Nick Bostrom is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test.
Video Source
22 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The best so far..
The whole time joe was asking what are the reasons that the simulation theory exists like why we even think that? Nick just couldn’t understand the question
I hope robots will be lawful.
Nick BOSTROM also worked as a stand up comedian if I remember well
That was pretty hard to listen to lol. Hard to read some of the comments too.
People seem to not understand simulations and why we might simulate things. From medicine to material science simulations are incredibly valuable and is the key to innovation today. With medicine we can only bend proteins by hand to a certain degree and do tests and trials that take years to find better ways to treat ailments. With simulation we can find the best way to do practically anything.
Joe and people on here are like well everything that happened in history is real and we haven’t even made technology capable of doing that yet so why assume we are not real? If you think that one day we will be able to achieve that technology then more then likely you are already simulated.
All evidence is showing that yes we will be capable of making a simulation and with quantum computing be able to process every single atom in the entire universe. That fact alone makes it more likely then not that we are living in a simulation right now.
People in that simulation would not know they are in a simulation and have to go through the Stone Age and make their own iPhones and then eventually make their own simulation ect. Their history their wars their accomplishments would all feel real to them just like ours do to us. But for us they would be data points and just a simulation to them it would be their whole world.
This podcast was just trying to explain the basics and it’s frustrating that it didn’t move on and joe just couldn’t grasp this simple fact just like many can’t it seems. I would of loved for them to move on further down the rabbit hole. Like simulations with different laws of physics ect. What if the simulation were in runs different then the way life works outside the simulation from gravity, time to elements on the periodic table we could simulate and completely different universe and learn a lot by doing so.
If you just cannot accept any of this then that’s fine but saying anything nick said is flawed and not based in facts is close minded and wrong.
Oh also I think nicks point about only having to process what is observed is a pretty cool thought and how it’s done with video games today. Makes me think about the quantum world and makes me kind of think that might be the case.