The simulation argument is a thesis set out in a 2003 paper by Nick Bostrom, a transhumanist philosopher, in which he argues that the simulated reality scenario is correct, and that the world that we see around us is very likely a computer simulation. LessWrong also discusses this argument a lot. Simply playing the odds generated by this from this idea concludes that we may well be simulated by a future version of ourselves. A single, highly advanced civilization would run many simulations of its history in order to study it as a result the number of individuals in that civilization who are simulated would outnumber the real individuals many thousands of times. This also has important repercussions for why we would be living in a computer simulation made by a higher intelligence. As a sufficiently powerful and accurate simulation is indistinguishable from reality, a simulation allows time travel to be effectively obtained. Rather than sending someone to the past, this hypothesis states that it is more practical to bring the past to us, via a simulation. #SIMULATION ARGUMENT HOW TO#The idea is also sort of related to time travel and how to achieve such a thing in the real, practical world. In some fiction, such as The Matrix, it is possible to "hack" the computer programme and hence manipulate the simulated reality, effectively giving those who do so the equivalent of supernatural powers. In others, we are actually no more than a brain in a vat being fed stimuli, or even have no corporeal existence at all. In some variants, humans have a similar nature outside the simulation, but are being controlled through the use of simulated reality. The simulated reality hypothesis raises further questions of who created the "false reality" and why, as well as questions about our existence in the "true reality" outside the simulation. The simulated reality hypothesis applies existing or hypothetical technology as possible explanations for the illusion. The concept of simulated reality rests on older concepts such as solipsism, and the conundrum that we can never truly know whether the evidence of our senses and memories are merely illusions. 4.5 Problems with the specific assumptions.3.3 Getting around computational limits. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |