http://mashable.com/2016/06/02/elon-musk-simulated-reality/#sdLXHm2_jsqB
2,657 thoughts on “Elon Musk Thinks Evolution is Bullshit.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
phoodoo,
How do you get from “Elon Musk thinks reality is probably a simulation” to “Elon Musk thinks evolution is bullshit?”
Glitch in the simulation?
Glen Davidson
You think life can be a series of natural random undirected mutations that just so happened to develop into intelligent conscious being, AND also be a computer simulation designed by more advanced intelligent beings?
Shouldn’t your screwball philosophical meanderings at least have some small measure of coherency?
I think you have no evidence for suggesting that Musk’s beliefs are every bit as irrational and incompatible as yours.
phoodoo,
Can you answer the question?
How do you get from “Elon Musk thinks reality is probably a simulation” to “Elon Musk thinks evolution is bullshit?”
Please present your argument systematically, if at all possible.
keiths:
phoodoo:
Exactly. You haven’t presented one.
Who themselves evolved?
How did what’s his name come up with 1 in a billion? I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that number is pulled out of his ass.
Are those two options mutually contradictory?
Seems the research abilities of Phoodoo are around the ID average:
http://t.co/8OUAOiiblh
OMagain,
Do you think he means the emergence in our computer simulation?
Is evolution incompatible with a simulated universe? Why?
To me it seems unlikely that the computing resources able to simulate an entire universe’s development/evolution are possible. The total number of interactions at any given moment is staggering, and to keep it all going in a “lawful” manner through time must make it far more daunting.
To be sure, one might suppose that, while it might seem a problem in the “simulation,” things might be different in “reality.” Fine, but the only reason it’s brought up as a “possibility” is that it’s supposedly reasonable given the odds of life creating a “simulation” according to the “simulation” itself, so at least we should be consistent within the scenario that supposedly suggests that we might be a simulation. Live by the simulation, die by the simulation. And I’d certainly like to see any evidence that any sort of computer of which we know could (if scaled up enormously, but within bounds of the resources of a universe) possibly calculate the evolution of a universe.
For that matter, Musk seems just to be jumping on a geek fad. He could have instead blathered that we’ll soon reach the singularity. I mean, who cares? It’s sort of techno-magic either way, none of it based on real possibilities.
Glen Davidson
I found this:
Encyclopedia Galactica
There may be no real knock-out of the simulation idea (presumably every difficulty could have some solution or other), but that there are problems for the simulation that have hardly been solved seems to be a fact.
I’d say that every age has its myths, and the simulation idea is one for our time.
Glen Davidson
It’s Windows ME all the way down.
Noted how you react when a claim of yours is shown to be untrue.
Moved a couple of comments to Guano. Please address the post not the poster. Lizzie will one day return to judge us all.
Teeth will gnash.
At least in simulation.
Glen Davidson
You know how it is with antievolutionists:
Something—>Therefore evolution is untrue.
It’s axiomatic.
Glen Davidson
Apparently this simulation, in phoodoo’s view, does not include natural selection. Otherwise phoodoo wouldn’t be able to say “just so happened to develop into”.
And have biologists ever conducted computer simulations of evolutionary processes? Actually R.A;. Fisher got Maurice Wilkes to have his people do some calculations of gene frequency changes in a spatial cline. This was done in 1949 on the EDSAC, one of the very earliest computers, within a few months of its starting operation. And the first simulations of evolving populations that used random numbers to simulate genetic drift as well as natural selection were done by Nils Aall Barricelli on the computer of the Institute for Advanced Studies, and published in 1954. An account will be found in George Dyson’s book Darwin Among the Machines,
🙂 🙂
If we are in a simulation in which the very complex founding conditions were exquisitely designed is it unreasonable to assume that we were designed as well?
Would we expect that a designer with the capacity to set up this sort of simulation be completely surprised at what it kicked out?
Surely the designer would be have already done simulations like Joe Felsenstein is reporting.
peace
Joe Felsenstein,
You mean it was designed as a computer simulation, to look random and natural?
Ok, so they were able to fool you. I guess not everyone is so easily duped.
Some interesting evidence that has been pointed out to support simulation theory is that is solves the quantum entanglement mystery. If two entangled electrons, separated by a galaxy are controlled by a central processor then they’re changing simultaneously is easily explained since they are both equal distance from the processor.
colewd,
If it is a computer simulation, what makes you think anything is separated by an entire galaxy?
If we are in a simulation wouldn’t the fellow who created the simulation/nature be a supernatural creator by definition?
peace
phoodoo,
As we think about a computer simulation it is a 2 dimensional screen with the pixel as the addressable unit. I think the most current simulation theory is based on the atom and its components as being addressable units. So your computer screen has say 2 million or 2 x 10^6 units. The simulated universe has 10^80 plus addressable units that live in 3 dimensions. IMHO if this is correct there is no reason the doubt that atoms themselves have processing capability and some scientists are seeing evidence of this in supersymmetry theory’s mathematical model. So the giant simulation is to some degree simulating itself. The size of the simulation is what we current measure.
colewd,
Isn’t your believe in the existence of an atom just a computer simulation of your mind?
One has to wonder why, if our minds are computer simulations, why would the designers give us minds that could figure out its a computer simulation? Its part of their game?
I was thinking more of this:
— Terry Pratchett, Wintersmith
One also has to wonder why, if they were copying their own world onto a computer, but hey actually live in a real world that is not made of a computer, why didn’t they design our fake world exactly the same as their real world, including having computers that can make simulated worlds where the characters in the computer world believe they are real.
