Life simulations have applications in scientific research, allowing researchers to study the dynamics of ecosystems, human behavior, or population growth in controlled settings. As artificial intelligence and computational power advance, life simulations are becoming increasingly sophisticated, providing valuable insights into both human and non-human systems. However, these simulations still have limitations and can't perfectly capture the unpredictability and complexity of real life. They raise philosophical questions as well, touching on the nature of reality and whether our own existence could, in some way, be part of a larger "simulation."
The real question is, would not any Reality carry intrinsic virtual elements with it, that could be considdered a simulation. Or that be simulation like. As note: Also take the labels we humans invented, like real, not real, not to absolute or as truth. It is still a perspective seen and interpretated through our conditioned mind sets.
So small a space contains the image of the universe. Leonardo Da Vinci on camera obscura /1500. Photography began in earnest around 1825 so maybe around 2025 3D photos will simulate enclaves that for intent and purpose began to affirm #1 due to only few wealthy individuals can affirm who via technology can have cognitive aspiration for #2 only to realise #3. The historical precedence also correlates as for in certain Buddhist traditions the realisation of emptiness of inherent existence and rebirth or release entails even the most enlightened are bound to rebirth (ancestor simulation) unless all other sentient beings are levelled up a notch so to speak.
This theory is no more plausible than intelligent design theories at the moment. It's actually similar. But i did not see the same condescending behavior exhibited by Keating. I am not religious. Just an objective bystander.
I feel like you could use the happiest thought of Einstein is a mechanism to see if any one of your guests actually has watched any of your podcast... I think in every episode you talk about the happiest thought of Einstein... So to use it as a question is kind of like a check to see if that person has even watched any of your content.
I really do not understand the question about whether or not computers are capable of an expereince like Einstein's "happiest thought". I've heard Professor Keating pitch it numerous times, so what am I missing? It just seems so obviously simpleminded that I have to assume that I'm missing something, because Keating is clealry a very smart guy. To my mind, there is mo requirement for computers to have the same motivations that we have in order to solve the greatest mysteries in the universe. But if you like, why can't we assume that an appreciation for eureka moments and ispiration, is programmable anyway?
'I really do not understand the question about whether or not computers are capable of an experience like Einstein's "happiest thought".' Computers have no conscience, no emotions and therefore: no, they can't experience Einstein's "happiest thought".
@@Age_of_Apocalypse Of course they can't right now, but there's no reason to think that they couldn't in the future, in principle. That's what's being discussed here. Future possibilities with AI, and simulations. Not what the current limits are. Keating has specifically stated that even if we have AGI, how will a computer experience something like a "happiest thought". Well, it wouldn't really be advanced AGI if it couldn't, now would it? A super intelligent computer should obviously be able to take observations of the world, and data, and derive novel insights and it should be able to do much better than we can, or Einstein did, in fairly short order.
If you say that the Simulation Hypothesis is true, do you assume that we are a “first level” simulation (ie, we are a simulation made by the “Real People”, who ever they are)? Why should I not then claim that, “No, surely we are a ‘second level’ simulation!” ? And yet another could demand as forcefully that we must be a “third level”. What evidence would you have to counter any of these additional claims? This may sound simply argumentative, and perhaps it is. But isn’t all this just bumping up against Occam’s Razor without wanting to admit it?
I had the same thought than you about the second level, third level, etc. In we were in a simulation, we could be at the 100,998,647,101 level of the simulation and to me, this is absurd. Indeed, Occam's Razor should lead to a much more elegant solution to the universe and our presence in it. 😊
Or maybe we are at all levels at the same time. Level A creates level B. Level B creates level C. And perhaps without anyone knowing, level C turns out to be equivalent to level A. This would mean that level A was itself created by their own creation.
