Where do you go to increase your knowledge?

food coupons & a pension card.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 14, 2014, 03:34:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 14, 2014, 03:28:04 PM

Quote from: burt on March 14, 2014, 03:16:08 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 14, 2014, 03:14:19 PM

Quote from: burt on March 14, 2014, 03:08:41 PM

So VR originates in VR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Simulation requires an original, what is that original? VR?

We could be in an alien video game, or we could be a simulation within a simulation. It's not that far-fetched to assume that with enough power a simulated society could create a program that simulates life itself.

Wrap your mind around the fact that from a statistical point-of-view, that is, that if we just play the numbers game here... then it is more likely that life is a simulation of life.

If we can at least presume that it is inevitable for an intelligent species to desire to make a life simulation and that that species would eventually succeed at it, then we can assume that within the "original" or "root" life, there was a simulation that came of that and that within that simulation, another, and another, and another.

Then statistically speaking our experience is more likely a simulation.

Could you give an example of what instance of evidence would falsify the hypothesis that we live in a simulation

Consider the idea a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting that this is my view on reality and I'm also not suggesting that it isn't. The problem with it is that it can't be falsified to any agreeable extent as long as we assume that the simulation is sufficiently indistinguishable from reality. Furthermore, how could one distinguish it from "some reality" if that simulated experience has nothing to compare itself to for the observer?

The only logic I'm using is probability. The idea that not all infinities are equal. Take, for example, our number system. There are an infinite number of whole numbers that can be imagined. Similarly, there are an infinite number of odd numbers that can be imagined. However, wouldn't you agree that there are "more" infinite whole numbers than there are infinite odd numbers? I can imagine that the same goes for simulated realities vs. actual realities. Because each actual reality can possibly give birth to an infinite number of simulations where as simulated realities cannot give birth to actual realities, no matter how many actual realities there are.

The only logic I'm using is probability. The idea that not all infinities are equal. Take, for example, our number system. There are an infinite number of whole numbers that can be imagined. Similarly, there are an infinite number of odd numbers that can be imagined. However, wouldn't you agree that there are "more" infinite whole numbers than there are infinite odd numbers?

I appreciate that you enclosed the word more in quotation marks indicating a metaphorical rather than a literal use of the word, but the answer to your question is no. There are exactly the same number of odd integers as integers.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 06:14:36 AM

The only logic I'm using is probability. The idea that not all infinities are equal. Take, for example, our number system. There are an infinite number of whole numbers that can be imagined. Similarly, there are an infinite number of odd numbers that can be imagined. However, wouldn't you agree that there are "more" infinite whole numbers than there are infinite odd numbers?

I appreciate that you enclosed the word more in quotation marks indicating a metaphorical rather than a literal use of the word, but the answer to your question is no. There are exactly the same number of odd integers as integers.

I disagree.

The odd numbers can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Therefore the set of odd numbers has the same size or cardinality as the natural numbers. The same goes for the even numbers, the rational numbers, the perfect squares etc.

The odd numbers can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Therefore the set of odd numbers has the same size or cardinality as the natural numbers. The same goes for the even numbers, the rational numbers, the perfect squares etc.

In that sense, yes. They do have one-to-one correspondence. I agree with that!

However, in some sense there are "more" (and I'll use quotations again) odd numbers than whole numbers when we deal with the finite aspect of time. Time is infinite, but only so much of it has passed until we reach the present. During that amount of time, a larger number of whole seconds have passed than odd seconds even though we suspect that time will continue on, infinitely.

I understand your distinction but what I'm saying is not difficult to fathom.

What is an odd second?

What is an odd second?

During one minute there are 30 odd seconds and 60 whole seconds. You understand don't you?

Quote from: mathsman on March 15, 2014, 06:49:29 AM

What is an odd second?

During one minute there are 30 odd seconds and 60 whole seconds. You understand don't you?

I think you made a mistake on that one.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 06:52:20 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 15, 2014, 06:49:29 AM

What is an odd second?

During one minute there are 30 odd seconds and 60 whole seconds. You understand don't you?

I think you made a mistake on that one.

Maybe, how so?

What is an odd second?

A dead heat in a race lol

Quote from: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:53:24 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 06:52:20 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 15, 2014, 06:49:29 AM

What is an odd second?

During one minute there are 30 odd seconds and 60 whole seconds. You understand don't you?

I think you made a mistake on that one.

Maybe, how so?

Well, don't you mean something like 30 odd seconds and 30 even seconds? What you said is incoherent, because the concepts you invoke don't co-ordinnate with each other. an odd second is not some portion of a second so therefore saying 60 whole secdonds does not make sense.

Quote from: Starman on March 15, 2014, 06:53:24 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 06:52:20 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 15, 2014, 06:49:29 AM

What is an odd second?

During one minute there are 30 odd seconds and 60 whole seconds. You understand don't you?

I think you made a mistake on that one.

Maybe, how so?

