New ID Theory: We made Us

[Mangel]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

[Mojo]

Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against. But there still has to be a "real" reality, and that reality has to have arisen somehow, so we're just back to "who designed the designer" again.

[neutrino_cannon]

The largest problem with this is that it's unfalsifiable.

Other than that:

-If we are merely AI presences in a computer simulation, or indeed divorced in any significant way from "actual" reality, why would "our" reality have enough clues to extrapolate the "actual" one? That is to say, why would this simulation, one of an infinite number, accurately represent 2005 and the trajectory of technology at that time? The axiomatic assumptions (if they can be called that) of this hypothesis assume too much.

[Upchurch]

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.
Seen it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/)

[Mangel]

But there still has to be a "real" reality, and that reality has to have arisen somehow, so we're just back to "who designed the designer" again.

Yes, be that as it may, it doesn't really reject the conclusion drawn from the assumptions.

[Tricky]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.
What does "near infinite" mean? How can you tell when you are almost to infinity? And I am not convinced humanity has that much of a future, at least not in geologic time. We've been here less that 1/100th as long as the dinosaurs. Only our ego says we can last forever.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.
I'm sure they can get better. I seriously doubt that we will be able to get to the point that we can convincingly simulate reality. Too much input. Plus, we may be on track for a technological regression, especially if religions have their way. It has happened before.

3.
Umm... what happened to 3?

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.
We have millions, perhaps billions of virtual realities now. They're called books. I promise you that I have been just as deeply into a book as I have to any movie, video game or simulation. Imagination doesn't really take that much tweaking.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.
Nope. I do not accept the assumption that someday we will be able to construct virtual realities that are indistinguishable from reality. Neither do I see virtual realities being able to simulate very human needs. Oh yeah, sex is easy. Let's see one that actually feeds you and cleans up your poop. Mere electronics ain't gonna handle that one. You're gonna need some big honkin' machines using lots of power (another thing we may not have as much of in the future).

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?
The assumptions range from far-fetched to absolutely ludicrous. It would make the basis of a good sci-fi novel (which I am quite capable of getting lost in), but as a serious thought experiment, it takes too much suspension of disbelief to be worth pondering.

However, I do see it as a potentially addictive pastime. I think Dennis Miller said of virtual reality, "When some two-hundred pound couch potato can lie around in his virtual reality suit and make love to Paris Hilton, it's gonna make crack cocaine look like menthol cough drops."

[Mangel]

Yes, Tricky, you'll note that I acknowledged that to reject the conclusion you just need to reject the assumptions. To reject them isn't all that hard and I wasn't all that interested in debating about what the future will be like.

That's kinda why I wrote some words in caps lock, to EMPHASISE that I WASN'T INTERESTED in defending the assumptions.
BUT, feel free to attack the conclusion without rejecting the assumptions...if you can.

(neutrino_cannon has already done a reasonable job)

[jmercer]

I was watching a tv program the other day that had an interesting argument for intelligent design. Here is an approximate summary:

1. If you look far enough into humanity's future, there will be a time where we have near infinite computer processing power, memory storage, programming capacity, etc.

2. This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.

4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities.

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

Sure. Your preceeding assumptions are based on humanity developing all this capacity and then creating thousands of virtual realities. Fine, I'll accept that as a working premise.

Why would anyone create a reality as mundane as ours is... as opposed to some fantastical universe with magic, PSI, etc? What's the motivation, where's the entertainment value?

[neutrino_cannon]

This would be pretty tasty if you added a dash of Solipsism. A sprig of Determinism would go well too.

But yes, the biggest problem I see is that if we are in such a simulation, there's no reason to assume that it would be such a fidelious recreation of a point prior to the simulation, especially one that leaves clues to an accurate idea of what the simulation is like (multi million dollar blockbusters come to mind). Indeed, the part of the premise of the argument requires the large number of artificial realities, which invalidates the assumption that this is a scrupulous recreation of the past.

Other than that I can only wonder why the self-aware entities would not be aware of the fact that the exercise is a simulation, nor why they are only aware of each other through the simulation (ignoring for the claims of supernatural events), or why there would necessarily be more than one self-aware being in the system. These are mere quibbles that attack the nonessential, decorative parts of the argument, and therefore carry little weight in my book.

[Roboramma]

Other than that I can only wonder why the self-aware entities would not be aware of the fact that the exercise is a simulation, nor why they are only aware of each other through the simulation (ignoring for the claims of supernatural events), or why there would necessarily be more than one self-aware being in the system. These are mere quibbles that attack the nonessential, decorative parts of the argument, and therefore carry little weight in my book.

I can imagine the creation of self-aware entities in such a simulation. Imagine that you were to create a virtual reality in which you would spend a great deal of your time. In fact, you're some loser who's ordered this virtual reality over the internet because he doesn't have anything better to do. Might be nice if there were other people in there to hang out with. We're not the ones who ordered this simulation, we're just a part of it, embeded in the code.

But there's the thing. Woud you really order a reality that looks like this one? Would anyone? I mean, most of us would make a lot of changes to the world if we could, and now we're positing that there is at least one person, maybe many, who have that power. Why did they design it like this? Why order this reality rather than the one in which you have super powers.

