Is It Possible There Is An Afterlife?

[Beleth]

if you set the bar at proof then you can watch as all of realism fails to clear - hence it's an unreasonable request.

So therefore every hypothesis is equally likely?

If you feel proof is unreasonable, then I'll start by just asking for evidence.

I could just as easily say that "it is certain that it has occured - prove me wrong."

It would also be a silly thing to say.

Yes, it would. Good thing it has nothing to do with what I said.

Based on the computer simulation argument that we are in a computer generation is overwhelmingly likely unless you choose to accept either

(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);

so upon what is your certainty based?

I never said I was certain. My conclusion is based on the evidence provided. What evidence is your conclusion based on?

 

[andyandy]

1)By the same argument this "posthuman civilization" might also be a simulation run by some "post-post human civilization", which in turn might also be just another simulation of a "post-post-post" ... etc. ad infinitum. Thus, any reality, even one running a simulation, has no better or worse chances of being a simulation than any other. Therefore, the simulation argument is irrelevant.

i agree that it may all be removed one level - but not with the conclusion - why is it therefore irrelevant?

(2) Assuming that Occam's Razor applies, it is safe to reject simulated reality

.

the trouble with Occam is that it requires a value judgment on necessity which is rather difficult to apply - let's run with the CS argument it requires;

1) a single society capable of and with the compunction to generate simulated worlds

If all that we know about the universe is therefore nothing more than the eqivililent of underlying source code, we can be said to know nothing about the actualities of reality nor the underlying phyiscal laws - we currently rely upon multiverse theories and the like to explain possible cosmic origin (CO)... yet how can one compare such a theory with an underlying reality governed by different laws? This may be far more sucinct than anything we can offer as a CO explanation. Occam's razor is blunted by the failure of the physical laws.

 

[andyandy]

So therefore every hypothesis is equally likely?

If you feel proof is unreasonable, then I'll start by just asking for evidence

I've provided an argument that requires consideration - what evidence do you have for realism that could not equally be applied to a CS?

I never said I was certain. My conclusion is based on the evidence provided. What evidence is your conclusion based on?

You made what seemed like a pretty certain statement - "who says this has not already occured?" "Heck I will" - but i apologise if i attributed certainty where there was doubt

nevertheless, what evidence did you provide for reaching such a conclusion?

My conclusion is that don't know - i do find Bostrom's argument quite compelling - though i also think it's certainly possible that humanity would never reach such a technologically advanced stage thus rendering CS unlikely (though not impossible)
I'd be interested to know if you accept Bostrom's argument as presented, and if not, upon what you base your objections....

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Sounds like a bad sci fi movie in the making...

 

[Loss Leader]

For those interested in an epic VERY CLOSELY related to the OP (much moreso than the Matrix), see Tad Williams's Otherland.

Loved it.

Every other VR/Immortality/Brain in a Box story is crap...

Also, a really goofy episode of Stargate: SG1 titled "The Gamekeeper" with Dwight Schultz

and I guess you can throw in the excellent ST: TNG episode "The Inner Light" which, for some reason, I thought was called "Ship in a Bottle."

 

[Beleth]

I've provided an argument that requires consideration -

- but no evidence, so it really doesn't require consideration.

what evidence do you have for realism that could not equally be applied to a CS?

Realism is the default hypothesis since a CS scenario -- indeed, any scenario -- assumes realism exists, and realism does not assume that a CS exists. It is the baseline; all other hypotheses need to be supported with evidence to be considered.

You made what seemed like a pretty certain statement - "who says this has not already occured?" "Heck I will" - but i apologise if i attributed certainty where there was doubt

"Heck, I will" sounded like a statement of certainty to you? It was a Devil's Advocate sort of statement. If Bostrom's argument can't stand up to simple naysaying, then how can a reasonable person find it compelling?

nevertheless, what evidence did you provide for reaching such a conclusion?

As I said before, it is the default hypothesis.

My conclusion is that don't know - i do find Bostrom's argument quite compelling - though i also think it's certainly possible that humanity would never reach such a technologically advanced stage thus rendering CS unlikely (though not impossible)
I'd be interested to know if you accept Bostrom's argument as presented, and if not, upon what you base your objections....

I have no reason to accept Bostrom's argument because there is no evidence which supports it. It is unscientific and changes nothing, and is therefore as useless as last-Tuesdayism.

