Atheism and the Afterlife

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

My feeling is while AI still has a long way to go, we will get to genuine AI at some point in the not too distant future. The implications are immense, in that in doing so we also potentially create something approaching an immortal.

If we were to acheive this feat, would we be gods?

Absolam

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we were to acheive this feat, would we be gods?

Well, we could program the AI to believe we're Gods. Or we could program many of them to be inclined towards believing in Gods and let them figure it out on their own; throw in a few memories of miraculous events early on to stir things up and then sit back and see what happens.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we were to acheive this feat, would we be gods?

Or would they be? Man makes God in his own image. If it did happen, it would certainly change things rather dramatically.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well, we could program the AI to believe we're Gods. Or we could program many of them to be inclined towards believing in Gods and let them figure it out on their own; throw in a few memories of miraculous events early on to stir things up and then sit back and see what happens.

What, like the Catholic church trying to program our kids with whacko beliefs? :pac:

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

What, like the Catholic church trying to program our kids with whacko beliefs? :pac:

I don't think the Catholic Church programs kids to be inclined to believe in things, it seems to be inherent in people generally.

And if we can program AIs to believe we're Gods, then we kind of are, aren't we?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

And if we can program AIs to believe we're Gods, then we kind of are, aren't we?

No more than the Incas believed the conquistadors were Gods. As atheists we're all well aware that there is more to truth than belief. As for AI, current research suggests that it will learn what it knows rather than being programmed (i.e. hard coded)

Kidchameleon

If we create AI does it imply the possibility that we are created ourselves?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

No more than the Incas believed the conquistadors were Gods. As atheists we're all well aware that there is more to truth than belief. As for AI, current research suggests that it will learn what it knows rather than being programmed (i.e. hard coded)

Not really; the Incans weren't programmed to believe. If we make it so AIs can't not believe, then from their point of view we will be Gods. Undeniably, and irrevocably, if we want. So a bit more, at least.

Iollan Leeden

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we create AI does it imply the possibility that we are created ourselves?

Yes by natural selection. Even if you focus on AI, we are not deities but brains. Hence, neural dynamics creates AI. It's just mechanical.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we create AI does it imply the possibility that we are created ourselves?

There is a mathematical argument that might fry your noodle a little. It is certainly a fun thought experiment to find the holes in the argument

The argument basically goes that any civilization that attains the ability to produce a virtual universe will likely do so millions of times. Just like there are millions of people playing the "SIMS" game. So for every reality (ours) there will be millions of pseudo realities.

Which, the argument goes, means the number of simulated realities will vastly outnumber the number of actual realities with intelligent life in it.

Which, the argument finishes, means that any sentient being is vastly more likely to find themselves in a simulation rather than a reality. So pure probability alone means we are likely a simulation.

Bristolscale7

Elon Musk on the AI/simulation issue:

starshine1234

I wanted to post on the possibility of an afterlife. I searched the forum and found this thread. I scimmed the thread and thought no-one had made my point but now I see that my point has just been made!


An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in. A few years ago I would have thought the exact opposite. The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

It is of course the simulation argument; that we live in a simulated or artificial reality. Nozzferrahhtoo has explained it well.

If artificial life or conciousness is possible, and if advanced societies tend to create artificial life, then we'd have to expect that the vast majority of life or conciousness is in fact artificial. Therefore, we'd have to conclude that we ourselves are artificial.

The maths are strong on this. The maths basically require you to believe in this as it's overwhelmingly the most likely possibility.

If, of course, that artificial life like ourselves is possible in a computer or a simulation.

I feel human equivelents could easily exist within a computer.


How does this allow for an afterlife.

Well, there's an incredible possibilty that you are in fact not a 21st century human at all, but a 25th century human who has chosen to enter a virtual reality. In this case, the reality seems so real that you don't even know your own true nature, and you have no memory of the 25th century.
But, when you die in this simulation, you will wake up in the 25th century, and your memories will be restored.
Quite crazy perhaps, but entirely possible and very difficult to disprove.


There are other amazing consequences if we believe ourselves to be living in a simulation.
For example, how should we live our lives?
Well, perhaps we should try to keep the owner of the simulation happy, so that he keeps it on and running. After all, if it's turned off we all cease to exist.
Another implication is that perhaps we should try to lead interesting lives, to keep the sim owner happy.