You can't make a "God works in mysterious ways" argument, because the hypothesis is that this world was created by people like us. If so there are a lot of things that I think would be very different.

Like that superman would actually exist.

Another objection that I think others have made is that there is far more here than would be needed for the purposes of such a simulation. Why bother creating a simulation of a universe that's 15 billion or so light years across when you only need one solar system, and maybe a few lights in the sky?

[Francois Tremblay]

We do come from intelligent design. From our mother's body.

The simulation argument is not falsifiable, therefore it is meaningless.

In both cases, QED.

[Mangel]

I think the argument that "If I made the universe, I wouldn't have made it this way." is a weak one, at best.
It does not challenge that *someone* would create the world this way.

You guys can do better...

[Mangel]

Pretty much right, Francois Tremblay.

Ultimately, the claim is not provable and can hence be defeated by Occam's Razor.

[Roboramma]

I think the argument that "If I made the universe, I wouldn't have made it this way." is a weak one, at best.
It does not challenge that *someone* would create the world this way.

You guys can do better...
Sure, but my argument isn't that I wouldn't make it this way, it's that no one would make it this way.
Is there anything about this world that can be explained as "well, whoever designed it wanted it like that"? If not, why not? You'd think that whoever designed this world would have actually done something for a reason, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
And again, since the argument posits that this world was designed by people like us, well, you would expect some evidence of that.

I could turn things around a little like this:
Of all the miriade possible worlds that would be created by virtual reality engineers, that vast majority would have some evidence of that fact.
That fact that ours doesn't have any evidence of that fact suggests that it was not designed by them.

Now, my argument may not be perfect, but as I've gone to the trouble of trying to clarify it, if you see a hole in it please be specific as to what it is.

[c4ts]

Sure. Your preceeding assumptions are based on humanity developing all this capacity and then creating thousands of virtual realities. Fine, I'll accept that as a working premise.

Why would anyone create a reality as mundane as ours is... as opposed to some fantastical universe with magic, PSI, etc? What's the motivation, where's the entertainment value?

Devoted historical roleplayers.

[Mangel]

Sure, but my argument isn't that I wouldn't make it this way, it's that no one would make it this way.
Is there anything about this world that can be explained as "well, whoever designed it wanted it like that"? If not, why not?
.

So...you are saying nothing about this world makes sense. Uh...so, no one would create a universe that would have spherical planets, animals that eat meat, solids and liquids, etc? Is that what you're trying to say? Because that's what you've said. Your argument is that the universe is completely wrong, so no one would make it...which doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.

You'd think that whoever designed this world would have actually done something for a reason, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.

The reason the world would be created like this is because it would be historically accurate to have the world exactly the same as the real universe, just set in the past. THAT is the reason. It would NOT be historically accurate if they carved into the moon "made by Bob" and THAT is why we wouldn't see that sort of thing happening.

And again, since the argument posits that this world was designed by people like us, well, you would expect some evidence of that. I could turn things around a little like this:
Of all the miriade possible worlds that would be created by virtual reality engineers, that vast majority would have some evidence of that fact.

An assumption. This assumption contradicts the assumptions made in the original claim. I'm not arguing about the validity of the original assumptions.

[Roboramma]

So...you are saying nothing about this world makes sense. Uh...so, no one would create a universe that would have spherical planets, animals that eat meat, solids and liquids, etc? Is that what you're trying to say? Because that's what you've said. Your argument is that the universe is completely wrong, so no one would make it...which doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that nothing is explained by the fact that someone would make it that way. Maybe I misphrased what I was trying to say, sorry.
I'll try to say it better. Everything we see in this world is either well explained by natural processes, or certainly not better explained by the idea that someone would have wanted it that way.
Spherical planets are a bi-product of the way gravity works, not of human minds liking spherical planets. And I haven't seen any evidence of any thing in this universe whose existence we can explain by saying "people like that".

The reason the world would be created like this is because it would be historically accurate to have the world exactly the same as the real universe, just set in the past. THAT is the reason. It would NOT be historically accurate if they carved into the moon "made by Bob" and THAT is why we wouldn't see that sort of thing happening.
Okay. So why would they want to make a historically accurate world? Why would anyone, who could make any world they wanted to, make one that was historically accurate?
I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Maybe it even would, but thousands of times? Please note what I say below regarding the fact that this is not an attempt to challenge your initial assumptions.

An assumption. This assumption contradicts the assumptions made in the original claim. I'm not arguing about the validity of the original assumptions. Actually it doesn't. The original assuption is that techology would allow us to create a world identical to a past one, not that one would be created. The other assumption said "We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities."
Niether of these is called into question when asking whether or not it would be done.

To make the argument we need to do more than just assume that it could be done, we need to show that it would be done. I don't see any reason to believe that if such virtual realities were created, there would be any accurate models of the past created. So that's where the argument falls apart for me.

Now if you'd like to argue with my assuption that the vast majority of virtual worlds would have some evidence of the fact that they were created by humans, you must show one of two things:
1. That the humans that created them would try to make them appear undesigned.
2. That what ever goals the humans had in creating those worlds would be best served by a world that didn't show any evidence of being created with any goal in mind.
Personally I find both unlikely.