Actually, one has to wonder how insane would anyone have to be to say that the existence of our perceived natural world with its increasing technology, means it must not really be a natural world with increasing technology, because then surely there would be another world with more technology than this one, and they of course would want to make a world that looks like theirs, but with slightly less technology.
Do you think Elon Musk does DMT regularly? Or at least thinks he does in his simulation.
I think so. And there’s no more reason for believing in such a theory than there is for your belief in Christianity. They’re both weird speculations, nothing more.
phoodoo,
In the current model atoms are real just like computer pixels are real. Currently simulation theory is not the “matrix”, where our minds are creating reality. We live in reality, it is just a simulated one where all matter can be centrally controlled. Our minds that believe in atoms are made of atoms. They are addressable units and not just units of matter. Along with solving the entanglement problem this theory is closer to solving the genetic sequence (“information”) problem.
walto,
Yet plenty of the “skeptics” here have no problem entertaining the idea of a computer simulation, but immediately reject the possibility of a God.
colewd,
What? Are our minds real or simulated? Are they made of brain cells or computer digits?
phoodoo,
Again the unit of a human simulation is a 2 dimensional pixel. The unit in our universe is an atom. You need to think outside the box of how you view computers. The universe as a simulation is a lot more complex. Our minds are made of atoms that can arrange to form amino acids nuclear acids and other small biological molecules. This molecules can come together to form brain cells. The atomic units of these brain cells are programmable from the simulation but they behave exactly as brain cells. This is current simulation theory. It is not a digital world based on our current computer technology. Start with the concept that the designer of the simulation designed the atom as its primary building block.
colewd,
They designed the atoms using extra atom material laying around their universe that no one was using. Just surplus? Enough surplus to build an entirely new universe. So they used up half of theirs? or their universe is much bigger than ours, so they only used 10%.
Then they made our brains, and they made them to think they are real brains. And they made the thoughts inside our brains too?
Go on, this is getting very amusing.
phoodoo,
I am describing to the best of my ability the theory per Max Techmark and others. The questions you ask are interesting but clearly beyond the scope of the theory. There are observations that can support this theory i.e. quantum entanglement, DNA sequences, observations of addressable digital bits in supersymmetry theory. How the original atom was designed, based on this theory, is clearly unknown and almost certainly beyond our current mental capacity to speculate.
phoodoo,
What makes you think that if our brains were made they are not real? Can they not be made and still be capable of original thought based on observations?
phoodoo,
This entire thread rests on your belief that evolution cannot happen in a simulated reality.
That’s obviously wrong. Time to chalk it up as another phoodoo failure?
Entertaining and rejecting are not contradictories. The thing about the simulation theory, though, is that people have a pretty good idea of what a programmer is like. God is this or that or everything or nothing depending on who you ask. But, while it probably makes sense to have a bit more sympathy for the simulation theory for that reason, they’re both entirely without support. Just baseless musing.
The God theory is more popular both because it’s older and because it offers relief from fear of dying. The simulation theory isn’t comforting.
I have the opposite opinion. If she returned she would have to judge, therefore she does not return. So you get to continue on as a moderator. Lucky us.
I think we are in a simulation and the designer has stepped away. Once she gets a look at the results of the sim we’re all toast.
Isn’t that bloody obvious?
But if I can’t understand a simple WEASEL program I have no hope of understanding an actual simulation of “the power of cumulative selection.”
walto,
People have a pretty good idea of what a programmer is like???
A programmer that took all of the unused atoms in THEIR universe, and decided it would be fun to make another universe just like their own, except not like their own, because they didn’t design the ability to make a universe just like their own in their fake universe. And their reason for doing so, making sure to add in all of the tragedy and heartbreak into their fake universe which feels real, is, well, they are just like us, because this is what we would do.
Yea, we have a great handle of what those people are like (or is it only one person?)
keiths,
In a computer program, what qualifies as “nature” keiths? Everything?
Lizzie shall return bearing the One True List of Rules. All shall be so entranced by their elegance and beauty that moderation will be seen as the hallmark of foolish youth, no longer needed in the more enlightened forum She will establish.
In accordance with the prophecy.
You make a fair point, but I’m not suggesting that we’re as smart as this simulator (or simulators). I take it the person is more like some kind of brainiac Star Trek character (with big veins) or something. But my point was merely that, we basically get what people are, but don’t get what “Gods” are supposed to be. Are they physical? Could there be two of them? Are they in space? Time? Do they have to be particularly good. Must they have been born?
You see what I mean.
How would we simulate an entity that lacks belief in God or gods? Would we be obligated to call it an atheist?
🙂
Suppose this really is a simulation. Then what? We have no clue, nothing can be extracted from the mere supposed fact that we are living in a simulation. What is the simulation for? We don’t know, nothing about it’s mere being a simulation tells us. It could in principle be a totally open-ended simulation build on a few simple “rules” (our discovered laws of physics) and then with some set initial conditions. Maybe many simultaneous simulations are running on a giant cluster, with different “laws” of simulation and different “initial conditions”? Maybe the simulators are interested in seeing what different laws produce? Maybe they are simulating a multiverse? Maybe they are masturbating to high-definitions pictures of supermassive black holes? Or sand? Maybe they really just love the grains produced by weathered silicate rock. After all, we are pretty sure there’s far more sand in the “simulation” than there is life. Maybe “universe simulators” are like aquariums in the living rooms of the super-intelligence that build the simulations and they can show them off to each other?
I consider both options equally well supported: e.g. not at all. I reject nothing out of hand.