• MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.

    Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.

    People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.

    This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)

    It is as pointless as arguing about god.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)

      I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…

      I would hope that we wouldn’t build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we’ve built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Biggest reason to to a complete simulation would be reversed time dilation. Run the simulation until the civilization is a few hundred to a few thousand years more advanced than your own, and see what technologies they have invented and refined.