So why is Musk better qualified to talk about this than every stoner high school kid who read the first few pages of Descartes, saw the Matrix or simply used their imagination when playing a SimCity style video game?
What he said was that there is a one in a billion chance that our reality is base reality.
If you agree with Occam's Razor, there's no reason to believe we aren't in base reality and just the result of incredible luck (the same incredible luck that leaves us the only known life in the universe).
Understanding the probability of something is not the same as claiming the majority result of that probability.
I see no evidence (empirical or otherwise) that this probability is accurate.
Technology advances -> Simulations exist -> We're either the first civilization in infinity or we're a simulation.
It's possible we're the first civilization in infinity, and it's the simplest explanation given no additional information. However, just because something is true doesn't mean the probability of it being true is very low and just happened to end up that way. You can believe in both probability and reality.
Doesn't follow; there could be lots of civilizations in the same reality, so we could not be the first civilization, and still not be in a simulation. If simulations of the detail level of our universe are possible given the laws of nature governing the reality underlying everything, then either we are in the base reality or a subordinate reality (if such simualtions are not possible, we are definitively in the base reality.)
The information we have provides very little basis for computing probabilities here: any estimate is just a projection of the biases of the person providing it.
> However, just because something is true doesn't mean the probability of it being true is very low and just happened to end up that way.
If something is true, it's probability is 1, by definition. (Something may have low probability based only on particular prior information, but that's a different story.)
If the universe is of infinite age, the chances of our being the first civilization in infinity to create a realistic simulation is one in infinity. It's not magic, it's the simplest possible train of thought.
An assumption for which there is no evidence (in fact, there is considerable evidence that the universe is not; the simulation scenario requires assuming that our universe is not the "root" universe, and that some other universe exists outside of it -- which is not only something for which no evidence exists, but is something for which no evidence can exist.)
The "infinite age" conjecture is already assuming that our universe is a simulation (or, at least, an pocket universe embedded in some other universe.)
> the chances of our being the first civilization in infinity to create a realistic simulation is one in infinity.
No, that's only true if there are an infinite number of civilizations in the history of the universe, not merely if the universe is of infinite age. The two assumption are not equivalent.
And, in any case, its irrelevant, because not being the first civilization to develop a simulation doesn't mean we're in a simulation. If, say, the ancient Greeks had a breakthrough and were the first civilization to develop universe-level simulations, that wouldn't make the ancient Chinese living in a simulation.
> It's not magic, it's the simplest possible train of thought.
Its the sloppiest possible train of thought, that starts with assuming most of its conclusion, and then proceeding by unwarranted leaps to conclude the rest of it.
Assuming by "simulation scenario" you mean the theory that there is a chance we are running in a simulation, it doesn't assume we aren't the root universe (but it does make a lot of other assumptions), just that of some number of realities both simulated (s) and real (r), our chance of being in a non-simulated reality is r/(s+r).
Some (but not all) of the assumptions required are: Simulated reality is possible, human level AI is possible, it's possible to simulate a universe to the level we are at before the heat death of the simulation running universe (or the simulation running universe has different constraints, more time or power, etc).
> Its the sloppiest possible train of thought, that starts with assuming most of its conclusion, and then proceeding by unwarranted leaps to conclude the rest of it.
I don't think it's quite that, and I don't think it assumes most of its conclusion. I think given the assumptions the argument takes for granted, then it's a valid argument. While I think many of the assumptions are probably, it only takes one of those, and a much greater likelihood to be true, to greatly affect the original calculation, but even then, you have to assume that if there's a parent universe, it follows the same laws, otherwise you can't assume anything.
Ultimately, the thing we all need to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter. We have no ability to control or predict the consequences of being in a simulation, and given that our universe seems ultimately to conform to laws, and not act in what appears to be a capricious manner, it's inconsequential in the truest meaning of the word.
The argument premised on the infinitesimal chance of our being the first in an infinite timeframe requires assuming that our universe, which seems to have a finite age, is not the root universe.
That assumption is a fairly key part of the conclusion that the universe is a simulation; even assuming the rest of the steps of reasoning were correct, its not an argument for P(Our universe is a simulation | What is now known and observed) but P(Our universe is a simulation | Our universe is a pocket universe embedded in a root universe of infinite age)
I'm not sure where you're getting the infinite time frame requirement, besides previously in this thread (from someone else). I think that's an artifact of this thread, not a requirement of the "simulation scenario".
Assuming we could accurately model one universe to our age within another universe of similar laws (a sentence which contains many assumptions on both sides of the proposal), we are presented with a situation where we are either the base universe, or the modeled one, and without a way to determine which, we have a 50% chance of being in other. I see the main argument as this but scaled with a few assumptions, the biggest of which and the one that really allows for exponential growth, being that the root universe need not have the same constraints as the simulated universe.
I'm not totally sold on the simulation scenario idea being true, as there's a lot of assumptions that could break down and make it impossible, but as of yet I'm not sure I've seen any evidence suggesting it's impossible at any scale. Then again, I'm treating the chance that we could be in a simulation as distinct from the likelihood that we are in a simulation, so I might not even be arguing the same thing (although I don't think the difference really matters).
Infinity is only an abstract mathematical concept. It does not exist in reality.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/chances+are
When used in a phrase it means highly likely. I'm not talking about probability here, rather his use of the idiom.
The use of an idiom doesn't change the definition of the words.
Probability is not causal. Just because something is "highly likely" does not mean it is true.
Then you don't understand what an idiom is.
"The ball is in your court" is an idiom. It doesn't mean you have a ball or a court.
When an American says "chances are" he's not talking about probability. The closest replacement for a non-American would be 'probably'.
Yes, he is. "Chances are" (or, equivalently, what the headline actually says, which is "odds are") is an idiom that means "it is more likely than not", or, in probabilistic terms, "there exists a probability of greater than 50% that..."
More to the point of arguing about the meaning of an idiom, in this case, Musk has actually been a lot more specific and quoted a specific odds ratio of 1 billion to 1, or approximately 99.9999999%.
We're broadcasting these ideas, not because they're at all new, or interesting (they've been around for about 400 years, at least). We're broadcasting them because Elon Musk is saying them. His only new idea, AFAICT, was asserting some probability that he pulled out of his ass that this idea is false.
In the absence of new ideas, maybe we weight this by the authority of the speaker. If a theoretical physicist said this stuff I'd be more inclined to take some kind of notice (since they'd have a deeper insight into the structure of the universe than I do). A car salesman - not so much.
Anyway his thoughts aren't based on the Matrix. This is a well known idea called the Simulation Argument, invented by Nick Bostrom (who Elon Musk is a known fan of): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
You might agree or disagree with Bostrom's paper, but one of those is a high-schooler/tripper/moviemaker's _idea_, and one is a scientific paper, which is meant to be repeatable, experimental, etc.