 

[Herzblut]

i agree that it may all be removed one level - but not with the conclusion - why is it therefore irrelevant?

The argument is irrelevant because - given it can be validly applied to our reality - it would never allow us to know whether we are a simulation, or the simulation of a simulation or the simulation of a simulation of a simulation, etc. ad infinitum. The argument thus allows an infinite number of possible, indistinguishable types of reality.

The argument give equal chances of being simulated to any reality any society might live in at any time. Thus, it is irrelevant.

the trouble with Occam is that it requires a value judgment on necessity which is rather difficult to apply -

It is a fair judgment to drop irrelevant statements, I think.

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

Realism is the default hypothesis since a CS scenario -- indeed, any scenario -- assumes realism exists, and realism does not assume that a CS exists. It is the baseline; all other hypotheses need to be supported with evidence to be considered.

Ok, working with the baseline assumption that realism exists at least somewhere, and following through Bostrom's argument, what do you disagree with?

If Bostrom's argument can't stand up to simple naysaying, then how can a reasonable person find it compelling?

You've still not outlined which part of the argument you disagree with. It's simple enough to address;

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.

I have no reason to accept Bostrom's argument because there is no evidence which supports it.

If one looks at the argument as one for cosmic origin (which it is within our sense of the term) then I do not see that any other alternatives are suitably endowed with evidence to be accepted.
A lack of evidence therefore would lead us to fail to accept all CO theories.
Indeed, with realism distinct from CS, and subject to different physical laws, CO may be easily explained within the constraints of actual reality - it certainly isn't easily explained within the constraints of our universe.
With the Goldilocks enigma we are faced with the following choices;

1) our universe as it exists is an astronomical fluke
2) our universe is explained through multiverse models
3) goddidit
4) our universe is explained through CS
5) our universe can be explained without recourse for (1)-(4) but human knowledge is insufficient to do so now.

of the choices (1) and (3) are unpalatable and (5) requires in effect an appeal to human ignorance.
of the two left (2) requires the the problem is simply shifted up a level, that the complexity of the model is vastly increased and that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.
(4) does not require greater complexity at the level of reality, provides a possibility for a simplistic CO explanation with that reality, but again requires that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.

Given the choices (4) would appear an appealing option - regardless of counter-intuitive resistance. That's not to say one should accept it, but simply accept that it doesn't fare so badly against the alternatives.

It is unscientific and changes nothing,

How so more than alternative CO theories?

 

[andyandy]

Thus, it is irrelevant.

Herzblut

again, how so more than alternative CO theories? If the irrelevance is simply derrived from the limitation upon human knowledge then how is (say) a causally disjoint bubble universe model any more relevant?

 

[andyandy]

No, not in any sense of being impossible in principle to overcome, but there are certainly some severe practical considerations. Bruce Schneier (in his book Applied Cryptography) makes the case from purely theoretical considerations (i.e. without reference to any particular computing platform) of thermodynamics that even if we constructed a Dyson sphere around the Sun and captured every erg of energy it emitted in one year for powering an ideal computer, all with 100% efficiency, this would allow us to cycle through all the possible states of a 187-bit counter (i.e. 2¹⁸⁷ ≈ 1.96×10⁵⁶ states), without doing anything else useful. Moreover, for each additional bit, the energy requirement for a complete cycling would double. I think the implications for a sufficiently complex simulation should be fairly clear.

'Luthon64

very interesting post - thanks.

What is the relationship between energy requirement and processing capacity? Say on the level of a pc, between the energy requirements of a 32bit CPU and a 64 bit CPU would there be a simple exponential relationship? This may not even be a relevant question - as i know very little about computers....but i'm interested to learn

 

[Herzblut]

again, how so more than alternative CO theories? If the irrelevance is simply derrived from the limitation upon human knowledge then how is (say) a causally disjoint bubble universe model any more relevant?

To be honest, I don't know those bubble theories.

My notion remains the same, unless a theory can increase our understanding of our past, present or future universe by predicting the outcome of relevant observations - the theory is useless.

Herzblut

 

[Robin]

I could be a pocket of immortal sentient swamp gas from a planet around Proxima Centauri who absorbs energy from its sun and has no natural predators and spends all its time dreaming about invented worlds.

I could be virtual consciousness in a vast marketing simulation

I could be a brain in a bottle.

I could be an aspect of the supreme consciousness inhabiting the demon haunted worlds

I could be the creation of an immortal God who will preserve my consciousness after the death of my brain in eternal torment or eternal bliss depending on whether or not I believed a certain man was his son.