*Are We Living in a Simulation? The answer lays in your Definition of the word "We"... Yes what you see as being in your Vision, is "Virtual Reality" which is being Displayed in a very, very small Display Register of a "Terminal" ( referred to in ancient manuscripts as The SOUL ) involving "The Processing System of LIFE"... But "LIFE The Real Self" is NOT in the Simulation. ("Virtual Reality") "LIFE The Real Self" or "AWARENESS" ( NOT be confused with Consciousness ) being Non-Dimensional, resides Outside the Display Register... Consciousness is The "LINK" that Connects "AWARENESS" to the brain of the "Avatar" in the Simulation...*
Exactly! The AI community talks about the intelligence in their little toys, but sorry guys, there is no intrinsic intelligence; that intelligence - the real one - is in the head of the developers who coded everything the AI does. 👏👏
Nick Bostrom, if I have the choice between listening to your rambling and Sir Roger Penrose, you'll lose every time. That said, the simulation hypothesis could lead to the absurdity where we can simulate the universe and ourselves in it, then the beings in that universe reach the point where they can simulate the universe and themselves in it and so on so on... 🤦♀🤦♂ Sorry, as Jean-Luc Picard said in one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation to the Q entity: "The Universe is not so badly designed!". 😮
I actually believe we are in a simulation, i mean, think about just how many once in a lifetime/generation events we're living through, almost on a weekly basis now!! Not to mention Consciousness, life, "the big bang," gravity, quantum entanglement (Einstein's spooky action at a distance) the fact Prof James Gates when looking into the fabric of the universe mathematically speaking, found actually computer code deep within, and not just any code, a specific code discovered in the 50's, (Chamon code) effor correcting code, now found in every search engine on the planet (you can look this up) Plus, a whole bunch of other stuff uve noticed slowly over the past decade or so... We live in a simulation!!
Great guest, always enjoy his content. Keating on the other hand desperately needs help on his dad jokes and silly analogies, they almost make me turn the channel.
![Did This NEW Theory of Gravity Solve the Expanding Universe? Claudia de Rham [Ep. 419]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NqION4He4IQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
If we are just characters in some Alien Teenager's game, he must have put us on 'Moron' setting.
Quantum mechanics where objects dont exist until measured seems to support a simulation world.
They do exist. The measuring is just to see where they are at that particular moment in time. That's what quantum means.
@@rokko_fablethat is how I understand too
This is wrong on so many levels...
Life simulations have applications in scientific research, allowing researchers to study the dynamics of ecosystems, human behavior, or population growth in controlled settings. As artificial intelligence and computational power advance, life simulations are becoming increasingly sophisticated, providing valuable insights into both human and non-human systems. However, these simulations still have limitations and can't perfectly capture the unpredictability and complexity of real life. They raise philosophical questions as well, touching on the nature of reality and whether our own existence could, in some way, be part of a larger "simulation."
literally creationism but God is a geek...
that is assuming the buck stops with whoever 'created' our particular simulation...
@@dg-ov4cf begging the question infinately is gay
Yes, can't separate shared without my conversations!
Hosts Meeks and our beautiful will say, students given to be able to show off in front of HIM! Gratitude and honor!
We can not prove there way if we live in a simulation or not we can not prove we live in a simulation.
2 edges Sword will say, LOVE with the "NEW DAY"!
Great discussion related to AI and simulation ideas, since my background is computer science. I appreciate the diversity of topics.
Life will say, remember Life can't be Life in front of HIM! Without given sincere conversations?
I keep skipping forward and it's none of nick talking
The real question is, would not any Reality carry intrinsic virtual elements with it, that could be considdered a simulation. Or that be simulation like.
As note: Also take the labels we humans invented, like real, not real, not to absolute or as truth. It is still a perspective seen and interpretated through our conditioned mind sets.
My Holy Angels carrying the little Child born "i" Am. Holding a little LIGHT came with a Candy as an offering to comfort the comforter!
Imagen hearing this back in 2022 and buying nvidea stock right after!! Yep that’s what I did best decision ever ! Thank you both
Good buy. I was wondering if anyone did well there.....
