Date: February 13, 2018 02:52PM
Henry Bemis Wrote:
> "If we can't KNOW if we're in a simulation or not,
> no such probability can be calculated.
> COMMENT: Probabilities are by definition
> uncertain, and therefore are in the context of
> some degree of lack of knowledge, unless the
> probabilities are so high or so low that our
> uncertainty is trivial.
Thank you for clarifying a simple understanding.
> In the present context, the probability calculus
> itself is flawed because of assumptions about the
> data, making its conclusions flawed.
This isn't known by us, because the report itself is not reprinted in this thread. We do not know how the researchers arrived at their conclusions other than it was derived from their research and data based. The report was prepared for its clients, not for the public at large.
"Its claims also appeal to the work of a philosophy professor from the University of Oxford. In 2003, Professor Nick Bostrom concluded there is significant possibility we "live in a simulation".
Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson also maintains the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high”.
The Bank of America’s report, which was looking at the implications of virtual reality, explained: “Many scientists, philosophers, and business leaders believe that there is a 20-50 per cent probability that humans are already living in a computer-simulated virtual world.
“In April 2016, researchers gathered at the American Museum of Natural History to debate this notion. The argument is that we are already approaching photorealistic 3D simulations that millions of people can simultaneously participate in.”http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bank-of-america-the-matrix-50-per-cent-virtual-reality-elon-musk-nick-bostrom-a7287471.html
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2018 02:58PM by Amyjo.