RE: If We're in a Simulation, Could Studying Morality and A.I. Improve Your Life?
It’s been a while since I lastly commented on some of your posts. This one has really caught my attention so i should make up for the limited engagement :P. I have read all of the related articles you have linked along the way, but none of them has tackled the argument that has led me to "believe" (i say believe because there is no way how to know such a stuff anyway) that we do not live in "matrix".
So basically all of those argument are highly logically structured. They in fact do lead, through brilliantly paved logical tree, to a really strong assertion that we probably are part of "virtual reality". This whole logical tree has one major flaw from my perspective.
The prerogative human nature
I think that most of us will agree on "a fact" that objective reality does exist (whatever it is). Most of us will also agree on "a fact" that this objective reality is bound to be perceived by our subjective realities - and that is the stumbling block of the theory supported by Elon.
The whole theory stands on a premise that the beings that have created the virtual reality were "thinking" in the same way as humans do. It’s extremely hard for people to imagine "any other way" of thinking. The dilemmas of the mankind are more or less set for quite some time (with few hard/soft forks along the way) and humans naturally search "for the HIGHER purpose of things". That is the bias we all to an extent share (but people raised in religious environment like you tend to be biased in such a way even more).
Easily put, there is no reason to think that different unimaginable life forms would create matrix-like realities. Humans would...Other beings? No one knows. Therefore I think that statement like "we are probably/most likely in a matrix-like reality" is a biased opinion.
But then again this too is just my subjective reality using rule of thumb while trying to perceive objective world...I might have very well failed at some point during my thought processes.
So what makes humans think this way? Is it paired with rising sentience (a necessary component to drive intelligence evolution) or is it an evolutionary accident?
If it's an accident, then you have a really good point. If it's paired with rising sentience, then it's very reasonable to believe that any beings sufficiently advanced would begin developing simulations. At that point, probability takes over... if any beings are running simulations, there is much higher probability that we are in one of the countless simulations than there is that we are outside of it. Even with quantum computing, how many simulations can be run in parallel? I don't know the limits to that.
We don't have enough data-points on sentient species to know whether this human way of thinking drives sentience or is an evolutionary accident.
Yes gotcha.
I very much believe that it is what you call an "evolutionary accident". I wouldn’t probably call it accident, but rather like one of the possible evolutionary branches of life forms if you know what i mean. (The outcome though regardless of the definition is still the same).
What would make you think that our sentience is actually rising that much? Sure we have plenty of new technology, we have bested (most probably) all of the other life forms on Earth, but the vast majority of the world still lives in "medieval ages". From my perspective humanity is still in its prenatal stage (and will probably destroy itself before it ever manages to climb out from that stage). Thus said thinking that from the perspective of Truth/Reality we can’t possibly know whether we have even matched the "average sentience" of all the living species, let alone proclaim that we have reached a state worthy of recognition, or possibly a state that "all sentient beings are bound to seek at one point". Maybe we are well below average of "sentience" and that is why we are reaching those conclusions?
Overall you added some great points. But then again the argumentation of the "rising sentience" you have shared is still based on a premise that this is the only way where life forms can lead (based on our very limited understanding of the world a life itself). We have no idea how other life forms think or act. All we can do is to assume that life forms based on CO2 (did I say it right?:D No chemist here:D) will always do what humans incline to do. As you very well pointed out
We can only assume and I was raised in a philosophical communities that were sceptic in its nature.
Very good points. I wasn't trying to make assumptions about our relative sentience, only to point out the key assumptions that the argument takes for granted.
I don't think that we're in a simulation, but whether certain modes of thought are inherent or accidental definitely influences the probabilities.
Since we have so few data points, we can't possibly conjecture. And Elon musk didn't even calculate the actual path of a space roadster correctly. Why would we credit his simulation probabilities?
Human or non-human, if we know humans would do it, and we assume humans survive long enough to do it... stands to reason there’s a good chance they would.
But can we actually do it? I think it would require quantum computing, at the least, and it's one of the least interesting simulations to utilize the quantum computers.
Great point! It’s almost like there’s something about consciousness which requires purposes becuase conscious beings have the ability to end themselves. With that key, it makes sense for the genes to select for those who have belief outside of themselves to continue procreating and spreading.
I’m reminded of the octopus when thinking about different forms of consciousness. It’s almaot an alien life form. How much more different could other truly alien consciousnesses be?
I do think we have a bias, but as you said, I also think the arguments do make sense. Since humans probably will create simulations of other humans, then the existence of other forms of consciousness become largely irrelevant, as long as humans continue surviving long enough to pull it off.
Yes totally agreed. The gene has to "know" that we need some extra pinch of motivation to not end our lives - otherwise we would be massively doing it.
Interesting! My best friend is a biologist so I’m gonna ask him about octopuses, cuz I can’t really follow your though processes with my limited knowledge here:D.
Anyway you are right that if humans ever reach a state where they’ll be able to create a matrix like reality they will do it. And maybe it has already happened:P. It would be a strong argument against the "there are no ancient relics that would indicate that there has been a developed human society before ours". Why would they program ancient relics into the matrix if they just wanted to test us right:)? Thus said I would change the Elon’s statement to something like (if I wanted to fully agree with it.
"When humans reach a state where they can pull off the creation of matrix-like, they would do it and it has possibly already happened.”