[Mangel]

Okay, so you are saying:
1. Everything we see is explainable by nature as we know it. If there is something unexplainable then this would indicate flaws in reality, which would hence indicate the reality we find ourselves in might be fake.

Well...I'm glad you've mastered knowledge of all natural laws and easily come to terms with how light can be massless yet have momentum, how time distorts in intense gravity fields, and how magnetic and gravity fields affect things without touching them. That must be refreshing to have supreme knowledge.
On the other hand, if you don't know the answers to all mysteries of the universe, I guess you can't lay them claim that everything is explainable.

More to the point, what if gravity IS an artificial construct created by the entities who've constructed this reality. The fact that YOU don't recognise it for what it is doesn't change its artificial nature. Are you even capable of concieving an existence without gravity?

2. People might not create this reality, even though they could.

I don't think I need to prove that people would do it. I should think it would be self evident. Are you they kind of person to think that no one would ever kill themself? That no one would ever commit a terrorist act? In a world of billions of people, the argument that "Maybe no one would do it" is as weak as a straw house.

Here's an idea, why don't you think of any activity that humans are easily capable of, yet no one would ever do.

[Darat]

Devoted historical roleplayers.
Or perhaps it's part of a new Microsoft Virtual reality.... so bad you'd almost think it was real.. ;)

Slightly more serious but still using Microsoft - perhaps it's a simulation of Bill Gate's life - you get to be Bill Gates in this world, will you make the same choices as he did that led to his eventual godhood? Given the popularity of "alternative history" novels and stories I could see that being an explanation for a boring real-world simulator.

[Roboramma]

Okay, so you are saying:
1. Everything we see is explainable by nature as we know it. If there is something unexplainable then this would indicate flaws in reality, which would hence indicate the reality we find ourselves in might be fake.
Once again, no.
Not everything is easily explainable by nature. Everything that we see (as in all observable evidence) is either explainable by what we know or does not support the case that humans designed the world.

There are a lot of things that we know about the world. I don't see that any of them offer evidence that they were designed by people. There are a number of things that we don't know about the world, I don't see that there is any evidence that they will be better explained by the idea that they were designed by people.

Okay? Feel free to suggest that they are or would.

That is, just because we don't know how something works or why it is the way that it is, isn't evidence of (conversely isn't explained better by) human design.

Well...I'm glad you've mastered knowledge of all natural laws and easily come to terms with how light can be massless yet have momentum, how time distorts in intense gravity fields, and how magnetic and gravity fields affect things without touching them. That must be refreshing to have supreme knowledge.
On the other hand, if you don't know the answers to all mysteries of the universe, I guess you can't lay them claim that everything is explainable.
Please point out where I said everything is explainable. In fact, I'll do you one better:
Everything we see in this world is either well explained by natural processes, or certainly not better explained by the idea that someone would have wanted it that way. Bolding is not in the original message.
That does the exact opposite of suggesting that everything is explainable. I make allowance that there are things that we can't yet explain, but they don't support a human designer any better than they support the idea that this was all caused by natural processes.
Which is to say that those things that we don't know anything about don't offer an explanation of anything, or are they explained by anything.

More to the point, what if gravity IS an artificial construct created by the entities who've constructed this reality. The fact that YOU don't recognize it for what it is doesn't change its artificial nature. Are you even capable of conceiving an existence without gravity?
Maybe it is, but I have no reason to believe it.

Which is what my entire argument comes down to. If the world were created by human designers there would be something about it that offered evidence of that fact. It would not look identical to what we would expect to see if the world were not created by human designers.
Yet this world is what we (with limited knowledge admittedly) expect to see without any designer.

2. People might not create this reality, even though they could.

I don't think I need to prove that people would do it. I should think it would be self evident. Are you they kind of person to think that no one would ever kill themselves? That no one would ever commit a terrorist act? In a world of billions of people, the argument that "Maybe no one would do it" is as weak as a straw house.

Here's an idea, why don't you think of any activity that humans are easily capable of, yet no one would ever do.
Two points, one is that your argument doesn't rely on the assumption that one person would do this, but that thousands would. Two, of course people kill themselves, it's not a very strange fact.
But when you said in the original post:
"4. We would easily be able to have thousands of said virtual realities."
I take that to mean that humanity would easily be able to create thousands of said virtual realities. Not that individuals would.
With that in mind, here's something that we could easily do but no one would ever do - start a one thousand acre sheep farm in Antarctica.
Why not? No one has both the motivation and the power to do so. I'm sure you can think of others.

And as this relates to your example, I did say maybe it would be done. Just not thousands of times. A lot of resources would be required. While as a species we might have those resources to spare, I doubt individuals would.

[Francois Tremblay]

If we're talking about the practicality of it, any such complete virtual world would be illegal in a society which values individual life and individual rights. So we have to assume that societies of the future are so degenerate that they allow for the wanton creation and destruction of personhood. This is a very depressing worldview. Why would anyone want to think that ?

So the "virtual reality" model fails on the face of it.

Oh yea, and the whole unfalsifiable thing.

[Mangel]

If the world were created by human designers there would be something about it that offered evidence of that fact.

So what would be some examples of this evidence that we supposedly can't dispose of?

[Roboramma]

So what would be some examples of this evidence that we supposedly can't dispose of?
What do you mean that we can't dispose of? I said that there would be evidence, not that there is evidence. I didn't say that we there's evidence we can't dispose of. I said that there isn't evidence.

