I don't necessarily disagree with you that it's unlikely, but your reasoning begs some questions.
It's what we observe in the universe.
I never said that. But I did say that it's absurd to look at simulations and "simulations" we have made, and use that as evidence to support the conclusion that advanced civilizations inevitably create a completely different kind of simulation from any that we have created.
I never said that, and I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's impossible to "know" something about a thing that doesn't exist. But there is no evidence to suggest that there is any purpose behind the universe, if that's what you mean, and it would be foolish to simply assume that there must be one.
Do you think that the protons, neutrons and electrons involved in the computers we run simulations on understand the simulation that is being run? Or even have the capacity? If we were just a part of a simulation why would you think our observances would bear any fruit of understanding any more than Pavlov's dogs understood the concept of Pavlovian conditioning?
Well, you said "We certainly haven't designed any simulations that work even remotely similar to the way it would have to for our universe to be one." which would lead one to believe that you think that abstracting out what we are able or wish to do would lead us to understand what a being advanced enough to have created us as a simulation would be able or wish to do.
You wrote "Why suppose that intelligent beings would spend their time and energy running a simulation of basically random occurrences in the hope that maybe it would eventually produce something interesting that you never interact with, and probably can't even find? ... Our real simulations are abstractions that couldn't possibly create what we know of as consciousness, and are designed for a particular purpose."
Neither of those are valid analogies. Electrons are not simulated by computers; they're, physically, a part of computers. Pavlov's dogs are not being simulated by Pavlov; they're less intelligent beings in the same reality.
If one is going to use what we have done to make assertions about what other intelligent organisms would do, one has to do so properly. The argument being put forward is that humans have created more and more "detailed" "simulations", and that therefore we will inevitably create a "simulation" which would be detailed enough to literally be our universe. This does not follow, and I have demonstrated that it does not follow by pointing out that none of the "simulations" we have work in a manner even abstractly similar to the universe that we know.
Of course. We are the most advanced civilization we know of.
You're begging the question. There is no evidence for the claim that "advanced civilizations inevitably make these simulations". In fact, the only example we do have of an advanced civilization (our own) has not done so, nor has it even come close.
You need to get out of your head this idea that the simulation hypothesis is true. You're misreading what I'm saying because of this base assumption which, as I've made abundantly clear, I do not accept as true.
I never said they were analogies, you said that the reason you believe that the simulation they are running is "a simulation of basically random occurrences" is because "It's what we observe in the universe." and I gave examples of why using one's perception of others' actions, especially others more intelligent, doesn't provide a reliable observation of purpose, or lack thereof.
So your argument is that we will stop now and not make any more detailed simulations? Because otherwise I don't see how "we haven't done it yet" is an argument against it being done in the future.
You're actually misreading my point, I don't believe in the theory in the slightest. I just don't think the arguments you're making are valid. My argument is not that the theory is true, it's that your arguments are poor ones against it.
Yes, I'm well aware of how simulations work.
Time is relative to one's life. We run experiments on insects spanning hundreds of generations. To us it's a year or so. They certainly aren't designed to 'trick' the insects, we don't even consider that idea... Who thinks about tricking mosquitoes? It's absurd.
You're comparing simulations to real machines. It's an invalid comparison. Simulations do not work like real machines.
No, my argument is that the simulations we create are fundamentally completely different from the type of simulation required for our universe to be simulated, and therefore the existence of simulations is invalid evidence for the simulated universe hypothesis. So in effect, my argument is that the simulated universe hypothesis is no different than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam. It's just a new-age religion, with no evidence to support it, just like all the other religions.
I am, and I don't understand what relevance this has.
You're again comparing real-life things to simulations. It's not a valid comparison. We are not invisible gods to mosquitoes; we are just very large animals, and we live in the same reality.
No, I'm comparing the ability of one creature to be cognizant of the reasoning of another creature of far greater intellect. You're entirely missing my point.
How exactly is a genetic simulation fundamentally different than a simulation of a world of humans? The only difference is scale and complexity.
Really? You've iterated over and over how our simulations always have a purpose. I think you're overly focused on your game programming and ignoring work being done in serious labs. That's the point.
Again, utterly missing the point. You stated that we run short term simulations and don't try to trick the participants. My point is that short-term is relative to one's life span, and that assuming we're being tricked assumes we're capable of understanding the machinations of whatever being would create us as a simulation.
You might be interested to know that this is not some secret knowledge you have, others are well aware of the vastness of the universe as well. You didn't just discover that time can be considered as nearly infinitesimally small units. It's not a hard concept.
Again, you make the mistake of assuming that your perceptions are up to the task of understanding the design followed by a being that could actually create such a simulation.
And this is the argument:
All I'm saying is that this argument is invalid. It does not follow that because video games have been looking more and more realistic, we are "probably" in a simulation. It does not follow because those video games Tyson points out don't behave like our universe at all, and there is no evidence for the claim that they ever will. It's rather like if I say that it is incredibly likely that you will be touched by His Noodley Appendage because there's an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster in your room.
My thoughts were somewhere along these same lines while reading through this thread. While it's possible that in 40 years or more we might have the technology to make a simulation that's indistinguishable from reality is a moot point.
I think if I were in a computer simulation I would get a new map. I have been in this same one for decades and it is getting OLD.