There is a lot more but I'll eave it there.

Lots of great info here.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/



Nick Bostrum is considered to have developed the most rebust modern version of this. (I think, sorry to others if I'm wrong)

As

Michael OBrien

starshine1234 wrote: »

I wanted to post on the possibility of an afterlife. I searched the forum and found this thread. I scimmed the thread and thought no-one had made my point but now I see that my point has just been made!


An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in. A few years ago I would have thought the exact opposite. The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

It is of course the simulation argument; that we live in a simulated or artificial reality. Nozzferrahhtoo has explained it well.

If artificial life or conciousness is possible, and if advanced societies tend to create artificial life, then we'd have to expect that the vast majority of life or conciousness is in fact artificial. Therefore, we'd have to conclude that we ourselves are artificial.

The maths are strong on this. The maths basically require you to believe in this as it's overwhelmingly the most likely possibility.

If, of course, that artificial life like ourselves is possible in a computer or a simulation.

I feel human equivelents could easily exist within a computer.


How does this allow for an afterlife.

Well, there's an incredible possibilty that you are in fact not a 21st century human at all, but a 25th century human who has chosen to enter a virtual reality. In this case, the reality seems so real that you don't even know your own true nature, and you have no memory of the 25th century.
But, when you die in this simulation, you will wake up in the 25th century, and your memories will be restored.
Quite crazy perhaps, but entirely possible and very difficult to disprove.


There are other amazing consequences if we believe ourselves to be living in a simulation.
For example, how should we live our lives?
Well, perhaps we should try to keep the owner of the simulation happy, so that he keeps it on and running. After all, if it's turned off we all cease to exist.
Another implication is that perhaps we should try to lead interesting lives, to keep the sim owner happy.


There is a lot more but I'll eave it there.

Lots of great info here.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/



Nick Bostrum is considered to have developed the most rebust modern version of this. (I think, sorry to others if I'm wrong)

As

This is not aimed at you but the argument.

this is the same thinking as religion. Onthologically speaking, you are arguing from probabilities that are purely speculative. This leads to the same type of 'purpose for life' that religions use, trying to please a potential creator/programmer. It is a very dangerous path that has no good ending because its unfalsifiable at this time. Using math, detached from reality, can 'prove' anything, something we should have learned from creationists with their 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ chance of life appearing spontaneously nonsense.

We currently only know of one advanced lifeform, us. Proposing what potential lifeforms would do, from our limited mindset, is purely speculative and self serving. Projecting what we will do in the future based on our current rate of tech development is detached from other competing factors, including climate change, wars and cultural revolutions. It is FAR more likely we will destroy ourselves or regress before we ever achieve the society we
are talking about. Also this future society is not a 'good' society by default either so people who think we SHOULD aim for it are naive or uncaring. I know some transhumanists that aim for this goal and don't care what it takes to get there, including loss of life.

Even if we DO live in a simulated universe, it does not matter and we should not believe we do, until we have hard evidence for it (breaking the matrix).
Reality (sim or not) is all we currently have to work with. We need to make decisions based on the current acquired knowledge, not speculation.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

We need to make decisions based on the current acquired knowledge, not speculation.

Horrible argument, and totally incorrect. We need to dare to imagine in order to progress, speculation is key to invention as is taking the occasional leap of faith and seeing whether you can work back to where you started from.

starshine1234

Michael OBrien wrote: »

This is not aimed at you but the argument.

...

...

I'm morto for you that you posted that.

There's nothing to argue with there. It's 'not even wrong' to use a phrase from RationalWiki.

nozzferrahhtoo

starshine1234 wrote: »

An afterlife is entirley possible

I always rush to point out here those that statistically no one here appears to be suggesting it is not POSSIBLE. Just that there is no reason at all at this time to think there IS an after life.

Just like I would say that the complete lack of reasons at this time to lend credibility to the idea there is a god, does not mean there is not one. It just means there is no reason to expect there is one.

starshine1234 wrote: »

entirely consistent with science

I would be interested to know WHICH science and what exactly you mean by "consistent". The reason I ask is that.... for example.... if you postulate a god outside time and space then this is "consistent" with science in that it by definition does not contradict ANYTHING in science.

