This article is fun to play 'spot the false dichotomy' and 'identify the hidden assumption' with!
Elon Musk isn't an expert in physics or philosophy, and we have literally zero reason to consider his opinion valid on anything but his space program or car companies, and that's only because he is likely speaking the words of experts that he hired.
It's like Stephen Hawkings talking about economics and fearing capitalism/automation. He is not an expert in economics, and has zero real backing for his claims.
The assumptions about this "one in a billion chance" assumes that a) it is possible to simulate a universe as large or larger than our own using the energy and material in our universe. b) that other universes are possible at all, which follow radically different laws of physics. Assumptions that, to my knowledge, have yet to be proven in any form.
- Elon Musk isn't an expert in physics or philosophy, and we have literally zero reason to consider his opinion valid on anything but his space program or car companies, and that's only because he is likely speaking the words of experts that he hired.
He has a degree in physics and a ton of hands-on experience. And he has a high IQ. So that's two reasons to at least hear him out.
But mostly I agree.
I love the real-world-is-virtual-reality meme, because it ultimately comes from Words Made Flesh, an attempt at creating a modern animism. It's all very Arthur C. Clark, except that our technology isn't really sufficiently advanced, we've just placed enthusiastic chumps in charge.
Apropos of nothing, what did you think of Second Self? Turkle spends several chapters pointing out that children start with a baseline of animism as their living/not living divider and that computers fundamentally fuck with that. She points out that kids that can totally determine that plants are alive but rocks are dead have a hell of a time determining if a Speak'n'Spell is closer to a rock or a plant.
I know from working on cars that superstition is second nature. Working on electronics gives you even less causality to hold on to. Computers? I can totally see how you would make god in your own image while programming.
It is very common to attribute intention to programs, enough that our tendency to do so is mentioned in the Jargon File, but everyone knows programs don't really want things/think things/get confused, it's just conversational shorthand. Except sometimes, especially with people who didn't study computing formally and don't really understand things below the level of the particular technologies they studied, it can seem more like believing it but knowing they shouldn't.
I think once we have cute robots running around in the wild we're quickly going to get a People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots.
Turkle's Alone Together is basically one big manifesto about how we know that programs don't think, but we don't "know know" and that much of our anthropomorphization is due to just how hard we'll subconsciously work to fill the uncanny valley.
The number of people who studied computing formally and work with programs are an insignificant subset of the people who work with programs.
I don't think so, this is not a brain in a vat being fed sensory input but brain and vat and universe being simulated. I think you'd be hard pressed to find something like it prior to the invention of computers, though I half expect Quatrarius to come prove me wrong.
It's late. And I've been walking around in the sun for 15 hours in Burbank.
- Musk is a firm believer in the hypothesis that a super intelligent artificial intelligence created the universe as we know it.
This made me think of religion. I'll finish the article in the morning. But that resonated with me. Author says AI, I think of God. Author says created... Religion may say the same thing.
I wonder why everything this guy do/say become "viral"
Look like a new cult, comparable to the Steve Jobs's one.
His only argument is : exponential video-game complexity.
It's nice to have video-game as a science argument. Really, it's nice. But exponential growth on a short period of time, make bad science (Malthus)
Plus, last time I heard about the simulation argument, scientists were considering testing it. I heard, the hypothesis can somehow be tested. Which is nice.
While real scientist do the work, if he is so sure of himself, he should try to alert our Gamer Overlord, that we are aware of them. Landing spacecraft on barge, or building overpriced electric cars seems a cheap way to spend money when he could contact some neat gamer.
While I don't subscribe to this strain of thought, it definitely brought up memories of The Matrix, Tron, and Ghost in the Shell. Something that I think is extremely relevant here is the birth of the computer when the U.S. designed it as a guide for the thermo-nukes. The part pertaining to the article posted begins at 11:17 with a guy named Barricelli. I'll let the video take it from there. My point being artificial intelligence running at the basest of levels of computer history doesn't make this seem as far as a stretch, following Musk's theory.
Would I necessarily support the notion on the whole? No.
Though it does beg the question of are we, humans and all life on Earth, the first/farthest life has gotten in the Great Filter. If not, this is just one of so many possibilities that could [have] happen.
With regards to his math and where 1/billion comes from, I see no proofs. That guy asking Musk questions really seemed to be wanting validation from Musk....