Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[excreationist]

No, I am asking why they would make YOU conscious and no one else. What is so special about YOU?

I think I am the player (in a game like the Roy game or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment).

And why would you think this?

The first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future but you would say that is impossible.

 

[pood]

I am asking why you think we live in a simulation and only you are conscious

.

 

[excreationist]

I am asking why you think we live in a simulation and only you are conscious.

So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future. There is a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation. I think it is likely that the simulations would be like the Roy game, etc, scenario where there is a player and p zombie NPCs. If there is only one player then they can accelerate time more easily like in the Roy game.
Alan Watts talks about 75 years within 8 hours.

NDEs & the Afterlife - Life's Player

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

lifesplayer.com

For an ordinary person to have a simulated experience it would need to keep costs as low as possible which explains why only the player would be conscious.

 

[Swammerdami]

So there is a 50/50 chance we are in a simulation and you are the only conscious person in it?

That is roughly what I currently think.

The visuals and sounds of believable people are not real people.

That is what I'm saying.

I've wondered if excreationsist's model were correct myself, but never for more than a few seconds at a time, and I don't recall any such wonderings as recently as the 21st century.

Although coming from an opposite direction, excreationist's model reminds me of the  Boltzmann brain model which is usually presented only as a reductio ad absurdum.

I've also abandoned my belief in Quantum Immortality although I still want to understand how Cramer's transactional model accounts for the double-slit experiment.

I'm afraid my present view of ontology is that

IF you reject Tegmark's appealing  Mathematical universe hypothesis​

THEN all you're left with (paraphrasing adherents of the infinite-stack-of-turtles model) is​

It's mysteries all the way down.​

 

[bilby]

It's mysteries all the way down.

I am underconvinced that "We don't know. Yet." is an unreasonable or untenable position.

"Let's work the problem, people. Let's not make things worse by guessing" - Gene Krantz, NASA Flight Director.

 

[excreationist]

Although coming from an opposite direction, excreationist's model reminds me of the  Boltzmann brain model which is usually presented only as a reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe that would involve the odds of 1 in a googolplex with similar odds for it to give meaningful results for more than a second.

I've also abandoned my belief in Quantum Immortality although I still want to understand how Cramer's transactional model accounts for the double-slit experiment.

I don’t think it could involve true immortality if the universe has a limited lifespan or limited amount of useful energy. (Limited) Immortality through a simulation is better because it could involve you having wishes (like Alan Watts talks about) What if quantum immortality caused you to be stuck forever in a boring reality?

I'm afraid my present view of ontology is that

IF you reject Tegmark's appealing  Mathematical universe hypothesis​

THEN all you're left with (paraphrasing adherents of the infinite-stack-of-turtles model) is​

It's mysteries all the way down.​

I think base reality is only a few levels up because each simulator would be more complex and there would be a limited lifespan or limited resources. And if time is discrete there is a limit to how much can be computed and simulated even if the universe had an infinite size (the speed of computation could be limited to something like the speed of light)

 

[pood]

Although coming from an opposite direction, excreationist's model reminds me of the  Boltzmann brain model which is usually presented only as a reductio ad absurdum.

Maybe that would involve the odds of 1 in a googolplex with similar odds for it to give meaningful results for more than a second.

I've also abandoned my belief in Quantum Immortality although I still want to understand how Cramer's transactional model accounts for the double-slit experiment.

I don’t think it could involve true immortality if the universe has a limited lifespan or limited amount of useful energy. (Limited) Immortality through a simulation is better because it could involve you having wishes (like Alan Watts talks about) What if quantum immortality caused you to be stuck forever in a boring reality?

I'm afraid my present view of ontology is that

IF you reject Tegmark's appealing  Mathematical universe hypothesis​

THEN all you're left with (paraphrasing adherents of the infinite-stack-of-turtles model) is​

It's mysteries all the way down.​

I think base reality is only a few levels up because each simulator would be more complex and there would be a limited lifespan or limited resources. And if time is discrete there is a limit to how much can be computed and simulated even if the universe had an infinite size (the speed of computation could be limited to something like the speed of light)

Could you please explain not just why you think reality is a simulation, but why you, and you alone, are conscious in it? Can you provide evidence for this claim?

 

[steve_bank]

911 How may I direct your call?

We need help, the thread has been hijacked by extremists and we are heading out to sea.

 

[excreationist]

Could you please explain not just why you think reality is a simulation,

So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future even though you think that is 100.000000000% impossible.
There would be a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation. Also my personal experiences make more sense in a simulation though they could be intended to seem like a coincidence. Note that also includes the new "6-7" word of the year and South Park episode.

but why you, and you alone, are conscious in it?

I think there could be billions of simulations that are similar to the Roy game or Alan Watts dream thought experiment scenarios. In both of those scenarios there is a single player and the other characters aren't conscious to save resources and minimise suffering. It's like how other characters in a dream are just simulated.

