If we are indeed not the center of the universe, then a very large universe that has been created for a purpose (3) will look pretty much indistinguishable from a universe that has not been intentionally created (2), but we might come of with different probability estimates if we try to model ways in which child universes are randomly spawned rather than deliberately created. Thus, if the universe is a simulation, then we are most likely an unintended byproduct. For this reason, I also do not think that (4) is plausible: creating a universe spanning billions of years and octillions of cubic parsecs and a googol particles just to observe the destinies of a bunch of hairless monkeys over a few millennia seems to be crazy uneconomical. If we can observe all these details, then they are most likely crucial parts of our universe. The same argument applies to the micro-level (and there is much more happening between here and the Planck length than between here and the boundary of the visible universe). It is possible that substantial fractions of our observable universe are just “smoke and mirrors”, but it is not plausible that someone would somehow paint the sky with objects convincing enough to fool our telescopes, because being born here, we had no reason to expect to find distant galaxies, and hence no such deception would have been necessary. seems to be much better at predicting our observations than the theory that you are just a single solipsistic mind watching a random movie. The model that there are indeed other people like you, and that these people are social primates, and that they originated in an evolution, and that this evolution took place on a planetary surface and feeds off the entropy gradient delivered by the energy of nuclear fusion in the sun radiating out into interstellar space etc. I think that Ray Solomonoff had a good idea when he defined the limit of the quality of such a world model, as the shortest function that can best predict the present from the past, for all observed presents and pasts. but there are more or less useful encodings of the observable patterns, i.e. Let us start from the end: of course there is no way in which you can ever make totally sure that you are not a brain in a vat, a Boltzmann brain etc.
The universe exists for our benefit, i.e.Our universe has been deliberately created by some mind in the parent universe.some other universe contains some kind of computer that runs our universe.
Our universe supervenes on a different (computational) universe, i.e.The universe and everything in it (including our minds) is computational, i.e.Is he correct? (Elon Musk on the Simulation Argument)įirst of all, we have to explain what degree of a simulation we are talking about: He even puts the probability at a billion to one. Do we live in a simulation or in the base reality?Įlon Musk recently suggested that we likely do not live in a base reality, but in a simulation.
0 kommentar(er)
