The thesis of that article is that it is more probable sentient beings programmed realities like ours than that they arose organically.
A simple matter of probability.
From the article:
But the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.
This is total bullshit. You (purportedly one who understands probability and statistics) say it is a "simple matter of probability". Yet there is no probability computation involved here at all. It is a conceptually flawed supposition by someone who, like you, doesn't understand the first thing about statistics or probability.
The probability that this Mr. Bostrom is correct is precisely 0.0000000000%. That is, there is absolutely zero probability that he is accurate. Because we know, empirically, far too much about the physical world for any simulation to either replicate or to generate such an alternate reality. It is silly. Even if one presumes that computers someday will someday be able to self-program such scenarios, the difficult concepts such such free market economics, the so-called "butterfly effect", and god-knows-what precepts of physics and chemistry are incalculable and always will be. If for no other reason, calculation of these items would likely consume all of the energy in this fake world we purportedly live in.
A "simple matter of probability" you say? What it is is fodder for comic books. It is fairly pathetic that an "Oxford Philosopher" would have wasted his time (and the university's resources) to make such an absurd statement. |