1 3 5 7 9 are odd seconds...... 2 4 6 8 are whole or even seconds. If you mean whole seconds is a complete seconds well you are just playing with words.

1 3 5 7 9 are odd seconds...... 2 4 6 8 are whole or even seconds. If you mean whole seconds is a complete seconds well you are just playing with words.

Well, don't you mean something like 30 odd seconds and 30 even seconds? What you said is incoherent, because the concepts you invoke don't co-ordinnate with each other. an odd second is not some portion of a second so therefore saying 60 whole secdonds does not make sense.

Yes, and what I said is exactly the same thing you just without also invoking even numbers. Why would I anyway? I'm talking about odd numbers and whole numbers to help you understand why it is that there is a higher probability (statistically speaking) that life is a simulation than not.

Look at it like a lottery.

Lets say you have a hypothetical jar with an infinite amount of numbers in it. You have a better chance of picking out a whole number from the jar than you do an odd number.

Same goes with realities. You have a higher chance of being part of a simulation because for every single actual reality, there exists a chance of a simulation, and for every simulation there exists a chance for there to be another simulation, etc, etc...

We don't need to dig to deep into this whole numbers vs. odd numbers thing.

Yes, and what I said is exactly the same thing you just without also invoking even numbers. Why would I anyway? I'm talking about odd numbers and whole numbers to help you understand why it is that there is a higher probability (statistically speaking) that life is a simulation than not.

Look at it like a lottery.

Lets say you have a hypothetical jar with an infinite amount of numbers in it. You have a better chance of picking out a whole number from the jar than you do an odd number.

You mean because no matter what number you pick out it will be a whole number? Is not the argument that the cardinality of even and odd numbers are the same?

Same goes with realities. You have a higher chance of being part of a simulation because for every single actual reality, there exists a chance of a simulation, and for every simulation there exists a chance for there to be another simulation, etc, etc...

No, because you have to posit more realities, when there is only one. What I think you mean to say is that the more universes there are the more simulations there will be; but this presupposes multiple universes so therefore  the probability of your hypothesis is affected because the probability that there are more than one universe is lower than that there is just one. Get used to it, that's probability. The more universes you posit the less likely it is. Universe + universe + simulation is less likely than 1 universe. and you have the added unlikelyness that not all possible universes will have laws that support life as well etc etc.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 03:03:42 PM

Yes, and what I said is exactly the same thing you just without also invoking even numbers. Why would I anyway? I'm talking about odd numbers and whole numbers to help you understand why it is that there is a higher probability (statistically speaking) that life is a simulation than not.

Look at it like a lottery.

Lets say you have a hypothetical jar with an infinite amount of numbers in it. You have a better chance of picking out a whole number from the jar than you do an odd number.

You mean because no matter what number you pick out it will be a whole number? Is not the argument that the cardinality of even and odd numbers are the same?

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 03:03:42 PM

Same goes with realities. You have a higher chance of being part of a simulation because for every single actual reality, there exists a chance of a simulation, and for every simulation there exists a chance for there to be another simulation, etc, etc...

No, because you have to posit more realities, when there is only one. What I think you mean to say is that the more universes there are the more simulations there will be; but this presupposes multiple universes so therefore you probably becomes lower. the probability that there are more than one universe, is lower than that there is just one. Get used to it, that's probability.

too eliminate the need for multiverse's we can just talk about possible forms of intelligent life. Like humanity and some other intelligent alien species could be considered 2 possible realities.

And I said the jar was full of numbers. Not whole numbers. So not every number you pull would be a whole number. Still better chances than an odd number.

too eliminate the need for multiverse's we can just talk about possible forms of intelligent life. Like humanity and some other intelligent alien species could be considered 2 possible realities.

Can you restate this as a criticism of what I just said, just so I can be clear on how it is meant to actually rebut it.

How does positing intelligent alien life get rid of the probabilistic nature of what I am saying. If you replace intelligent life with multiverses then you are still positing more potential things.

And I said the jar was full of numbers. Not whole numbers. So not every number you pull would be a whole number. Still better chances than an odd number.

Can you explain to me what a whole number is as opposed to say an odd and even number. Are you talking about integers or what?

too eliminate the need for multiverse's we can just talk about possible forms of intelligent life. Like humanity and some other intelligent alien species could be considered 2 possible realities.

Seems to me like you are using "reality" idiosynctratically. Saying that there are two species is not saying that there are two realities it is saying that two alien species exist in reality.

Can you restate this as a criticism of what I just said, just so I can be clear on how it is meant to actually rebut it.

How does positing intelligent alien life get rid of the probabilistic nature of what I am saying. If you replace intelligent life with multiverses then you are still positing more potential things.

Yes... it just seemed that you had a problem with the fact/assumption that there is only one actual reality. I didn't have any personal problems with using multiverse's.