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

I can't even manage to convince you that there is even a 0.00000000000000000000001% chance that simulations are possible.

 

[pood]

Could you please explain not just why you think reality is a simulation,

So the first part is that I think there could be billions of simulations in the future even though you think that is 100.000000000% impossible.
There would be a smaller number of realities that aren't simulated. So therefore it would be more likely that I exist in a simulation. Also my personal experiences make more sense in a simulation though they could be intended to seem like a coincidence. Note that also includes the new "6-7" word of the year and South Park episode.

but why you, and you alone, are conscious in it?

I think there could be billions of simulations that are similar to the Roy game or Alan Watts dream thought experiment scenarios. In both of those scenarios there is a single player and the other characters aren't conscious to save resources and minimise suffering. It's like how other characters in a dream are just simulated.

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

I can't even manage to convince you that there is even a 0.00000000000000000000001% chance that simulations are possible.

You still fail to meet the point.

You concede that entities in video games are not conscious,

Yet somehow you think we live in some kind of video game but you are the only only one conscious in it. The rest of us are simply p zombies to save money.

What makes you so special? Evidence?

 

[pood]

You see, the most parsimonious idea is this:

Entities in video games are not conscious.

I am conscisous.

Therefore, I do not live in a video game.

And, even though I can’t prove it, the most parsimonious idea is that all the other people in this non-video world are conscious, too, because why wouldn’t they be?

 

[steve_bank]

Are you conscious or do you think you are conscious?

Are some peoplel more conscious than others?

 

[excreationist]

You still fail to meet the point.

You concede that entities in video games are not conscious,

Yet somehow you think we live in some kind of video game but you are the only only one conscious in it. The rest of us are simply p zombies to save money.

What makes you so special? Evidence?

You see, the most parsimonious idea is this:

Entities in video games are not conscious.

I am conscisous.

Therefore, I do not live in a video game.

And, even though I can’t prove it, the most parsimonious idea is that all the other people in this non-video world are conscious, too, because why wouldn’t they be?

Remember the word I used a lot - "player".

They are interacting with the video game.

Entities that exist solely in the video game aren't conscious. The player is conscious and has an existence outside of the game.

Having a video game run that is never observed or interacted with by an external conscious being doesn't make any sense.

The player can have a presence that is reflected in the game - e.g. they have a position, rotation, and could see their body, etc, within the game world.

In the Roy game Morty's body and brain exists outside of the game in the game arcade. So it is special.

 

[pood]

Huh? So you are Monty’s body and brain existing outside the game in the arcade? Why you?

Why not me, or anyone else?

What gives you the gift of techno-solipsism?

You mentioned you are seeing someone or some people for help with your delusions. I hope they do help.

 

[pood]

Reality is reality and not a video game,

All of us are conscious and sentient, including nonhuman animals.

The simulation argument is bullshit.

Nick Bostrom happens to be an asshole anyway, though that doesn’t make him wrong. He is wrong because he is wrong, not because he is an asshole, which he is.

 

[pood]

"Blacks are more stupid than whites.”

— Nick Bostrom

 

[steve_bank]

I doubt all people are conscious of what they do and why. And that there are degrees ofn consciousness.

When you choose to buy one thing over another are you fully conscious of all the variables and influences that affect the decision?

 

[excreationist]

Huh? So you are Monty’s body and brain existing outside the game in the arcade? Why you?

I'm saying that Morty's body and brain are reliving my life within the video game (so it is the Luke game rather than the Roy game). I think I have an interesting life to relive but that would take a while to explain. I used to fantasize about reliving my earlier life quite a lot.

Why not me, or anyone else?

Well it could involve a random character as well.

What gives you the gift of techno-solipsism?

It's just whoever is the player-controlled character.

You mentioned you are seeing someone or some people for help with your delusions. I hope they do help.

I don't see the "delusion" as being any worse that a YEC, etc. Note that as an atheist I was suicidal sometimes.

Reality is reality and not a video game,

All of us are conscious and sentient, including nonhuman animals.

The simulation argument is bullshit.

Yes you seem to believe that there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance we are in a simulation. A very black and white kind of thinking. If you are an agnostic does that mean you think there could be a chance that God exists?

 

[pood]

I doubt all people are conscious of what they do and why. And that there are degrees ofn consciousness.

When you choose to buy one thing over another are you fully conscious of all the variables and influences that affect the decision?

Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist.

 

[excreationist]

Right, but the argument on offer here is that everyone except excreationist is a p zombie, which is an entity that has no qualia, no internal life at all — except for his truly, excreationist.

Do you think it is possible that there could one day be a VR video game where the graphics look almost photorealistic and you can use your voice to talk to the characters and they reply realistically? And the AI would be handled by a computer rather than real people controlling the talking of the NPCs.