But that use of "consistent" says precisely NOTHING. But if you mean by "consistent" that the claim there is an after life is one supported in some way by science, or some science lends the claim credence.... that is a different matter and I would be interested in 1) What science you mean and 2) exactly how it supports the claims.

starshine1234 wrote: »

It is of course the simulation argument; that we live in a simulated or artificial reality. Nozzferrahhtoo has explained it well.

The "argument" however is merely a thought experiment and I do not actually buy into it or see it as lending credence to the claim there is an after life. Further even if this IS a simulation that does not mean we have an after life. As soon as our simulation is turned off we would be gone.

For the simulation argument to support the idea of an after life..... there would have to be some method by which the simulation survives without the simulator. So anyone using the Simulation Argument as evidence for an after life is STILL at square one in the same way as anyone not using the Simulation Argument..... for essentially all the same reasons.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Well, there's an incredible possibilty that you are in fact not a 21st century human at all, but a 25th century human who has chosen to enter a virtual reality.

That is a shift however. You have changed from "simulation" to something different and more specific. Further, waking up in your 25th century would not be an "after life" in any sense but a return to your ACTUAL life where there is likely also a complete lack of evidence for an after life in any real sense. THIS life and THAT life are still YOUR life and the distinction between the two is fuzzy at best.

But I repeat that we should be cautious of jumping between "I am a simulation" and "I am a person IN a simulator". The two are not the same and the implications of both are very different. Yet I fear in the middle of your text you subtly but noticeably shift between the two.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

Horrible argument, and totally incorrect. We need to dare to imagine in order to progress, speculation is key to invention as is taking the occasional leap of faith and seeing whether you can work back to where you started from.

I am referring to social development, moral development, ethics, not technology which a degree of speculation is called for.
This is the problem with things like Eugenics or Social Darwinism, where people speculate about the future with flimsy knowledge of what the consequences are yet loads of confidence that they know best.

I don't deny the possibility of a sim universe, I question the validity of the speculations that are built upon that assumption. It can get dangerous pretty fast if you don't have a foundation.

starshine1234

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would be interested to know WHICH science and what exactly you mean by "consistent". The reason I ask is that.... for example.... if you postulate a god outside time and space then this is "consistent" with science in that it by definition does not contradict ANYTHING in science.

But that use of "consistent" says precisely NOTHING. But if you mean by "consistent" that the claim there is an after life is one supported in some way by science, or some science lends the claim credence.... that is a different matter and I would be interested in 1) What science you mean and 2) exactly how it supports the claims.

The Christian God as described in the bible is not consistent with science. For the obvious reason that he is magical, and can perform magic.

Another, non bibical God, who exists entirely outside the universe, could be consistent with science as you say, but he wouldn't be the christian god, or any other religious god. Science concedes that possibility.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a shift however. You have changed from "simulation" to something different and more specific. Further, waking up in your 25th century would not be an "after life" in any sense but a return to your ACTUAL life where there is likely also a complete lack of evidence for an after life in any real sense. THIS life and THAT life are still YOUR life and the distinction between the two is fuzzy at best.

But I repeat that we should be cautious of jumping between "I am a simulation" and "I am a person IN a simulator". The two are not the same and the implications of both are very different. Yet I fear in the middle of your text you subtly but noticeably shift between the two.

Those semantic arguments are simply wrong. There can't be "I am a person IN a simulator", there can only be "I am a SIMULATED person IN a simulator"

A real person can't exist in a simulation.


The afterlife I've described there, that you're a 25th century person who has chosen to temporarily live in a virtual reality is correct. It is an afterlife by any definition. It would be an additional life, which 'comes after' this life.



Heaven is also completely possible in a simulated universe. The simulation creators could choose to implement the bibical heaven if they wished. This would mean that when you die you'd be placed into another simulation, and all your dead relatives would be there, and it'd be all rainbows and cupcakes.

As I say, serious philosphers and scientists take this seriously. I doubt that this idea will be disproven on Boards.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I don't deny the possibility of a sim universe, I question the validity of the speculations that are built upon that assumption. It can get dangerous pretty fast if you don't have a foundation.

