Quote:

---

If that is true, our live won't change, will it? So I think we'll never find out wether our world is real or virtual. And I think it really doesn't matter wether our world is real or virtual

---

If we would really live in his computer game, I think alot of people would turn crazy, thinking they can get out by winning the game. But how to win? Well maybe you get exp. when killing other people! Last man standing! King of the Hill!.

If god came to earth telling us we all live in a video game, prepare yourself for a massive killing spree.


Anyone knows the movie "eXistenZ"?
It's a fairly old and quite odd movie, but if you like this philosophy, you should watch it . It's a bit different than ment here but still a good mindtwister.

Quote:

---

Now we get to the core of the simulation argument. This does not purport to demonstrate that you are in a simulation. Instead, it shows that we should accept as true at least one of the following three propositions:

(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours

(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation.

Each of these three propositions may be prima facie implausible; yet, if the simulation argument is correct, at least one is true (it does not tell us which).

While the full simulation argument employs some probability theory and formalism, the gist of it can be understood in intuitive terms. Suppose that proposition (1) is false. Then a significant fraction of all species at our level of development eventually becomes technologically mature. Suppose, further, that (2) is false, too. Then some significant fraction of these species that have become technologically mature will use some portion of their computational resources to run computer simulations of minds like ours. But, as we saw earlier, the number of simulated minds that any such technologically mature civilisation could run is astronomically huge.

Therefore, if both (1) and (2) are false, there will be an astronomically huge number of simulated minds like ours.

---

That very last sentence doesn't mean OUR minds would possible be simulated, it only means that theoretically there could be a species running simulations of minds LIKE ours. Therefore eventhough it may not be a weird idea that future species might run simulations at all, it ís weird to suggest that thus wé might in fact be people whose minds are being simulated.

Somehow I'm not quite following the logic. I don't get the jump from species in the future back to 'us' in terms of being simulated versions of the "us" in the distant past, but actually being simulated in the future.

Another question that instantly pops up would be "Regardless of the possibility of a future species being able to do so, why would anyone even want to simulate being us or beings like us?"

Anyways, in my opinion it sounds like saying humans were created, somehow our current knowledge of the world and such theories don't add up. At least when you look at the world from our perspective and knowledge.

There's another problem with the 'simulation for study' theory. It's called time. Yes it's possible to simply let the simulation run at a higher speed time-wise (would cost even more processing power), but for researchers to actually do research wouldn't it still require them to dive into our 'mind-worlds' to check out the 'data' they are receiving/simulating?

I don't quite believe this would be feasible to do, unless they are somehow able to automate the process of data collections ánd observation/research.

From our current perspective, but even from a future one, the latter sounds quite unlikely to me actually. Would we some day invent computers to do our research for us? If we'd be that advanced by then, why would there be a need for simulations like that?

I also think we might underestimate the computing power that would be required for such a simulation. There's a near infinite chain-reaction of things that will change every split-second in our current world. Simulating that for each individual in this world or even for just one person would be a hell of a technological task in my opinion.

So, in my opinion if we are part of a simulation that has as purpose to actually study us, then those computers simulating our whole world and such must be really extremely extremely powerful. Otherwise it will take forever to both get data and do research on it. Or... this could mean that a lot of simulated people are actually not real people's minds that are 'connected' to the simulation, but simply artificial all together. I doubt we ourselves could be such a 'artificial mind' though, I somehow think that's impossible. Perhaps everybody around me is artificial, but I don't believe I am artificial myself,

By the way, for clarification, with "post-human" do they mean scenarios such as machines taking over the world and taking the place of humans, stuff like that? That's a scenario that seems unlikely to me to happen and then it would be even more strange to assume that those machines would want to research us in my opinion.

Cheers

Quote:

---

heh, if life is a game, I want console access and some cheatcodes

---