Can you explain to me what a whole number is as opposed to say an odd and even number. Are you talking about integers or what?

odd numbers and even numbers are types of whole numbers

just as...

actual realities and simulated realities are types of realities

Quote from: burt on March 15, 2014, 03:25:44 PM

Can you restate this as a criticism of what I just said, just so I can be clear on how it is meant to actually rebut it.

How does positing intelligent alien life get rid of the probabilistic nature of what I am saying. If you replace intelligent life with multiverses then you are still positing more potential things.

Yes... it just seemed that you had a problem with the fact/assumption that there is only one actual reality. I didn't have any personal problems with using multiverse's.

either way you are wrong about it being more likely, right? That is what you are conceding is it not?

Quote from: burt on March 15, 2014, 03:25:44 PM

Can you explain to me what a whole number is as opposed to say an odd and even number. Are you talking about integers or what?

odd numbers and even numbers are types of whole numbers

just as...

actual realities and simulated realities are types of realities

The analogy does not work, because reality is the sum total of what exists. "realities" is a misnomer; you mean universes.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 03:33:04 PM

Quote from: burt on March 15, 2014, 03:25:44 PM

Can you restate this as a criticism of what I just said, just so I can be clear on how it is meant to actually rebut it.

How does positing intelligent alien life get rid of the probabilistic nature of what I am saying. If you replace intelligent life with multiverses then you are still positing more potential things.

Yes... it just seemed that you had a problem with the fact/assumption that there is only one actual reality. I didn't have any personal problems with using multiverse's.

either way you are wrong about it being more likely, right? That is what you are conceding is it not?

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 03:33:04 PM

Quote from: burt on March 15, 2014, 03:25:44 PM

Can you explain to me what a whole number is as opposed to say an odd and even number. Are you talking about integers or what?

odd numbers and even numbers are types of whole numbers

just as...

actual realities and simulated realities are types of realities

The analogy does not work, because reality is the sum total of what exists. "realities" is a misnomer; you mean universes.

#1. I am saying that it is more likely because infinity is a potential and in this case it depends on the amount of time that has passed. Even if that potential infinity exists, there is a finite amount of time that has passed for possible realities so far.

#2. We can say universe's or realities. Kind of seems like semantics in this discussion. Whichever being lives in their reality, it would be supposed by them that they are living in the actual reality and not a simulation.

Furthermore, I do think the term reality fits better than universe because the simulations themselves would try to simulate the entire experience of reality and not just some part of it like a multiverse would be.

Is he still going on about simulated reality? 

Is he still going on about simulated reality? 

You started it.

Rottingroom is just not accepting that he has been shown to be wrong and he is trying to wriggle out of it by slowly changing the subject.

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

#1. I am saying that it is more likely because infinity is a potential and in this case it depends on the amount of time that has passed. Even if that potential infinity exists, there is a finite amount of time that has passed for possible realities so far.

You are willing to resort to conventionalist strategem's to basically prove your point. Given that what you say is all true, then you are right. but it is very unlikely that is all true. therefore it is not more likely that we live in a simulation than that we live in just a universe + no simulation.

#2. We can say universe's or realities. Kind of seems like semantics in this discussion. Whichever being lives in their reality, it would be supposed by them that they are living in the actual reality and not a simulation.

This is not semantics.

Furthermore, I do think the term reality fits better than universe because the simulations themselves would try to simulate the entire experience of reality and not just some part of it like a multiverse would be.

You might not think it fits better, but simulations exist in reality, when they try to replicate (simulate) say the earth with all its culture, they are using one "section" of reality to simulate another "section" of reality.

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

That is typical Burt tactics. He's trolling. It's fun for a little while, but it gets tedious and sad with each post.

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

Ok, if have I not offered a rebuttal, please restate your argument.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 04:03:51 PM

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

That is typical Burt tactics. He's trolling. It's fun for a little while, but it gets tedious and sad with each post.

This is not relevant.

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 04:03:51 PM

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

Ok, if have I not offered a rebuttal, please restate your argument.

I didn't even offer an argument. I have said from the get go that I don't subscribe to any of this. It is a thought experiment. You said some stuff about conventionalist strategem's and I agree with you on that. This entire thought experiment is based on that and I willfully admitted so when I first mentioned simulated realities.

Quote from: burt on March 15, 2014, 04:06:35 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on March 15, 2014, 04:03:51 PM

Wrong about what? You haven't offered a rebuttal. You just keep insisting that you are right. I don't even know what you are disagreeing with.

Ok, if have I not offered a rebuttal, please restate your argument.

I didn't even offer an argument. I have said from the get go that I don't subscribe to any of this. It is a thought experiment. You said some stuff about conventionalist strategem's and I agree with you on that. This entire thought experiment is based on that and I willfully admitted so when I first mentioned simulated realities.

#1. I am saying that it is more likely because infinity is a potential and in this case it depends on the amount of time that has passed. Even if that potential infinity exists, there is a finite amount of time that has passed for possible realities so far.

So either you are or you aren't saying it is more likely.