The OpenAI conspiracy argument for a possible simulation

[excreationist]

Why do you suspect there's "proof" of a simulation?

I should have asked for "evidence". Anyway I don't think there is any overwhelming evidence and that's intended.

.....And furthermore, if the Universe is a simulation, I would expect the programmers of the simulation themselves to have tried to hide proof as much as they possibly could,

I think there are clues. I think it is ok for some people to see that there could be an intelligence behind things even though it can seem like there isn't.

but regardless, this makes it an unfalsifiable hypothesis and pretty useless.

But I find it comforting occasionally.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

but regardless, this makes it an unfalsifiable hypothesis and pretty useless.

But I find it comforting occasionally.

I'm the opposite. I find it comforting that there isn't an intelligence behind all of this, it would be creepy and weird if there was to say the least, to me. And I've been through enough to find many comforting notions I had to be shattered, and not to mention due to many health reasons, my early life was defined by discomfort, so I have no problem with discarding comforting notions, if there's enough evidence to discard them. Haven't found a reason to believe there's any intelligence behind this Universe.

 

[excreationist]

But I find it comforting occasionally.

I'm the opposite. I find it comforting that there isn't an intelligence behind all of this, it would be creepy and weird if there was to say the least, to me. And I've been through enough to find many comforting notions I had to be shattered, and not to mention due to many health reasons, my early life was defined by discomfort, so I have no problem with discarding comforting notions, if there's enough evidence to discard them. Haven't found a reason to believe there's any intelligence behind this Universe.

This talks more about my thoughts:
https://iidb.org/threads/mark-mansons-life-is-a-video-game-analogy-and-the-cheats.28381

Anyway personally I'd been suicidal and had attempted suicide as an atheist. If things seem bleak and I was pretty sure of that then non-existence seems preferable. Note my job prospects are extremely bad since I had ECT shock treatment (severe memory issues). Lately I've also had carpal tunnel which is a problem for manual work. I've been married for 12 years though and usually my depression was related to not having a girlfriend/wife.

As far as what I find comforting - partly it is about this possibility:

NDEs & the Afterlife - Life's Player

Near Death Experiences (NDEs), waking up, and hell

lifesplayer.com

It talks about "waking up" after a Roy game scenario or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment.

Why is there Suffering? - Life's Player

About suffering in a simulation

lifesplayer.com

That is related to "me" basically consenting to the suffering.

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

And after you’ve done that for some time you’d think up a new wrinkle. To forget that you were dreaming so that you would think it was all for real. And to be anxious about it. Because it’d be so great when you wake up. And then you say well like children who dare each other on things, how far out could you get? Or could you take what dimension of being lost, of abandonment, of your power, what dimension of that could you stand you could ask yourself this because you know you would eventually wake up

Note when I was most suicidal I was somewhat comfortable financially I was mainly upset about my love life. Note that the first time I ever held a hand or went for a coffee, etc, was at the age of 29.

A significant reason I don't kill myself is that I suspect that if it's a simulation it might be fair and just and there might be a punishment for suicide especially if the reasons seemed somewhat trivial (or get less of a reward/high score). Then later there seemed like there is hope again though it is still somewhat bleak. (I haven't found any extra income methods)

This discussion should be on that Mark Manson thread.

 

[Swammerdami]

I guess I still don’t get it. How do you build something from pure mathematics with no necessary reality except as pure mathematics? It does not compute.

Do you imagine that a mathematical universe doesn't "exist" until something (a Creator God?) breathes existence into it? No, I say that all mathematical universes automatically exist; I say that the word "exist" is misleading!

Imagine a "paper design" of a VERY complex system. Some technician in our universe is able to simulate that system in enough detail to observe creatures in the system saying "I think therefore I am." Do those creatures think? Why is their existence less real than our own?

Do you say their existence depended on the technician simulating their system in sufficient detail? I say mathematical existence is sufficient unto itself: The Pythagorean Theorem existed before any human contemplated or proved it.

Something reminded me of this thread. It appears that the questions in the middle paragraph were never answered. May I ask them again? I hope your answers will help clarify the differences between your views and mine.

Those who believe we might be in a simulation:
* Supposing there is a world in which creatures exist who have simulated our universe, might that world itself be just a simulation in an even more complex world?
* Supposing our world is a simulation that exists because it is "instantiated" (e.g as a set of bit transitions during the execution of a very big computer program), would a world simulated by creatures in OUR universe also exist?
* Is consciousness necessary for existence? In the previous question would existence require that some of the simulated creatures be "conscious"? Is there a hard distinction between conscious and not conscious?
* If a simulated creature is "smart" enough to say "Cogito ergo sum" would you consider it really conscious? Without such creatures, does the simulation fail to achieve "physicality"?

The replies to my previous posts object to my notion (also Tegmark's notion?) that an abstract universe can also be automatically a "physical" universe. Doesn't a "simulated universe" (just bits in a computer?) also fail to achieve "physicality"?