The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, We’re Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is about… | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Don’t Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Φsicist μsings | Medium](https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, We’re Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is about… | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
It's just one of many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, We’re Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is about… | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Don’t Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Φsicist μsings | Medium(https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
The "simulation hypothesis" (NOT theory, because it cannot be falsified and is not formalized in any way) was, as the narrator says, put forward by Nick Bostrum, who appears to have been influenced by far right ideology. Again, why not? The far right thinks that a small handful of people should run the world and everyone else can get fucked--just like NPCs. Bostrum's "ideas" mesh tightly with so-called "longtermism", which some have cited as an extremely dangerous set of ideas.
Unfortunately this very much like so many well-funded, well-hyped, self-serving, and ultimately very awful ideas that Silicon Valley and their supporters love. If you'd like an antidote, simply google "we are NOT living in a simulation":
- No, We’re Not Living in a Simulation | by Richard Johns | Predict | Medium
- We Do Not Live in a Simulation. A terrific new documentary is about… | by Will Leitch | Medium
- Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation | Daily Mail Online
- [Why We Don’t Live in a Simulation | by Tim Lou, PhD | Φsicist μsings | Medium](https://medium.com/physicist-musings/why-we-dont-live-in-a-simulation-a-physicist-s-perspectiv
- Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation | NOVA | PBS
This is what I find on a cursory search. But, if you'll permit me to fall back on my PhD training, I can say that a lot of these simulation arguments are prima facie horseshit because they make a couple sneaky, quick-and-dirty assumptions (like "functionalism") that have been debunked over and over and over again in the history of AI research. I'm happy to go into that more, but it'll take a long time to sepll out. Suffice it to say that this video is 💩
- Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation | NOVA | PBS
This is what I find on a cursory search. But, if you'll permit me to fall back on my PhD training, I can say that a lot of these simulation arguments are prima facie horseshit because they make a couple sneaky, quick-and-dirty assumptions (like "functionalism") that have been debunked over and over and over again in the history of AI research. I'm happy to go into that more, but it'll take a long time to sepll out. I'd also be happy to deconstruct all the fallacies in the video, but again that'll take a long time. Suffice it to say that this video is 💩
- Don’t Fall for the Longtermism Sales Pitch
- The Dangerous Ideology of the Tech Elit
Here's a more academic-y paper arguing that machines like computers can never be conscious the way human beings can (and therefore, by extension, we cannot be living in a simulation that runs on a computer).
The paper above only cites a handful of sources, which I think is one of its shortcomings, but its core argument has been made in a variety of ways for quite some time. I'd call out the philosopher Mark Bickhard, who's argued quite forcefully (in my opinion) that the materialist way of thinking cannot account for basic human cognitive phenomena like intention, desire, beliefs, qualia, and the like. Any computer simulation that simulates how matter behaves in Newtonian or even relativistic physics therefore cannot either. There might be something to find in quantum field theory (according to Bickhard) but it is unclear whether that can be *simulated* adequately within any kind of computer, so the question is wide open (in my own opinion).
Here are two podcast interviews with Émile Torres that are highly critical of the longtermist way of thinking that is essentially implied by the "simulation hypothesis":
- Don’t Fall for the Longtermism Sales Pitch
- The Dangerous Ideology of the Tech Elite
Here's a more academic-y paper arguing that machines like computers can never be conscious the way human beings can (and therefore, by extension, we cannot be living in a simulation that runs on a computer).
The paper above only cites a handful of sources, which I think is one of its shortcomings, but its core argument has been made in a variety of ways for quite some time. I'd call out the philosopher Mark Bickhard, who's argued quite forcefully (in my opinion) that the materialist way of thinking cannot account for basic human cognitive phenomena like intention, desire, beliefs, qualia, and the like. Any computer simulation that simulates how matter behaves in Newtonian or even relativistic physics therefore cannot either. There might be something to find in quantum field theory (according to Bickhard) but it is unclear whether that can be *simulated* adequately within any kind of computer, so the question is wide open (in my own opinion).