Really?, Doesn't he have dozens of original publications? So maybe he actually is smart. His style may be strange but he is no dummy.

But there are very few scientists who speak publically. So it creates a dilemma. I assume that I have never heard of the most passionate scientists.

I agree, more should speak out, we need them out in the fields, out of the classrooms!

What a fantastic idea? Sort of like a flipped Matrix narrative.

He kind of glossed over the multiple child simulations. In an infinitely large hierarchy of parents, even a small multiple in number of children is sufficient to make the odds of being in the first or last one infinitely small.

@shivasregal Why doesn't the fact that we cannot create the simulation ourselves demonstrate that we are either the first which has never or the last which hasn't yet? Why is the default that it is feasible when it has not been demonstrated to be possible?

@redbai the default position of it being the first one is very defensible. And it being the last is also very good. However, for it to be the last there is no requirement that the predecessors are all 1:1 parent to child ratio. So in that scenario the numbers can balloon up. Since it is at most a thought experiment, it just feels like one with too many holes right now.

Hard to argue against a feeling, but it would seem to me that the 1:n, parent to children ratio (as opposed to the 1:1 parent to child ratio) is only relevant outside of a given consciousness' relative simulation. I don't see how or why alternative child simulations would matter to the experiences of any given consciousness in a specific child simulation, which is why, as I said in the beginning, I don't think the whole thing matters. It's like Pokemon trying to figure out if they can have meaningful life experiences in a chess game.

@redbai no argument with that. The point I am quibbling over is a minor one and that is in a (1:n)^billion, the odds of being in first or last go down to zero fast. So his explanation is not an acceptable solution.

While I agree with your views, I also am open to the possibility of new computational advances like AI that allow our successors to make these simulations. Considering that 20 years ago, a voice interface for regular human computer interaction felt like sci-fi, it is hard to declare this scenario a zero likelihood occurance.

@shivasregal While I can agree with you some of the content of my post is ignored. Being able today to do super things with a computer does not mean we bring computer logic into speculation like a simulation. What about all the years we did not have this technology? It's kind of like saying "god does everything in his own time" so he waited until about 1980 to give us useful DNA.

@DenoPenno my apologies but I don't understand the point about 1980 and DNA. DNA was likely created about 3.5 billion years ago from RNA.

@shivasregal My DNA reference is in pointing out that the wonderous god in his wisdom only allowed mankind to find useful purposes in crime solving through DNA around 1980. I refer to it as a technology. DNA beginnings and when we started to use it are not the same thing.

I care only to the extent that if it is plausible maybe I should get busy building my computer to be one of the players.

The only problem is that it is untestable with our current knowledge.

@Radu the simulation may allow an escape if it is a multiplayer simulation.