But that's not an argument against speculation, it is an argument for constructing logical reasons why certain pieces of speculation can either be safely dismissed or not followed up on at this point in time. This is the very basis of science; form an idea and seek to prove it or disprove it. It is equally true of problem solving in any domain from maths to philosophy to bridge construction. You have an imaginative phase typically involving divergent thinking looking at many different often whacko ideas, followed by a more logical phase involving convergent thinking that discards most of these and either arrives at a workable solution or fails to solve the problem.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

But that's not an argument against speculation, it is an argument for constructing logical reasons why certain pieces of speculation can either be safely dismissed or not followed up on at this point in time. This is the very basis of science; form an idea and seek to prove it or disprove it. It is equally true of problem solving in any domain from maths to philosophy to bridge construction. You have an imaginative phase typically involving divergent thinking looking at many different often whacko ideas, followed by a more logical phase involving convergent thinking that discards most of these and either arrives at a workable solution or fails to solve the problem.

I refer to the very dubious conclusions that starshine1234 brought up (not saying he accept them, but some one would, humans being human).
"There are other amazing consequences if we believe ourselves to be living in a simulation.
For example, how should we live our lives?
Well, perhaps we should try to keep the owner of the simulation happy, so that he keeps it on and running. After all, if it's turned off we all cease to exist.
Another implication is that perhaps we should try to lead interesting lives, to keep the sim owner happy."

Its when speculation becomes belief that becomes 'true' as a foundation for further speculation that follows that pattern. This is the same kind of thinking creationists use, where god starts as a speculation, then belief, then 'true' and you get people like Plantinga considering it 'properly basic' before you know it.

starshine1234

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I refer to the very dubious conclusions that starshine1234 brought up (not saying he accept them, but some one would, humans being human).
"There are other amazing consequences if we believe ourselves to be living in a simulation.
For example, how should we live our lives?
Well, perhaps we should try to keep the owner of the simulation happy, so that he keeps it on and running. After all, if it's turned off we all cease to exist.
Another implication is that perhaps we should try to lead interesting lives, to keep the sim owner happy."

Its when speculation becomes belief that becomes 'true' as a foundation for further speculation that follows that pattern. This is the same kind of thinking creationists use, where god starts as a speculation, then belief, then 'true' and you get people like Plantinga considering it 'properly basic' before you know it.

That entire post is about semantic arguments. I could replace the word 'believe' with 'consider' which would completely prevent your semantic argument but I have used the word 'believe' according to its normal usage in english, and therefore the word is correct. That's why I consider your argument to be a semantic type argument.


All science is effectively speculation. It is all mutually supporting of course but the whole house of cards could be false. This shouldn't be used to say that the correct possibility of everything and anything can't be determined and so everything is equally likely.

Magical unicorns are less likely to be true than the theory of evolution.

nozzferrahhtoo

starshine1234 wrote: »

The Christian God as described in the bible is not consistent with science. For the obvious reason that he is magical, and can perform magic.

I think you missed the crux of my query. The point being that if you define something that is outside the realms of science then it WOULD be consistent with science in that it contradicts nothing in science. And I have seen that use of the word "consistent" in the context of theism that I am compelled merely to be cautious as to what you mean by it. If you are referring to an after life that is similarly "consistent" with science then our conversation by definition would simply have to end there.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Those semantic arguments are simply wrong. There can't be "I am a person IN a simulator", there can only be "I am a SIMULATED person IN a simulator"

Not so. There is a stark difference in that in one scenario the person has an actual existence elsewhere (outside the simulator) whereas the other does not.

So the implications are similarly different between whether I am a simulation, or I am a person experiencing a simulation. And it pays not only to be aware of that difference, but to be hyper aware of when someone else shifts between the two in mid-discourse.

starshine1234 wrote: »

The afterlife I've described there, that you're a 25th century person who has chosen to temporarily live in a virtual reality is correct. It is an afterlife by any definition.

By any definition you have selected. Not by any definition I use. As I said if I am a 25th century person in a simulator currently experiencing the 21st century then I do not see this simulation as my life, or my return later to the 25th as an after life.

I would see, and define, my life in the 25th as my life and my current situation as an experience IN that life. In the same way as a visit to the cinema is an experience in my life, and my exit from the cinema as not an "after life" to my time within it. And the linguistics and semantics of that fact would not be altered merely by upping the immersive experience of the cinema incrementally until the experience of it is indistinguishable from reality.

