Probabilities of Life being a computer-like simulation — who are the idiots here?

© 2021 Peter Free

 

03 May 2021

 

 

I came across this rather classic case . . .

 

. . . of arguing on the basis of nothing to nothing.

 

Max Gorbachev wrote the following about Nick Bostrom's "simulation hypothesis":

 

 

The debate whether everything around us, including Earth and the rest of the universe, is a computer simulation has been going on ever since Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom came up with the hypothesis.

 

It was later popularised with the release of the sci-fi movie "The Matrix", in which humanity is trapped inside a simulated reality.

 

A 2016 video has reappeared online showing [Elon] Musk speaking at a Code Conference. The tech maverick was asked whether humanity is living in a "Matrix" type of existence.

 

The entrepreneur said the chances that everything around is real is one in billions.

 

"The strongest argument for us being in a simulation is the following - that 40 years ago we had pong like two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it's getting better every year and soon we will have virtual reality or augmented reality", Musk said.

 

Incidentally, Nick Bostrom, who wrote a paper arguing that life as we know it, including ourselves, may be a computer simulation, believed that there is a 20 percent chance that this is true.

 

© 2021 Max Gorbachev, Elon Musk Claims We Are Living in a Simulation, Sputnik News (03 May 2021)

 

 

Notice first that . . .

 

Elon Musk did not "claim" his adherence to the simulation hypothesis anytime recently. Thus, Gorbachev's use of the present tense ("claims") is intentionally misleading.

 

No points for you, Max.

 

 

Then, even within Gorbachev's article . . .

 

. . . everyone's very bad logic astounds (present tense).

 

First, one cannot predict probabilities concerning something that nobody has witnessed and knows nothing about.

 

The Unknown has no rules and nothing to extract data from. Consequently, estimating probabilities about what is not known into suspicions regarding what might be known is irrational.

 

Dr. Bostrom, for instance, had (and has) no legitimate means of generating reasonable probabilities from something that he essentially fantasized up.

 

Second, Musk's own logic (about the same subject) is even more ridiculous. Just because a certain technology advances rapidly, does not mean that it (and it alone) likely defines Reality's 'true' nature.

 

Third, Max Gorbachev's attempt to discredit Musk with Bostrom's less inflated guess about Simulation's probability of being true is equally absurd. So now (Max), we're going to:

 

 

(a) pit one fake number against

 

(b) another conjured-from-air guess

 

and

 

(c) pick a winner?

 

 

The moral? — Fun, but drivel nevertheless

 

The only thing that I would probabilistically bet on — in this epistemological context — is the fact that Humanity is predominantly filled with synaptically misfiring idiots.

 

Of course, we cannot know for sure. Maybe 'The Grand Simulators' made Bostrom, Musk and Gorbachev the way they are on purpose.

 

Just to irritate me.

 

(If you get the joke, a gold star.)