To understand this essay : the metaphysical framework is materialism, we do not assume any religious framework to be correct and we do not assume God or gods exist. "Or" is to be taken in the mathematical sense, so two propositions linked with or are not mutually exclusive. Definition :...
I greet you all, members of Lesswrong. First things, I'll roughly introduce myself and my relevance to your community. Then I'll immediately dive into the actual topic of my post, going step by step so that everyone can follow my reasoning. I will deal with several intermediary topics that led...
The first part of my answer will answer your point about Bekenstein's limit. The second part of my answer will concede your point, and look at the logical consequences.
In our assumptions, the Bekenstein's limit theorem is false. This theorem fundamentally assumes that the universe is pixelated, that it is possible to separate it into finite parts. But, in Proposition 5 bis, I assume that real numbers exist. It is basically a limited version of platonic realism. I consider the universe to merely be a mathematical structure. In the end, there is a fundamental chasm between reality itself, and the theories we can make about reality. My opinion is that physics is not... (read 381 more words →)
Edit : I am adding a better answer to your argument of equivalent classes. I do not deny that such equivalence classes exist for some phenomena, however, if everything else requires perfect precision... Then we have some margin for error in some unimportant parts and have absolutely zero margin for error in the other parts, which would mean those equivalent classes would not help making the probability of simulating you higher than 0. To illustrate, if P(A)=X, and P(B)=0, P(A and B)=0.
We are not our brain, though. Consciousness does not only come from the brain, as an example we have quite a lot of neurons in our stomach, and even worse, the... (read 546 more words →)
You raise a valid point about simulating species or even simulating life on a planet. However, my argument still stands, because I am specifically talking about simulating an entire individual rather than a planet or a star system.
In order to simulate a particular individual, it would require far more than merely simulating the species homo sapiens. It would require recreating the whole history of earth (and even of the universe, because we'd need the history of asteroids and of sun activity and so on and so on) completely identical to our own. The hypothetical aliens would need to care specifically about YOU, and decide to recreate the whole history of how your... (read 430 more words →)
I am not making a statement on our current conscious experience, but on life after the death of our "real" body. Basically, what is more likely, being resurrected fully and accurately ( considering how difficult such a task would be, it would take many failures before getting it right...) or having broken remnants that form the pattern of yourself randomly happening across spacetime ?
If we take into account the Drake equation, and take into account all of our past observations of space, and take into account that if a civilization advanced enough to build dyson swarms/spheres existed or to conquer entire galaxies existed we should have seen evidence of it by now,... (read more)
You are making very interesting points. It is possible that the vast majority of conscious beings are like us, at least in the sense you are talking about. However, even if I assume that you are correct, it still has no consequence on my reasoning and I'll explain to you why in the next paragraph.
I am talking about a particular individual, that is, you or me. Are most instantiations of you the current you ? (By current you, I mean the full past-present future integral of the possibilities function that defines who you are as a person, think of it like the set of all possible yous across a hypothetical multiverse.) By... (read more)
First thank you for your feedback. I will answer your point.
Most conscious beings in the universe would be simulated, in this scenario. Moreover, most would simply be what we can call "abominations", because they would have some mental illness or some fundamental problem making them broken shells. Most of the time , they would be simulated only for a few seconds before collapsing into nothingness.
They do not have any real influence on their surroundings, because a few seconds between incarnations is not enough. Also, even assuming the simulation of their consciousness is correct, if the simulation of their surroundings is not (which should be the vast majority of cases), then they would be in some kind of dreamlike state with the world around them not really existing.
I will have to write another article to explain all this step by step
Infinite time by itself implies nothing. It is simply one of the necessary conditions.
As for repeating the same few trillion years over and over again, that is extremely unlikely because the random quantum fluctuations just a few instants after the Big Bang have a massive effect on mass distribution across the universe and possibly on dark energy.
My point was never to "judge". As for suffering being "bad", I am not making such a claim, however I can say with confidence that the fate I described would not be one I would like to go through.
I possess enough knowledge of mathematics to know the differences between infinities. I cannot quantify the % of incarnations where we would be in pain and the % where we would be in happiness. However, by proving that the order of magnitude of one is vastly superior to the other, I make the other one irrelevant in my argument.
Even if the universe is finite, if as an example it is cyclical and goes through phases of big bang=>increase in size=>gravity overwhelms dark energy=>big crunch=>big bang, then the universe basically has infinite time to run.
To understand this essay : the metaphysical framework is materialism, we do not assume any religious framework to be correct and we do not assume God or gods exist. "Or" is to be taken in the mathematical sense, so two propositions linked with or are not mutually exclusive.
Definition : Hell is defined as being in pain for eternity without any hope of ending one's life.
Proposition 1 : Either Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is correct, or the universe is truly infinite (the universe being infinite is different from the universe expanding infinitely into the future. If the universe is infinite, it's always infinite and it never has a relevant "size". If it... (read 535 more words →)
I greet you all, members of Lesswrong. First things, I'll roughly introduce myself and my relevance to your community. Then I'll immediately dive into the actual topic of my post, going step by step so that everyone can follow my reasoning. I will deal with several intermediary topics that led me to this way of thinking.
I've first been introduced to this website by the Harry Potter fanfiction Dr Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote, when I was a highschool student. So, first, I'd like to thank you for writing this piece, as it was both very entertaining from the point of view of literature and instructive. I have been trying to apply your lessons ever... (read 794 more words →)
It seems we are done for this particular debate. I would like to thank you for all your thoughts, which have been a precious help, and for giving a chance to my essay despite its negative karma.
If anyone has good counterarguments, on failures from my reasoning, I would gladly take the time to see if they are valid or if they can be refuted.