The difference there is clear. You are taking one of the many experiences the 25th century me has had, and simply.... for reasons I can not discern..... declared that to be a "life" in itself.

Whereas I would see it as just another experience in the set of experiences that 25th century me has had in it's one and only single life.

starshine1234 wrote: »

As I say, serious philosphers and scientists take this seriously. I doubt that this idea will be disproven on Boards.

I doubt ANY unsubstantiated idea will be dis-proven on boards, that is what the Russels Teapot is all about. If there is absolutely nothing to show or argue for the truth of a proposition, then proving the negative of it can often be an impossibility.

The simple fact is however that other than fun thought experiments there is simply no reason to expect an after life at this time. It is fun to imagine and navel gaze about of course, and talk with others about as you and I are doing, but we should not lose sight while doing so of the simple fact there is not a shred of evidence or data at this time to suggest your consciousness or subjective awareness will survive the death of your brain.

starshine1234

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...
If there is absolutely nothing to show or argue for the truth of a proposition, then proving the negative of it can often be an impossibility.

The simulation argument has far more going for it than Russells Teapot. Therefore, it cannot be said to have absolutely nothing to show or argue for the truth of it.

The falsity of Russells Teapot can't be proven, but at the same time, it has relatively little going for it in terms of supporting evidence.

The simulation argument does have mathematical proofs and logic going for it. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, IF the premises are true. The debate is about the premises, not about the conclusions.


If there are a large number of simulated worlds, and only one real world, then it stands to reason that we are most likely to exist in a simulated world.


I now also see what you mean about a real person living in a simulation. A virtual reality, like the 25th century guy, is therefore not a simulation of the type of the simulation argument, but more like a 'brain in a vat' type scenario, where a real person is fed information through their senses but the information does not necessarily correspond to a 'real' reality.

The simulation argument suggest that we are not physical at all, and that our only existence is as data or code running on a type of computer. The 'brain in the vat' says we are physical but that our external reality is faked.


These distinctions are further drawn out in papers on the link I gave.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

seamus

starshine1234 wrote: »

The simulation argument does have mathematical proofs and logic going for it. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, IF the premises are true. The debate is about the premises, not about the conclusions.

Isn't that the case for every single argument that exists? The existence of god and jesus are perfectly reasonable conclusions, if the premises on which they're based, are true.

The simulated reality theory is a philosophical conclusion rather than a scientific one, as it's a theory of existence based on unprovable premises.

The one thing about the simulation theory is that it posits that if I am a simulation and I'm intelligent, then I can be kept "alive" outside of this simulation when it ends.

But it doesn't answer why the "real" race would keep me alive. If they consider it morally fine to create large-scale experiments which use AI, then it seems logical to conclude that they have no compunction about simply deleting me when they're done.

nozzferrahhtoo

starshine1234 wrote: »

The simulation argument has far more going for it than Russells Teapot. Therefore, it cannot be said to have absolutely nothing to show or argue for the truth of it.

Not that I have seen, and certainly not on this thread. The only thing I have seen going for it is a simple thought experiment that, while fun, is based on way too much assumption to be anything more than a fun mental excercise.

But the point of mentioning the Teapot was just to acknowledge your point that no one on boards will disprove the idea of the simulation. Because nothing SUPPORT the idea of the simulation that can be rebutted and it is not the kind of negative that can be proven.

starshine1234 wrote: »

The falsity of Russells Teapot can't be proven, but at the same time, it has relatively little going for it in terms of supporting evidence.

Actually, to only partially put my tongue in my cheek, Russells Teapot has MORE going for it than the simulation has. Why? Because I can at least evidence to you that Teapots exist. Whereas you have no evidence the simulations of the type described exist.

So Russels Teapot moves ahead in the game from square one in that it is not postulating the existence of an item that is unsubstantiated. While simulations of the one you and I speak of do.

This is similar to when theists come into this forum and ask us why we think the existence of alien life credible.... despite us lacking any evidence of alien life...... but we can not see that god is credible.

