Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

[Sparko]

You are hypothesizing. We have very little idea what the technically advanced creators of our simulated universe could or could not “program”. We as a species cannot as yet do this and can only speculate about perceived problems and limitations.

The whole idea is a hypothesis!

[Tassman]

The whole idea is a hypothesis!

Indeed, but unlike empty speculation such as yours, a hypothesis such as Bostrom’s Simulated Universe is supported by the fact that we “have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology”. And that “those technologies we already know are physically possible, would be able to build computers powerful enough to run an astronomical number of human-like minds, even if only a tiny fraction of their resources was used for that purpose”.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

[seer]

Indeed, but unlike empty speculation such as yours, a hypothesis such as Bostrom’s Simulated Universe is supported by the fact that we “have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology”. And that “those technologies we already know are physically possible, would be able to build computers powerful enough to run an astronomical number of human-like minds, even if only a tiny fraction of their resources was used for that purpose”.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

That is NOT EVIDENCE that we actually live in a simulation. It seems clear that science can not explain this universe in totality so they are taking the easy way out by labeling it a simulation. Which is intelligent design...

[Sparko]

Indeed, but unlike empty speculation such as yours, a hypothesis such as Bostrom’s Simulated Universe is supported by the fact that we “have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology”. And that “those technologies we already know are physically possible, would be able to build computers powerful enough to run an astronomical number of human-like minds, even if only a tiny fraction of their resources was used for that purpose”.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

Stop showing your ignorance Tassy. sheesh. You really are sounding like Shuny.

Simple logic says that a simulation inside a simulation can never be as good as reality or the host simulation. The simulation we are in would have to simulate the computers that we use to make our simulation of this simulation. It could never have the horsepower to match the original hardware what our simulation is running on, because of the very fact that our computers even if quantum are merely simulated computers running in a host simulation. duh.

And no, nobody knows if a computer could actually simulate a human mind. Even if we had the raw horsepower to simulate every neuron (we don't), we don't understand enough about how brains work to accomplish a working simulated brain, nor know if it would even work since the hardware is different than a real brain. If our brains do work on some quantum consciousness that occurs at a molecular level then the wetware our brains exist in wouldn't work on silicon, for example. And right now our quantum computers can only simulate a few qubits at all.


From the third paragraph in that article you keep referring to:

"Of course, the computers we have today are not powerful enough to run the computational processes that take place in your brain. Even if they were, we wouldn’t know how to program them to do it."

[seer]

Stop showing your ignorance Tassy. sheesh. You really are sounding like Shuny.

At least he has opened the door to intelligent design!

[Tassman]

That is NOT EVIDENCE that we actually live in a simulation. It seems clear that science can not explain this universe in totality so they are taking the easy way out by labeling it a simulation. Which is intelligent design...

One does not have to be ‘divine’ to utilize one’s intelligence and capacity to design – we do it all the time. Although your chosen deity rather botched it with 99.9% of the species, HE “designed” going extinct. Not to mention our residual organs left-over from the evolution process.

[Tassman]

From the third paragraph in that article you keep referring to:

"Of course, the computers we have today are not powerful enough to run the computational processes that take place in your brain. Even if they were, we wouldn’t know how to program them to do it."

Typical that you cherry-pick out of context a seemingly negative paragraph from a pro-simulation argument by an eminent Oxford University professor entitled: “The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High”.

He then proceeds to make a cogent argument based upon the fact that we “have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology”. And that “those technologies we already know are physically possible”.

In short, as is often the case with science, it’s only a matter of time.

[seer]

One does not have to be ‘divine’ to utilize one’s intelligence and capacity to design – we do it all the time. Although your chosen deity rather botched it with 99.9% of the species, HE “designed” going extinct. Not to mention our residual organs left-over from the evolution process.

At least you are on the intelligent design band wagon. And why did the people (or beings) who created our simulation kill off all those species?

[Sparko]

Typical that you cherry-pick out of context a seemingly negative paragraph from a pro-simulation argument by an eminent Oxford University professor entitled: “The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High”.

He then proceeds to make a cogent argument based upon the fact that we “have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology”. And that “those technologies we already know are physically possible”.

In short, as is often the case with science, it’s only a matter of time.

You realize he wrote this back in 2003 right? He was talking about THEORETICAL DESIGNS. They had no such computers. He was obviously talking abut quantum computers. We still can only produce quantum computers with a few qubits. But even so, there is no guarantee a quantum computer could model a human brain, nor even if it could that it would be conscious. The author has no idea, it was mere speculation on his part trying to bolster up his hypothesis. But he then went on to say, ""Of course, the computers we have today are not powerful enough to run the computational processes that take place in your brain. Even if they were, we wouldn’t know how to program them to do it."

We still don't know how to program such a thing. Probably will never.

Nick Bolstrom is a PHILOSOPHER, not a scientist. He was making a philisophical argument, not writing a scientific paper. Sheesh.

[Tassman]

At least you are on the intelligent design band wagon.

Nope.

And why did the people (or beings) who created our simulation kill off all those species?

Did they?

So, how did your intelligent designer get it so wrong that 99.9% of his “designs” failed?

[Tassman]

Nick Bolstrom is a PHILOSOPHER, not a scientist. He was making a philisophical argument, not writing a scientific paper.

Nevertheless, “Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality”.

“Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50”.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/

[seer]

Nope.

Of course you are, if this is likely a simulation then it was intelligently designed. Welcome aboard...

Did they?

So, how did your intelligent designer get it so wrong that 99.9% of his “designs” failed?

What do you mean did they? In our simulation haven't most species gone extinct? Why would the beings who created the simulation do that?

[Machinist]

In our simulation haven't most species gone extinct? Why would the beings who created the simulation do that?

Iterations of Algorithms eventually cancelled out these features.


Just playing. I think that's a good element of a fictional Matrix though. It still looks like Intelligent Design all the way down.

[Stoic]

In our simulation haven't most species gone extinct? Why would the beings who created the simulation do that?

Maybe they're simulating their own world.

[Machinist]

Maybe they're simulating their own world.

That's a really good thought I think. It's creative.