It's simple. If the world were created by humans we'd expect to see some evidence of that fact. The reason is that those people would likely have created the world with some goal in mind. Thus they would have created it with specific properties that help them to attain that goal. The goal could be pleasure, it could be something else. Also, they would likely not have created a world that had properties that in no way served their goal.
Since we do not see any evidence we can conclude (not with certainty, but in all likelihood) that it was not created by human designers.

That's all I'm saying.

Now if you're asking, what would that evidence look like if the world actually was created by people, well. There are millions of different options.
The existence of miracles. The earth being the only thing in existence, except for a sun that heats it by rotating around it.
Any other way in which the world were only as complex as it needs to be to make a good simulation for the purposes of human designers.
A few people who have life as good as we can possibly concieve it being. Not just as good as it could be based on our current technology and resaurces, but as good as it could theoretically be.

I'm not saying that any one of these specific peices of evidence is needed. I'm saying a peice of evidence is.

[HeyLeroy]

If we're talking about the practicality of it, any such complete virtual world would be illegal in a society which values individual life and individual rights. So we have to assume that societies of the future are so degenerate that they allow for the wanton creation and destruction of personhood. This is a very depressing worldview. Why would anyone want to think that ?


THX 1138 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/)

[Tricky]

Yes, Tricky, you'll note that I acknowledged that to reject the conclusion you just need to reject the assumptions. To reject them isn't all that hard and I wasn't all that interested in debating about what the future will be like.

That's kinda why I wrote some words in caps lock, to EMPHASISE that I WASN'T INTERESTED in defending the assumptions.
BUT, feel free to attack the conclusion without rejecting the assumptions...if you can.

(neutrino_cannon has already done a reasonable job)
So it seems to me that you are essentially asking that if virtual reality were indistinguishable from reality, would we be able to distinguish it from reality. And if were indistinguishable and there were numerous versions of virtual reality, but only one actual reality, would it be more likely that we would be in a virtual one?

What you have done is called "begging the question". You have set into your premises that the virtual reality is so good that you can't tell if from "real" reality (a premise which I have been instructed to accept). And another premise is that there will be numerous virtual realities and only one actual one.

Well duh!

You shouldn't have any problem wrestling this philosophical question to the mats. It is circular. The conclusion is identical to the assumptions. Throw it away. It's pointless.

Recall what you said:
This will allow us to construct virtual realities indistinguishable from the real universe, including simulations of past times, such as 2005.
If you are saying that the virtual realities are, by any means physical, philosophical or otherwise, distinguishable from actual reality, then you are yourself violating premise #2. If you cannot tell the difference, then the odds are exactly the same of selecting a virtual reality (among thousands) and the real one, so of course they are weighted heavily in favor of the more numerous kind.

If a cash register has a thousand counterfeit bills and only one real one, but there is no way to tell the real from the counterfeit, then what are the chances of you getting a counterfeit bill in change?

[Francois Tremblay]

THX 1138 does not allow for wanton destruction of personhood. Well, more or less. At least it's not a virtual world.

One of my favourite movies, by the way.

[Mangel]

Okay, so, you're arguing (Roboramma) that any virtual world would be constructed with a specific purpose in mind: Let's say to allow you to wantonly destroy civilisations as they crop up.
And hence, anything outside that purpose would likely be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency.
Fair enough.

But, I have provided an example of why someone would want to create this reality: historical accuracy.

The slogan: "Want to experience what life would be like back at the turn of the millennia? Do you know what a 'car' is? Learn history, learn life, learn your roots, play EARTH 2005, beta edition."

Now, you've suggested that people may/probably wouldn't want to construct this reality, which strikes me as strange considering the time and effort we go to constructing realities of our own past. (see Gladiator, Dinosaur Documentaries, Age of Empires, etc) I mean, there are people who spend their entire lives devoting themselves to learning about the past.

You seem to have this idea that all VR types will have a god desire, and so evidence of reality being fake would involve having a supreme deity leader of the planet, which I would have thought the inhabitants would have simply accepted as the status quo anyway. Let me direct your attention to world of warcraft, in which once players max out their levelling, they are essentially all equal. The fun isn't in being god, but simply in the struggle of being better than your fellow man through skill, item collecting, etc, which is the same struggle that we see happening around us in society today in getting an education, job, accruing resources, etc. I think some future types might get a kick out of that struggle, just as we do in games like world of warcraft(which I don't play).

[Mangel]

So it seems to me that you are essentially asking that if virtual reality were indistinguishable from reality, would we be able to distinguish it from reality. And if were indistinguishable and there were numerous versions of virtual reality, but only one actual reality, would it be more likely that we would be in a virtual one?

What you have done is called "begging the question". You have set into your premises that the virtual reality is so good that you can't tell if from "real" reality (a premise which I have been instructed to accept). And another premise is that there will be numerous virtual realities and only one actual one.

Well duh!

You shouldn't have any problem wrestling this philosophical question to the mats. It is circular. The conclusion is identical to the assumptions. Throw it away. It's pointless.