Good tech
Students will say, why the shalom comes with rejoicing, hallelujah, and amen looking at the little child born "i" Am?
So small a space contains the image of the universe. Leonardo Da Vinci on camera obscura /1500. Photography began in earnest around 1825 so maybe around 2025 3D photos will simulate enclaves that for intent and purpose began to affirm #1 due to only few wealthy individuals can affirm who via technology can have cognitive aspiration for #2 only to realise #3. The historical precedence also correlates as for in certain Buddhist traditions the realisation of emptiness of inherent existence and rebirth or release entails even the most enlightened are bound to rebirth (ancestor simulation) unless all other sentient beings are levelled up a notch so to speak.
Brian remember when my pop Einstein said, if ye have the MIND OF GOD?
Of God of the Living have joined together will Noone separate! It's a privilege indeed!
Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD thy YOUTH!
Brian many have been looking for a treasures? Thy friend Brian!
This theory is no more plausible than intelligent design theories at the moment.
It's actually similar.
But i did not see the same condescending behavior exhibited by Keating.
I am not religious.
Just an objective bystander.
Remember a little child "i" is not alone! With the "Am"!
I feel like you could use the happiest thought of Einstein is a mechanism to see if any one of your guests actually has watched any of your podcast... I think in every episode you talk about the happiest thought of Einstein... So to use it as a question is kind of like a check to see if that person has even watched any of your content.
Students will say, why thy shared Feet Nick and Brian in front?
Beloved do not underestimate the power of my shared "i" Am Waters!
Rokos Basilisk is listening. Ssshhhhhhhh
Is Bostrom assuming, without definitions and explanations, that the entities in the simulations are sentient?
Students will say, as ye all see! Can't separate!
0:00 Forth possibility: the list of other possibilities.
Yes, even my 2 edges Sword!
I really do not understand the question about whether or not computers are capable of an expereince like Einstein's "happiest thought". I've heard Professor Keating pitch it numerous times, so what am I missing? It just seems so obviously simpleminded that I have to assume that I'm missing something, because Keating is clealry a very smart guy.
To my mind, there is mo requirement for computers to have the same motivations that we have in order to solve the greatest mysteries in the universe. But if you like, why can't we assume that an appreciation for eureka moments and ispiration, is programmable anyway?
'I really do not understand the question about whether or not computers are capable of an experience like Einstein's "happiest thought".'
Computers have no conscience, no emotions and therefore: no, they can't experience Einstein's "happiest thought".
@@Age_of_Apocalypse Of course they can't right now, but there's no reason to think that they couldn't in the future, in principle. That's what's being discussed here. Future possibilities with AI, and simulations. Not what the current limits are.
Keating has specifically stated that even if we have AGI, how will a computer experience something like a "happiest thought". Well, it wouldn't really be advanced AGI if it couldn't, now would it? A super intelligent computer should obviously be able to take observations of the world, and data, and derive novel insights and it should be able to do much better than we can, or Einstein did, in fairly short order.
@@collinsmcrae You can only have conscience and emotions in organic, living matter and we are FAR, FAR, FAR from that level of technology.
If you say that the Simulation Hypothesis is true, do you assume that we are a “first level” simulation (ie, we are a simulation made by the “Real People”, who ever they are)? Why should I not then claim that, “No, surely we are a ‘second level’ simulation!” ? And yet another could demand as forcefully that we must be a “third level”. What evidence would you have to counter any of these additional claims? This may sound simply argumentative, and perhaps it is. But isn’t all this just bumping up against Occam’s Razor without wanting to admit it?
I had the same thought than you about the second level, third level, etc. In we were in a simulation, we could be at the 100,998,647,101 level of the simulation and to me, this is absurd. Indeed, Occam's Razor should lead to a much more elegant solution to the universe and our presence in it. 😊
Or maybe we are at all levels at the same time.
Level A creates level B.
Level B creates level C.
And perhaps without anyone knowing, level C turns out to be equivalent to level A.
