Slashdot Mirror
Tech Billionaires Are Asking Scientists For Help To Break Humans Out of Computer Simulation (businessinsider.com)
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation. The New Yorker recently did a profile about Y Combinator's Sam Altman. In the story, Altman discusses his theories about being controlled by technology and delves into the simulation theory. From an article on The New Yorker: Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory. According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
It's steam engines when it's steam engine time
People use the predominant zeitgeist as a model to understand everything.
In Victorian times, we had steam engines and the blind watchmaker. In the 1910's everything was electricity this and xyz-rays that. Today it's all digitalizamizated technomolology and iPhones.
That and these billionaires think their smarts in one realm of knowledge make them experts in everything everywhere all the time.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
"Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation."
Elon Musk said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (rolls eyes)
This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So if you believe in God, the science world think's you're crazy/stupid, but if you believe in a programmer of the universe, it's totally cool and many of them agree. Gotcha.
The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:
ABSTRACT. 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.
http://www.simulation-argument...
I cannot find any flaws in the statistics. I thus agree we're _likely_ living in a simulation.
it's in my head
And even beyond that, if we are in some way "in a simulation", we have no reason to think that we will be able to detect it, let alone break free of it. If you actually think about it, for any enclosed simulation, the simulation is reality, and there's no opportunity to see beyond that horizon. If the block in a game of Pong became sentient, it would find itself in a 2D world with no gravity, where the laws of physics include conservation of momentum, no friction, and no energy transfer when object collide. There would be no information in these rules of physics that would allow the Pong block to determine whether these physical laws were artifacts of computer programming or the "real" laws of physics. What's more, even if the Pong block were to assume it was in a simulation, there would be no avenue to investigate what the "real" laws of physics are outside of the simulation. Imagining what the "real" laws of physics were might be interesting, but it couldn't be based on anything empirical.
I could see a billionaire having a conversation with a scientist or philosopher, and asking if they can think of any way we could even know whether we were in a simulation-- and that may have been what these conversations were really like. But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.
That's actually a quite believable interpretation of the Bible. Player starts out being a genocidal maniac, playing with all the god-level powers they have, sending plagues of locus and flooding the entire planet just to see what will happen. Then we get to the New Testament, where the player is kinda bored just breaking stuff and decides to try to build a nice world.
It's basically everyone's first game of Sim City.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Unfortunately, given the mathematical realities of the "first past the post" voting system we're forced to work within, the dichotomy is not false. It's possible to change which parties are in power, as has happened several times in the history of the country, but the only stable configurations are either one or two strongly dominant parties.
I'm all for building a strong competing party to replace one of the current ones with something more populist, or even just less corrupt (though that's always a transitory condition, quickly remedied once it wields power worth corrupting) but that's a long-term project that requires dedicating considerable resources to building "brand awareness" and enthusiasm among the electorate, and one that's not appreciably aided by voting for candidates that have no chance of actually getting elected (well, not beyond reaching the minimums required for the party to gain access to public funds and other legal hurdles)
By making a protest vote, knowing it will have no direct effect on who wins the election, you'll be guilty of contributing to whatever ills *whoever* wins inflicts - including if it's the "greater evil" that you refused to vote against.
If you really want change, then go out and participate in activist organizations trying to either build viable third party support, or establish less easily captured voting systems such as instant runoff voting. As long as your only contribution is casting a ballot every couple of years, your real options are limited to either voting for the lesser of evils, or abstaining (or protest-voting), and thus willingly surrendering your support to whoever happens to win.
And lets be honest here - no matter how many viable parties are actually on the ballot, you'll *always* be voting for the lesser evil, because *nobody* is going to agree with you 100%. There will always be a compromise to be made, and whether that compromise falls below the arbitrary line you call "evil" or not, is a distinction that exists only within your imagination.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.