Recall what you said:

If you are saying that the virtual realities are, by any means physical, philosophical or otherwise, distinguishable from actual reality, then you are yourself violating premise #2. If you cannot tell the difference, then the odds are exactly the same of selecting a virtual reality (among thousands) and the real one, so of course they are weighted heavily in favor of the more numerous kind.

If a cash register has a thousand counterfeit bills and only one real one, but there is no way to tell the real from the counterfeit, then what are the chances of you getting a counterfeit bill in change?

I disagree with what you've said, in that I think it is an unfair summary of my challenge. I think the failure of the ID argument I presented, even if one accepts all of the assumptions, is that there can be no proof for it, and hence it falls over like all other invisible pink unicorn theories. So, I wasn't asking that you prove some that is unprovable, but merely to analyse that the assumptions have backed the theory into a logic corner from which there is no escape, and an elegant debunking is then possible using Occam's Razor.

[Tricky]

I disagree with what you've said, in that I think it is an unfair summary of my challenge. I think the failure of the ID argument I presented, even if one accepts all of the assumptions, is that there can be no proof for it, and hence it falls over like all other invisible pink unicorn theories.
Well make up your mind. Evidence is for assumptions. That is how you show that they are good assumptions. If you say "assume all crows are black", I can either accept that assumption or ask you for evidence. (Turns out there is a lot of evidence to make this a reasonably good assumption.)

But you specifically asked that I not attack the assumptions. So then it seems you are asking "given the assumptions, is it logical". I have showed that it is circular in that it asks you to accept that VRs are indistinguishable from actual reality, then asks if you can distinguish them. Then it asks a simple math question, If there are 1000 of X and 1 of Y, but X and Y are indistinguishable, what is the chance you have that a random choice will be X? The answer of course is 1000:1.

So, I wasn't asking that you prove some that is unprovable, but merely to analyse that the assumptions have backed the theory into a logic corner from which there is no escape, and an elegant debunking is then possible using Occam's Razor.
Sorry, that is not apparant at all. The assumptions are bad. The logic is bad. Nothing is backed into a corner. A circle has no corners.

But why don't you tell us your answer so we can try to understand where you're attempting to go with this? I really hope it's nothing so simple as "we can't tell whether reality is real or not, so occam's razor says that it is real." That would be a big disappointment.

[Mangel]

I have showed that it is circular in that it asks you to accept that VRs are indistinguishable from actual reality, then asks if you can distinguish them.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. At what point have I asked, "Please show that this reality is distinguishable from an indistinguishable set of universes." No, I have never asked that. My challenge was:

5. Hence, the chances that we are in a 'real' reality as opposed to just being artificial intelligences in a computer simulation, are thousands to one against.

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

So, to re-iterated, given the assumptions made (1,2,4) is 5. an acceptable conclusion? Is 5. a correct interpretation of the 'facts' of the case.

You seem to be taking the perspective that the assumptions make the conclusion inevitable aka 'Begging the question,' but I say this is false, as illustraited in previous postings.

As in, NO, the assumptions are not enough to make the final conclusion. neutrino_cannon and Francois Tremblay both agree.

[Batman Jr.]

If humans created an entire universe, then I'd say that ID is disproved because we would have created something of greater complexity than ourselves.

[Batman Jr.]

For fun, here's a wacky idea:

1. In the future, we develop time travel.

2. Scientists travel back in time and create life on Earth.

In essence, we were created by ourselves in a causation loop to which there is no end. :D

[Tricky]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. At what point have I asked, "Please show that this reality is distinguishable from an indistinguishable set of universes." No, I have never asked that. My challenge was:



So, to re-iterated, given the assumptions made (1,2,4) is 5. an acceptable conclusion? Is 5. a correct interpretation of the 'facts' of the case.

You seem to be taking the perspective that the assumptions make the conclusion inevitable aka 'Begging the question,' but I say this is false, as illustraited in previous postings.

As in, NO, the assumptions are not enough to make the final conclusion. neutrino_cannon and Francois Tremblay both agree.
I still disagree. In order to apply occam's razor to this question, you must be capable of knowing that there are alternate realities out there, otherwise you simply are living whatever "universe" you live in. If you try to apply occam's razor to you situation, it will tell you that your reality is the real one, since you have no awareness of any others (that would be adding layers of complexity).

If you do know that there are alternate realities out there, then assumption 2 is violated. You can distinguish them, otherwise, how could you possibly be aware of them. If all you are aware of is your own reality, then it would go against occam's razor to postulate others.

Simply knowing that there are good AR programs available is not enough to postulate that you might be part of one. To be truly indistingusible from reality, logically you must believe that the reality you are in is real. (Not that there aren't a few illogical folks hanging around here. ;) )

But again, assumption 2 is by itself, circular. How is it possible to have a VR that is indistinguishible from reality? It could only be true if that VR is just as complex as reality. If it is not as complex as reality, then it must be somehow distinguishable by it's lesser complexity.

Recall for example, the movie The Truman Show, where Truman was in a highly complex, enclosed VR constructed just for him. But it wasn't indistinguishable, as he discovered when he found the edge.

[Mangel]

But again, assumption 2 is by itself, circular. How is it possible to have a VR that is indistinguishible from reality? It could only be true if that VR is just as complex as reality. If it is not as complex as reality, then it must be somehow distinguishable by it's lesser complexity.

