Are We Living In Nick Bostrom’s Speculation: различия между версиями

One minor error in the formulas concerns a possibility of infinite number of civilisations. Frank Tipler have shown how infinite computational capacity can be possible near the Omega Point, a hypothetical point prior to the Big Crunch (collapse of the Universe). Other scientists extended this theory to the possibility of thermal death of the Universe (another possible outcome — the infinite expansion). If infinite computational capacity is possible, all variables used in the main formula ( ''fP'', [[Image:image004.gif]] and [[Image:image006.gif|top]]) are invalid. This does not invalidate the simulation argument, as the formula can easily be expanded to cover the case of infinite number of simulations, but it might affect some of the corollary arguments. A stronger objection is the possibility of multiple universes in reality (not being simulations) or multiple human civilisations in the base physical universe. This leads to a wide range of possibilities, such as:

Another aspect of using average values that Bostrom ignores is that different civilisations are in different positions. If additional assumptions listed above are valid (especially the one about decreasing complexity of nested simulations), then those civilisations that are “deeply” simulated (simulated in a simulation in a simulation etc.) are less likely to reach a posthuman stage (and therefore run simulations themselves). In this case, using an average value of ''fP'' is misleading, because there can be observable signs in the world indicating that the civilisation is likely to be deeply simulated. We can speculate that our ability to think about creating simulations is an indicator that we are closer to reality (how close and whether we actually are in reality is, of course, uncertain). Thisisanargument (althoughnotadecidingone) againstindifferenceprinciple.

where ''fP'' — is the fraction of all human-level technological civilisations that survive to reach a posthuman stage, [[Image:image010.gifImage10.png|top]] — is the average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilisation and [[Image:image011.gifImage11.png|top]] — is the average number of individuals that have lived in a civilisation before it reaches a posthuman stage.

Bostrom claims that ''fsim'' — is “the actual fraction of all observers with human-type experiences that live in simulations” [1], but he is obviously mistaken. The formula, as it is written, makes practically no sense. The numerator is equal to the average number of people simulated by one civilisation and not to the total number of simulated people (by all civilisations in the metaverse). The denominator makes no mathematical sense but it is similar to the average number of people living in a civilisation and one level below (in simulations run in this civilisation). Evidently, the value of ''fP''[[Image:image012.gifImage12.png|top]] will usually be very close to 1, because

This formula is more correct than the one suggested by Bostrom.However, even with all these changes there is still one fundamental problem with the formula. The ''fP'' variable is completely irrelevant for the base civilisation. As will be shown later, the base civilisation is governed by different laws than the simulated civilisations. Since the transition to the posthuman stage by the base civilisation is a non-repeating event, whose outcome is already determined (although it usually cannot be obtained from within a simulation) and which directly corresponds with the nature of the reality (existence of the metaverse). With regards to the base civilisation, instead of ''fP''probability a different variable have to be used that takes on the values of 0 (base civilisation reaches the posthuman stage and, if ''Nbase''>0, the metaverse exists) and 1 (base civilisation does not reach the posthuman stage, there is no metaverse and we live in the real world).

If we do not live in a simulation, the whole logic of using ''fI'' or ''fP'' is invalid, because ''fsim'' is precisely zero. We know that we do not run any simulations and therefore whole argument is flawed. This is a common logical fallacy, known as a circular reasoning<ref>An argument that uses circular reasoning (also known as “begging the question”) makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.

</ref>. It was used, for example, by Rene Descartes to construct an argument that God exists, known as the Cartesian Circle [3].