this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
111 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
44612 readers
823 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm agnostic. If you find the statistical probability argument for the existence of aliens salient, then by the same token you should believe that our reality is a simulation. In which case, the existence of aliens once again becomes questionable; the statistical probabilities of an infinite simulated universe are outside the realm of our current knowledge.
edit: See comment below on Nick Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis.
I don't follow how possible aliens = simulation. And what's the basis for what we experience being defined as simulation or not? Are we in a computer, or everything is a hallucination?
Sorry, I suppose people haven't heard of the "Simulation hypothesis" in philosophy.
Nick Bostrom argued that, statistically, it is more likely that we live in a simulation than not. Assume that an advanced civilization could build a machine with enormous computing power, sufficient to simulate a human mind and a universe "around" it. It follows that the number of such simulated minds/universes could be near infinite. So the probability of our actually being in a simulated universe dwarfs the probability that our reality is not a simulation.
OK I think I follow now. If one believes the possibility of aliens based on probability, then they should also consider the possibility that the universe is a simulation?
Yes, this is the idea. Although, as another noted, you can argue back and forth on whether Bostrom's argument holds.
I think that presumes simulating a universe and/or consciousness is even possible. We have no clue either way if it can be done, but we have evidence life exists, at least on Earth, so it is possible for life to exist somewhere else too. I believe aliens are more likely than us living in a simulation
Bostrom's theory relies on life being real too. If I could rephrase it, his theory is:
1 if humans can simulate a human mind in the future, they will 2 they will probably simulate their ancestors (us) 3 they will probably do it trillions and trillions of times 4 this means that out of trillions of consciousnesses, some are real humans and some are simulations 5 we are either one of the few billion actual living minds or one of the trillions of simulated minds and math says it's the latter because trillions is more. (He never says trillions, just unspecific words like "countless")
I think Bostrom is genius but I've never found this argument very interesting.
I botched that post, especially the first sentence. I meant to say that it relies on human life being real at some point, either in the present or in the past, and doesn't really rule out alien life at that point
Well I suppose it depends on your views of consciousness. Some would argue that our consciousness is nothing more than an emergent phenomenon grounded on the electrical impulses of our neurons. Personally, I'm convinced that the phenomenon need not be physical. It should be possible, with enough computing power, to model the same interactions. But I admit that if you reject this possibility, then the simulation hypothesis loses credence.