bones
cheers
pak
AlanF...you ask: How did you survive from birth long enough to type this message: My answer..I had good and loving parents who nourhished me and made sure I had all the necessary comforts for life:
It is the same with a loving Intelligent Creator. He gave all forms of life he created, all they needed to continue life.
Life is simple AlanF...Don't blow a gasket over it.
LOL! If I didn't know better I'd swear TopHat was FREDHALL! sKally