Recall for example, the movie The Truman Show, where Truman was in a highly complex, enclosed VR constructed just for him. But it wasn't indistinguishable, as he discovered when he found the edge.

Look, I get that the assumptions are big. Yes. They are big assumptions. But, keep in mind, the fact that 2. says 'indistinguishable' does not necessarily mean 'exactly the same,' merely that in our limited capactity we would not be able to distinguish a difference(let's not argue semantics).
But anyhow, despite my previous statements, you continue to attack the assumptions as if I care how realistic they are. Keep in mind that sometimes, in order to make your points be understood, you may have to give up ground. Say you were debating abortion with a pro-life person. They say 'Abortion is murder.' Now, if you assume that there is nothing you can possibly say to change that fundamental belief, in order to continue to debate the issue you can accept their claim for the time being and move on. 'Ok, Abortion is murder. But...'
You seem to have never gotten past that first issue of accepting some assumptions, even though you disagree with them, and moving beyond that. Which is sad...:(

I still disagree. In order to apply occam's razor to this question, you must be capable of knowing that there are alternate realities out there, otherwise you simply are living whatever "universe" you live in. If you try to apply occam's razor to you situation, it will tell you that your reality is the real one, since you have no awareness of any others (that would be adding layers of complexity).

Yes, that's about right. That about describes our situation.


If you do know that there are alternate realities out there, then assumption 2 is violated. You can distinguish them, otherwise, how could you possibly be aware of them.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps it is semantics again on the whole meaning of 'indistinguishable.' Is it so hard to imagine people creating a virtual world that is realistic enough that the user is incapable of knowing for sure if he is in the real world or the virtual one? Is that too difficult to concieve? Perhaps you are arguing that two identicle things cannot exist? How about electrons? Identicle twins? I can't distinguish between them...does that mean they can't exist?
I think you are saying that once two of something exists, then they are 'distinguishable' even if they are identicle, and hence awareness of two realities means they can't be the indistinguishable, which just seems like a bizarre abuse of the word choices I've selected rather than addressing the real issues.


If all you are aware of is your own reality, then it would go against occam's razor to postulate others.

Um...wrong. Dead wrong. For a while we were only aware of one planet, does that mean we weren't allowed to theorize the existence of others? No...no it didn't. Why? Because the presence of other planets was testable and falsifiable. We are allowed to postulate the existence of other realities, but that postulation doesn't go anywhere until, at some point, we establish grounds to test their existence.


Simply knowing that there are good AR programs available is not enough to postulate that you might be part of one.

Yes it does. We can postulate whatever we want.


To be truly indistingusible from reality, logically you must believe that the reality you are in is real. (Not that there aren't a few illogical folks hanging around here. ;) )

And I don't really understand what you are saying here.

[Tricky]

Look, I get that the assumptions are big. Yes. They are big assumptions. But, keep in mind, the fact that 2. says 'indistinguishable' does not necessarily mean 'exactly the same,' merely that in our limited capactity we would not be able to distinguish a difference(let's not argue semantics).
The problem is that in order to be even marginally indistinguishable from reality, you'd have to live in a VR from the day of your birth, otherwise you'd know when you entered it. So for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable would mean 'exactly the same'. Yes, I realize that you are proposing this outlandish scenario to make a philosophical point, but if the scenario is internally contradictory, then no point can be established.

But anyhow, despite my previous statements, you continue to attack the assumptions as if I care how realistic they are. Keep in mind that sometimes, in order to make your points be understood, you may have to give up ground.
Well, I gave up ground. I said that I accepted your premise that the realities were indistinguishable. Then I pointed out that such an assumption leads to circular logic, because now you tell me they are not 'exactly the same', which means that they are, at least potentially, distinguishable.

Say you were debating abortion with a pro-life person. They say 'Abortion is murder.' Now, if you assume that there is nothing you can possibly say to change that fundamental belief, in order to continue to debate the issue you can accept their claim for the time being and move on. 'Ok, Abortion is murder. But...'
Exactly what would you debate with a person that has made that fundamental(ist) assumption? You can talk about the meaning of murder or anything else you like, but assuming that person is never willing to change their definition of what is murder, then you are wasting your time. One of the purposes of logic is to show if the assumptions are valid or self-contradictory, wouldn't you say? To claim a that two situations are both different and indistinguishable is a violation of logic.

You seem to have never gotten past that first issue of accepting some assumptions, even though you disagree with them, and moving beyond that. Which is sad...:(
Of course the assumptions are silly, but after you chided me, I went to work on the logic problem, even given those silly assumptions. And it fails. You don't seem to understand that, which is sad...:(


I'm not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps it is semantics again on the whole meaning of 'indistinguishable.' Is it so hard to imagine people creating a virtual world that is realistic enough that the user is incapable of knowing for sure if he is in the real world or the virtual one? Is that too difficult to concieve?
As I say, you would have to have a virtual world where the person was in it from birth, or else he would rember entering it. And you would have to have, as you suggest, thousands of them. Either that, or you would have to have a virtual reality where the person forgot actual reality once they entered the virtual world. Any other situation, and the realities are easily distinguishable. Are you telling me you don't see the circularity in that assumption?

