Assumption #5 “If there are a lot of simulations, you are probably inside one.” is some kind of basic logical fallacy. You could just as easily say that “There are a lot of cockroaches on earth, so if you’re on earth, you’re probably a cockroach.” or “A lot of people live in India, so you must be in India.” or even “Throughout history many people have died, so if you’re watching this, you probably died sometime in the past.” That’s not how logic works.
2 Likes
Only if taco preparation advanced to the point where a taco would appear as a reasonable facsimile of an entire universe to its own inner consciousness.
But then, yea, sure, you could say we are probably tacos and don’t even know it.
Can I tweak my simulation parameters so that there won’t be annoyingly gesticulating talking flexifaces in otherwisely excellent animation videos just because “others are doing it so it must be popular who around the office looks hip enough to pull this off”. Geez.
Sorry to be an old fart but that puts me off to the point of closing the video, however interesting the topic may be.
You know the one assumption that is never really questioned when things like this come up?
That we exist in a single reality, be it a cosmos, a simulation, or whatever.
Any context that contains a representation of your current mental state, in any form, contains a version of you indistinguishable–to yourself–from any other. That which makes no difference is no difference, so all these multiple ‘instances’ of you are in fact just you, singular.
You don’t exist in just one reality, but them all.
So… if we are in a simulation created by super-human or post-human beings… then our simulated lives must seem really boring to them, no? Like the video said, we are to them like ants are to humans…
Although, I do remember having fun playing ant simulator back in the day…
I’d say the answer is yes. It’s possible.
It’s only provable in one way - we find out we’re in a simulation.
Until then, it’s possible.
That’s a good one, but this smbc has the simulation argument covered:
But seriously, when the headline asks “is it possible that we are not real” do you mean, “Is it possible that we are only grasping at the truth when we talk about what is ‘real’ and our concept of what we are trying to get at when we say something is ‘real’ will be refined over time with an improved understanding of reality through science?”
If so, yes. Otherwise, I leave it to Betteridge.
3 Likes
Exactly. The options are “yes,” or “no answer.”
We haven’t gotten a “yes,” so the proper response is “no answer,” aka “it’s possible.”
Well, sort of. I think we can reasonably say there are no unicorns even though it’s a similar proposition. The greater detail a person puts into their explanation of what it would mean for us to be “not real” the more we’ll probably be able to veer off “Well, we just can’t know, can we,” towards, “Uh, that’s just crazy.”
1 Like
Absolutely not. Nobody can or in their right mind would imagine a life as boring and pathetic as mine.
Just like I know Rick Deckard in Blade Runner couldn’t be a replicant. Because nobody would design an artificial being which gets its ass handed to it constantly as he did in that film.
1 Like
Rick Deckard’s inception date was probably either a Monday or a Friday.
2 Likes
LOL! The origin story for the comic Rogue Trooper is called “Friday’s Batch”. It explains the flaws in the protagonist’s genetic engineer was due to being incepted on a Friday when workers were at their laziest.
1 Like
If anyone has out of simulation knowledge, it would be you.
2 Likes
Yeah, but it’s knowledge that I’m willing to impart.
Psst, it’s all true, all of it…
…especially the banana.
I’m of the mind whether or not I’m a simulation or a botzman brain or whatever? I am as real as everything around me. Try not to be a dick while I figure the world out.
I am not often successful.
Guy’s a general purpose model, smart enough to investigate. He was outclassed in strength by Leon, but smarter than him and durible enough to take getting punched in the face by a guy that could punch through reenforced container truck as ifit were paper, and managed to survive against Roy Batty. Even if these encounters had him get his ass handed to him he’s a cop not a soldier. Plus he took out Zora, who’s a trained assassin.
However I personally think he’s human since the whole point is to show at some point humans can become so washed out and so unempathetic that you could believe they are replicants, and replicants can value life enough that yu have to wonder if they’re human. That’s sortof the point of the movie. Learn to be human.
2 Likes
Agree 100% there. It was also pretty much the point of the original book and theatrical release.
[As an aside, I kinda liked the original voiceover. It tied Deckard to Philip Marlowe/Sam Spade type detectives. Even down to its own take on a sleazy LA setting.]
2 Likes
I like the intent of the voiceover, but some places just plain didn’t need it. I’ve got one of the fan edits that trimmed the voiceover a tiny bit so it’s not this wet blanket right after Batty’s death.
For me Deckard is someone just so burnt out that it’s hard for him to feel anything. Even with Racheal helping him re-find his humanity hes still pretty much a half step away from sociopathy.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