The simple answer is that while alien life is admittedly unsubstantiated at this time......... we do have evidence (us) of the existence of life. Which puts us one credibility point ahead of them. And while we remain skeptical of the existence of alien life..... that does not leave us blind to the credibility differences between the two claims.

starshine1234 wrote: »

The simulation argument suggest that we are not physical at all, and that our only existence is as data or code running on a type of computer. The 'brain in the vat' says we are physical but that our external reality is faked.

Yes I think you understand my position and point better now. As for the reason I even brought it up, I just wanted to be wary of any point where you appear to shift between the two things.

If we are not in a simulation I can think of no reason to expect there to be an after life following the death of the brain. If we ARE purely simulated beings I still do not see a reason to expect one following the powering down or death of the computer server.

You gave the example of moving the code bytes that constitute me to a different server with a different life and suggested that might be an "after life"...... such as moving it from the Earth 2.0 Server to the Heaven 4.0 server.......... but I see that merely as a semantical distinction..... not a true "after life" but another "my life" experience sequentially. So I remain unconvinced by that linguistic move either.

But it is just, as I said, a thought experiment. In the absence of any reason to think my consciousness is sourced anywhere but my brain, I can do little more than point out there is NO reason at this time to expect my consciousness or subjective awareness to survive the death or cessation of that brain.

starshine1234

seamus wrote: »

The simulated reality theory is a philosophical conclusion rather than a scientific one, as it's a theory of existence based on unprovable premises.

I don't agree with this. The Simulation Argument is very strong. I do perhaps agree to an extent.


Nick Bostrum is the author of the strong version available today.

I'll provide the following abstract from Nick Bostrum

Nick Bostrum, reported by [url]http://www.simulation-argument.com/[/url] wrote:

ABSTRACT.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

That abstract above is quite difficult. It is worth reading several times.

Nick Bostrum deliberately laid out his argument in this way as it is very powerful.

Point 1 and Point 2 are likely to be false. Therefore, Point 3 must be true, even if it is fairly mad.

Nick is likely correct to say that one of those points must be true.

Point 1 could actually be true (and, if so, the simulation argument fails). Humans may well destroy ourselves before reaching a post human stage. At the same time we may not. I suspect ancestor simulations are plausible and reasonable, and will happen.

Point 2 is almost certainly false.

Point 3. is definitely true! :eek:
or perhaps not.

Very interesting argument in my view.

seamus

Nick Bostrum takes two unprovable assumptions and uses a them to (dis)prove by induction that a third assumption must be true.

Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but firmly philosophical rather than scientific. We can posit thousands of other "what-ifs" on top of those three because none of them are provable. To be fair to him, the paper is peppered with "if x is true, then y", it doesn't try to pretend to be scientific.

Unfortunately like a lot of philosophies some people have continued to explore the rabbit hole and forgotten that the original theory is just a thought experiment and not a scientific truth.

starshine1234

seamus wrote: »

Nick Bostrum takes two unprovable assumptions and uses a them to (dis)prove by induction that a third assumption must be true.

You are simply wrong on this. I suspect you have failed to note the subtletly of the construction.

The first two points are not intended to be taken as definitely true. They are also not unprovable.

That is the strength of the construction.
All of the points can be considered for reasonableness. If a genuine person genuinely does that, they are forced to reach the same conclusions as Nick did. Because the conclusions logically follow on from the premises. Similar to other mathemathical proofs.


Many professional scientists and others agree that this argument has merit.


Do you believe that either point 1 or point 2 is true?

If not, then point 3 is very likely to be true, based on unassailable logic.

If point 1 is true we are in trouble.
Point 2 is almost certainly false.



(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Its when speculation becomes belief that becomes 'true' as a foundation for further speculation that follows that pattern.

Of course, but the problem here isn't the speculation, it is the unfounded belief that there is any truth to the speculation. For me, the simulation theory gets placed on the same pile as God and other bits of similarly bits of speculation that lack any current supporting evidence or means of acquiring such evidence.

The fact that there seems to be a surplus of very gullible people out there who will swallow all sorts of random fantasy as truth doesn't make fantasy a bad thing so much as gullibility. For example, why ridicule religion when you can teach critical thinking?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

The first two points are not intended to be taken as definitely true. They are also not unprovable.

Wrong, they're not provable. Some people might find them believable, just a some people find the bible believable, but that is a very long way from proof.