How about this then. There is a world where people give birth to themselves. Is that so hard to conceive? Or is it, perhaps, circular.

Perhaps you are arguing that two identicle things cannot exist? How about electrons? Identicle twins? I can't distinguish between them...does that mean they can't exist?
Two identical things can exist, but it would be impossible, by any means, to tell them apart. You use identical twins as an example. Good, let's go with that. Sure their DNA is identical (at least, at the moment the egg splits), but what about their experiences? Suppose one is on top of the other more often in the womb? How can you be sure they get the exact same amount of nutrition? What if the birth of one was easy but the other was difficult? Of course, once out of the womb, their experiences diverge greatly. A person is not just a product of his genetics, but also of his experience. So are identical twins really identical? I'll bet their mother can tell them apart. I'll bet a psychologist can too.

As far as electrons, I don't know. Maybe they are identical. But suppose you had a 'virtual' electron that was identical to a real electron in every feature. How could you ever say that there was a virtual electron? It is identical in every way.

I think you are saying that once two of something exists, then they are 'distinguishable' even if they are identicle, and hence awareness of two realities means they can't be the indistinguishable, which just seems like a bizarre abuse of the word choices I've selected rather than addressing the real issues.
You're very close. If two things are identical, then, by definition, they cannot be distinguished.

So let's just say there are virtual realities that are similar, but not identical to actual reality, but some simple people can't tell the difference. How then could these simple people ever suppose that their virtual reality was anything but real? They are too simple to pick up the clues. Their V-occam's razor would say that the virtual reality they lived in was real, because, being simple, they would dismiss any other realities, even if they were aware that they were possible. They would be ignorantly certain that their reality was actual.


Um...wrong. Dead wrong. For a while we were only aware of one planet, does that mean we weren't allowed to theorize the existence of others?
LOL. Are you saying that other planets are other realities? Get serious. In fact, my main point is that by learning about your reality, you find the clues to distinguishing between AR and VR. Would a virtual reality have planets to be discovered? No, it is the potential ability to distinguish between AR and VR that makes the scenario you describe internally contradictory. The fact that we didn't/don't/maynever uncover that distinction is moot. It is potentially distinguishable, or else, it is identical.

We are allowed to postulate the existence of other realities, but that postulation doesn't go anywhere until, at some point, we establish grounds to test their existence.
Oops. You just violated assumption 2 again. If you can establish grounds to test their existence, then they are not indistinguishable. But if you are lacking the means to test for this, then there is, by definition, no way to test whether your reality is real or virtual, so occam's razor would tell you that it was real, even if it was not.

Yes it does. We can postulate whatever we want.
LOL. Yes, you have me there. But that does not make it either true or logical. Frankly I'm glad, or there wouldn't be any sci-fi (which I love). But that does not mean that I accept your conclusion of the thought problem you have proposed. It is neither true nor logical. Good stuff for a novel. Have you considered becoming a writer?

And I don't really understand what you are saying here.

I hope I've clarified it with this post. If a person cannot distinguish reality from VR (or dreams or visions or whatever) then it is impossible to prove to them that their VR is not real, because they can't distinguish it.

But let me offer the olive branch. I don't want you to get angry at me. I am one of the only ones here trying to discuss your scenario with you. Yes I disagree with your conclusion (not the conclusion in the scenario, but yours) but it does not mean I don't respect the thought that you have put in into it. Call me a devil's advocate if you like, but I took you seriously and responded with serious objections.

Let's have a beer and discuss it as friends.

[Elind]

Now, to reject the final conclusion, you just need to reject any of the proceeding assumptions. BUT, if you don't reject any of the assumptions, can you STILL reject the final conclusion. I've been musing on it, and I believe you can. Anyone care to try?

Perhaps by asking a common question instead?

In 14 odd billion years (take off a few billion to get onto land and in the air) there has been plenty of time for one or more beings to fully occupy the galaxy, if not Andromeda as well, at sub light speed.

It hasn't happened. Why?

Murphy's law. **** happens.

[Elind]

Perhaps by asking a common question instead?

In 14 odd billion years (take off a few billion to get onto land and in the air) there has been plenty of time for one or more beings to fully occupy the galaxy, if not Andromeda as well, at sub light speed.

It hasn't happened. Why?

Murphy's law. **** happens.

Damn asterixs again. Does anyone here really object to occassional minor expletive as in ****? Could we get a little less PC and pretend we are adults here?

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

[Tricky]

Damn asterixs again. Does anyone here really object to occassional minor expletive as in **** Could we get a little less PC and pretend we are adults here?
No, we are not all adults here. The JREF has a specific mission of reaching schools as well as adults. There is a good reason for the censor-bots. Please don't try to override them. Be creative instead. Use scat, *****, excretions, dung, droppings, defecation, diarrhea, or even poop. Or else you will be in deep doo-doo.

[Mangel]

Argh, the damn olive branch! Very well. :D

Don't mind me, Tricky, I just love debating. This has been great fun. I'll have to think of another scenario that people are going to have a go at me for. Then...zealously defend it to the end!!!

As for YOU Elind...well I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Are you talking about some amorphous mass that consumes everything it touches??? I think black holes are in the process of doing much of what you describe...