This would mean that level A was itself created by their own creation.
Brian will say, who can know? If none have seen God of the Living?
Likewise thy shared Hands!
*Are We Living in a Simulation? The answer lays in your Definition of the word "We"... Yes what you see as being in your Vision, is "Virtual Reality" which is being Displayed in a very, very small Display Register of a "Terminal" ( referred to in ancient manuscripts as The SOUL ) involving "The Processing System of LIFE"... But "LIFE The Real Self" is NOT in the Simulation. ("Virtual Reality") "LIFE The Real Self" or "AWARENESS" ( NOT be confused with Consciousness ) being Non-Dimensional, resides Outside the Display Register... Consciousness is The "LINK" that Connects "AWARENESS" to the brain of the "Avatar" in the Simulation...*
Yes, Brian even my pop Einstein can't pass beyond this point! Why?
Physics? Not anymore I guess
Sadly no! In my book, another useless discussion about an idea where the an ounce of evidence is provided. 😞
Computers can't beat a human at chess. A programmer can use a computer to beat a human at chess.
Exactly! The AI community talks about the intelligence in their little toys, but sorry guys, there is no intrinsic intelligence; that intelligence - the real one - is in the head of the developers who coded everything the AI does. 👏👏
Students look at thy shared feet resting upon in front? Yes, all shared Feet! As Oliver loved thee! Yes, i so Love many Who am I in front?
Nick Bostrom, if I have the choice between listening to your rambling and Sir Roger Penrose, you'll lose every time.
That said, the simulation hypothesis could lead to the absurdity where we can simulate the universe and ourselves in it, then the beings in that universe reach the point where they can simulate the universe and themselves in it and so on so on... 🤦♀🤦♂
Sorry, as Jean-Luc Picard said in one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation to the Q entity: "The Universe is not so badly designed!". 😮
Elon wìll say, remember How else can ye show off in front of HIM?
yes you are in my sim
Asked all my shared Am among thee!
I guess it's a draw, the physics community doesn't believe in God while the other side doesn't believe in the theories. 😊
Will ye recognize if HE walks within thy midst?
Unlike many shared Am to experience to be a FATHER in front of HIM?
Lord what is a body a little child born "i" longing to learn?
What is imagination is everything? Nor why unto a little child "i" given to imagination?
Yet suddenly appeared!
Why say students shared "i" Am?
Brian will say, if a little child born "i" comes unto all HIS shared Am? Likewise unto all Scribes saying I know God?
Yes, will visit all the Gods of men in front!
Lord why thy youth punching one another?
Spoiler - we don’t live in a simulation
I actually believe we are in a simulation, i mean, think about just how many once in a lifetime/generation events we're living through, almost on a weekly basis now!!
Not to mention Consciousness, life, "the big bang," gravity, quantum entanglement (Einstein's spooky action at a distance) the fact Prof James Gates when looking into the fabric of the universe mathematically speaking, found actually computer code deep within, and not just any code, a specific code discovered in the 50's, (Chamon code) effor correcting code, now found in every search engine on the planet (you can look this up)
Plus, a whole bunch of other stuff uve noticed slowly over the past decade or so... We live in a simulation!!
Exalted themselves above will say, why say little child "i"?
Nerdy way to say you believe in God.
Coputer pain would be lost files or slowed down speed i reckon
Keep watch shared "i" Am students shared feet resting upon all dry grounds nor the world.
Isn't th Brain a form of a computer,ba problem solving Maschine a error coreccting mechanisms
Why say students?
The simulation hypothesis is probably one of the dumbest things ever invented by philosophers...
This is absolute mind f*****g
What is a little child "i" given imagination?
Yes, these gods knows don't exist in front?
What is imagination? Elon will say if there's no neighbors given from HIM?
btw the FHI is dead
Great guest, always enjoy his content. Keating on the other hand desperately needs help on his dad jokes and silly analogies, they almost make me turn the channel.