 

[The Atheist]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the missing OP writer?

Maybe Oppressed has been Suppressed.

 

[Wings]

Yes, it is possible that there is an afterlife. It's possible I'm just a brain in a vat in a computer simulation, it's possible that my existance is necessary for the survival of the universe and I'll never die. It's possible the universe is going to repeat continously and I will exist again in a future time.

But, there isn't any evidence of life after death.

 

[andyandy]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the missing OP writer?

maybe he took the red pill

 

[petra10]

I think the oppressed guy is writting a sci-fi book and just trying to get ideas for it.He is probably at his word proccessor typing up his latest chapters after getting lots of information from this thread.

And no i dont think there is an after life.

 

[Robin]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the missing OP writer?

Maybe Oppressed has been Suppressed.

Well I think it is perfectly obvious that nobody would ever be allowed to infect a virtual world by telling the truth about it.

My guess is that he is now living in an Italianate Welsh village guarded by giant balloons.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Well I think it is perfectly obvious that nobody would ever be allowed to infect a virtual world by telling the truth about it.

My guess is that he is now living in an Italianate Welsh village guarded by giant balloons.

And he's number 8 right?



Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Beleth]

Ok, working with the baseline assumption that realism exists at least somewhere, and following through Bostrom's argument, what do you disagree with?

The conclusion.
It's a classic reductio ad absurdum; the conclusion is ridiculous, therefore one of the assumptions must be false.

If one looks at the argument as one for cosmic origin (which it is within our sense of the term) then I do not see that any other alternatives are suitably endowed with evidence to be accepted.
A lack of evidence therefore would lead us to fail to accept all CO theories.

Al but one CO theory has, as an added assumption, "the universe is lying to us". This one does; the Matrix version does; last-Tuesdayism does. I see no value in adding that assumption.

Indeed, with realism distinct from CS, and subject to different physical laws, CO may be easily explained within the constraints of actual reality - it certainly isn't easily explained within the constraints of our universe.
With the Goldilocks enigma we are faced with the following choices;

1) our universe as it exists is an astronomical fluke
2) our universe is explained through multiverse models
3) goddidit
4) our universe is explained through CS
5) our universe can be explained without recourse for (1)-(4) but human knowledge is insufficient to do so now.

of the choices (1) and (3) are unpalatable and (5) requires in effect an appeal to human ignorance.
of the two left (2) requires the the problem is simply shifted up a level, that the complexity of the model is vastly increased and that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.
(4) does not require greater complexity at the level of reality, provides a possibility for a simplistic CO explanation with that reality, but again requires that we accept that this may be unfalsifiable.

Given the choices (4) would appear an appealing option - regardless of counter-intuitive resistance. That's not to say one should accept it, but simply accept that it doesn't fare so badly against the alternatives.



How so more than alternative CO theories?

Perhaps some day, with the benefit of hindsight and age, you will see that this really is nothing more than mental masturbation. When there's evidence that supports this version of meta-reality, it will instantly become more than that. Until then, I'll stick with the reality I'm given.

 

[andyandy]

Perhaps some day, with the benefit of hindsight and age, you will see that this really is nothing more than mental masturbation. When there's evidence that supports this version of meta-reality, it will instantly become more than that. Until then, I'll stick with the reality I'm given.

How about actually addressing the argument as given? If you are unable to explain the flaw in Bostrom's argument how can you be confident that it's ridiculous? You can argue for (1) or (2) without the need for CS - that is hardly ridiculous. You can argue against algorithmic consciousness - that is hardly ridiculous. And yet you seem unwilling to actually do so. Why rely on such a simplistic "conclusion is ridiculous" value judgment without recourse to the argument behind it? If you are unable to do so, how can you have any confidence that that value judgment is sound?

Your approach is no more relevant than dismissing deterministic incompatibilism or monism purely on the grounds that you find the conclusion ridiculous - a compatabilist or dualist may equally regard your own conclusions as ridiculous. There can be no advancement of argument if neither side is prepared to consider what the other has to say. If you believe a conclusion to be ridiculous you should be able to find the flaw in the argument. If you can not do so you should rethink your opinion.

Which CO version do you prefer? It's strange that you regard questions of cosmic origin to be "mental masturbation" - perhaps you find mental flaccidity more appealing....

...maybe it's your age