[Tricky]

Argh, the damn olive branch! Very well. :D

Don't mind me, Tricky, I just love debating. This has been great fun. I'll have to think of another scenario that people are going to have a go at me for. Then...zealously defend it to the end!!!

I don't mind you at all, Mangel. In fact, I like you a lot. You defend your models, but not to extremes, and you modify them as necessary based on input. All the hallmarks of an intelligent being.

I'm looking foward to your next scenario. I'll try to be there with scalpel in hand.

Please stick around. It's fun here for playful people.

And if I got mean during our exchange, I apologize. I've been dealing with Iacchus. It changes a man.

[Roboramma]

In 14 odd billion years (take off a few billion to get onto land and in the air) there has been plenty of time for one or more beings to fully occupy the galaxy, if not Andromeda as well, at sub light speed.

It hasn't happened. Why?
I've always liked this question (at least since I first heard it proposed).

There are a few reasons I can see...

1. Inter-stellar travel is prohibitably expensive, the resources of a single star just aren't enough to get you to a new one while keeping your current civilization alive.
I don't really buy that argument.

2. We are the first technological civilization in this galaxy.
Given that our knowledge of life elsewhere is so limited, this can't be said to be unreasonable. Also, if the first technological civilization is likely to make use of the entire galaxy's resources before another one arises (thus making it impossible that another one would), the fact that we exist would mean that we are necessarily the first. But we can't assume that the first technological civilization would do so.

3. a) Those civilizations that are capable of interstellar travel don't bother with it.
Personally I don't really credit this, but so it goes.
3. b) Those that do partake in interstellar travel do so to a limited degree and don't tend to colonize other stars (even with automated self reproducing factories).

4. Technological civilizations tend to destroy themselves before colonizing the galaxy. This could mean before leaving their home star (which I find far more likely) or even after - though I'm not sure how that would happen.

As yet, I can't see that we can distinguish between the above (and other) explanations. But the point certainly seems to have implications.

Yes, I enjoy it. Isn't this known as the Fermi Paradox?

[Mangel]

Elegantly put, Roboramma.

I think you are missing a further explanation:

5. Inter-stella travel by a civilisation might not be feasible, no matter how advanced a civilisation's technology. (i.e. a technological reason, rather than a resources reason.)

That whole not being able to travel faster than the speed of light thing I don't see us getting around any time soon.

[Elind]

No, we are not all adults here. The JREF has a specific mission of reaching schools as well as adults. There is a good reason for the censor-bots. Please don't try to override them. Be creative instead. Use scat, *****, excretions, dung, droppings, defecation, diarrhea, or even poop. Or else you will be in deep doo-doo.

Schools, here?? I will be more careful in that case (and it explains some posters).

DooDoo it is.

[CaptainManacles]

I kinda skimmed the thread, so I appoligize if this point has already been made, but for the computer science perspective on this, the primary assumptions of that arguement are provably false. We can't ever design a system in the universe capable of simulating the entire universe. The shorthand proof is that in order to simulate perfectly every particle in the universe, you'd need to use every particle in the universe.

[Elind]

I kinda skimmed the thread, so I appoligize if this point has already been made, but for the computer science perspective on this, the primary assumptions of that arguement are provably false. We can't ever design a system in the universe capable of simulating the entire universe. The shorthand proof is that in order to simulate perfectly every particle in the universe, you'd need to use every particle in the universe.

And QM says that won't work either.

[Elind]

I've always liked this question (at least since I first heard it proposed).

There are a few reasons I can see...
[quote=Roboramma;1268402]
1. Inter-stellar travel is prohibitably expensive, the resources of a single star just aren't enough to get you to a new one while keeping your current civilization alive.
I don't really buy that argument.

Agreed. It's only expensive today. The resources and power obviously exist.

2. We are the first technological civilization in this galaxy.
Given that our knowledge of life elsewhere is so limited, this can't be said to be unreasonable. Also, if the first technological civilization is likely to make use of the entire galaxy's resources before another one arises (thus making it impossible that another one would), the fact that we exist would mean that we are necessarily the first. But we can't assume that the first technological civilization would do so.

Not reasonable by simple arithmetic. It has been less than average human lifetime that we have understood even that we live in a galaxy among billions and billion (Sagan). Either the Creationists are right or that is wrong.


3. a) Those civilizations that are capable of interstellar travel don't bother with it.
Personally I don't really credit this, but so it goes.

Possibly the most reasonable. We are creatures of emotion. Take that away, as we sometimes strive to do, and the desires to explore might also go away, along with us.

3. b) Those that do partake in interstellar travel do so to a limited degree and don't tend to colonize other stars (even with automated self reproducing factories).

No; that implies that what they start has to fade out. See 3 a)


4. Technological civilizations tend to destroy themselves before colonizing the galaxy. This could mean before leaving their home star (which I find far more likely) or even after - though I'm not sure how that would happen.

No; that implies they all act the same after leaving home. Might as well suggest they never leave for that reason, or that they leave but eventually achieve 3 a). The other thought in that line is that the universe is even more hostile than we already know, and will wipe out such fragile creatures given enough time; and the universe has time.

As yet, I can't see that we can distinguish between the above (and other) explanations. But the point certainly seems to have implications.

Yes, I enjoy it. Isn't this known as the Fermi Paradox?

Yes.