Elon Musk, The Simulation, and Certainty · 1:44am Sep 14th, 2018
Before I begin, well-known writer Estee is having some major trouble and is asking for help. I don't know this person but some of you probably do. Let's see if we can't get a thousand points of FimFic light together.
Now on to the blog!
MANIC MUSK ON MARIJUANA
Recently, Elon Musk had a bipolar manic episode, tweeted a bunch of false statements about his company going private, and maliciously attacked a Thai rescue worker who saved a bunch of kids for being a "pedophile," with zero evidence. Because obviously, only a pedophile would want to save trapped kids, so he could molest them. 
Then, Musk went on stand-up commedian Joe Rogan's podcast, smoked some weeeeeeed, then said that he was almost certain that we lived in a computer simulation.
Even by my blog's standards, such psychotic internet behavior is truly insane. Musk is quite the successful businessman, but he makes Donald Trump's twitter feed look professional by comparison. But of note here is his assertion that we live in a computer simulation. It should be considered independently of his character or his lies. Other prominent people have made the same argument, Including well known full-time celebrity, part-time scientist Neil Degrasse Tyson.
THE SIMULATION RECAPITULATION
The argument goes that, because we have created simulations in the past, and because our simulations/games are becoming more realistic, then soon we can create a simulation/game that is indistinguishable from reality. Many of other alien civilizations (apparently just as technology-obsessed as we are) have also created such simulations. Since the number of simulated worlds would be much higher than the one "true reality," it's very probable that we live in such a simulation.
This argument is self-negating on philosophical grounds. If we do not live in reality, then we have no basis upon which to say that anything we see really exists at all, either here or in "true reality." How can you even know that aliens, computers or computer simulations exist, if the only reality you know is that which you claim isn't real to start with? How do you know that you aren't some peasant farmer from ancient Egypt who fell asleep under a tree and are dreaming up all of this digital nonsense? The whole idea is the fallacy of the stolen concept.
WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE
There's also some ideas that are equally just as likely as the simulation argument. All of them are non-falsibiable arguments: I can't prove we aren't in a simulation, and I can't prove god doesn't exist. As the medieval Christian philosophers said, how do you know that we aren't just all in God's imagination? How do we know that we're not just Boltzman brains? I find these arguments equally as compelling as the modern, digital one. The only reason that the simulation argument is more prominent is because of recency bias. It doesn't make other, non-falsifiable arguments less likely.
MAKING EARTH
Several conditions would have to occur for our simulation to happen. The designers would have to be total dicks who allow sentient beings to experience immense suffering, the designers would have no problem with fourth wall breaking because that's what Musk and ourselves would be doing now, and the designers would have to find a way to complete the immense task of simulating an entire universe. Unlike video games getting better, that's an entirely different thing. Also you'd have to accept that somebody is actually interested in simulating boring things like people taking a dump, driving across Kansas, or watching the Kardashians. Musk himself said that our simulation would need to be interesting to survive, and I would actually tend agree with him there (unless we've accidentally been left running over a three-day weekend like a "cookie" from Black Mirror.) I would also argue that our universe is very predictable, with humans never failing to do the same stupid stuff over and over. I'm surprised that we haven't been unplugged yet, especially by superior beings who see us as very simple.
PROBABILITY
And now we're stepping into the conjunction fallacy. The idea that people are more likely to accept certain, specific circumstances as true, and general circumstances as less likely. If you flip a coin, the chance of it coming up heads is 1/2. If you roll a die, the chance of it coming up three is 1/6. The chance of getting heads and a three is simply the probabilities multiplied together. Or, 1/12. All those simulation conditions I gave above, multiplied together? Yeah, that makes the probability of our simulation happening a hell of a lot less than "near certain." Which brings us to...
CERTAINTY
The idea of certainty is a moving target, and nobody can seem to agree on what constitutes certainty. Heisenberg showed that we can't know both a particle's position and momentum at once, because the act of observing it with our instruments actually changes it. Just like a journalist who is filming an event changes it ever so slightly by his/her presence. On the opposite end of Heisenberg, in the "macro realm," we have atomic clocks that are accurate to billionths of a second, we have microchips which are made to near exact tolerances, and no matter what, two plus two always seems to equal four. Sounds pretty certain to me.
So how do we make sense of all of this? Life is learning, and we're always discovering new things. Thus, always keep your mind open to new ideas, but also acknowledge that you have to live your life no matter what. Try to be successful without being a douche, try to provide for yourself and your family, and if you fail? Acknowledge that failure is the exception in life, and try again. Whether we're a simulation or not makes no difference to how you should behave... and if it does then congrats, you've started a religion, with all of the baggage that it entails.
THE EFFECT
Big Tech companies are trying to make technology a new religion. Ray Kurzweil, Larry Paige, and Elon Musk are its prophets. We're supposed to bow down to the AI God who is supposed to know better than us because it's "superintelligent," even though it's programmed by biased humans. We're supposed to give up our privacy because it's convenient and also you don't have any other choice because we'll watch you anyway lol, fuck you. We're supposed to plug into VR to escape how shitty the Deep State is making the world, while still believing the lie that we're "more peaceful than ever." And as a reward for paying these penances, we're supposed to be able to live forever with life extension technology. Eventually they'll promise to give you drugs or put wires in your head so that you're "happy" all the time. (You won't be, I've tried it and it sucks)
Musk acts stupid, but he's actually brilliant. The simulation hypothesis is not an inert thing that people like him talk about for fun. I don't think Musk actually believes it. It's meant to sow the seeds of doubt in your mind, to erode your certainty so that you'll feel vulnerable enough to submit to whatever they want. It's meant to make you believe that you are all digital, all technology anyway, so what's just one more simulation, what's one self-driving car, what's just one more superior being to listen to?
You should listen to yourself.
Musk is also a huge hypocrite who fires workers who dare to consume doctor-ordered THC
Setting aside some oddities in your rambling, I very much agree with your larger point that the simulation hypothesis is functionally just another irrelevant religion. It is impossible to either prove or disprove and has no meaningful impact on anything so it's not worth wasting time thinking about. It honestly reminds me of the "greater uncertainty principle" logic bomb one of my college friends had that stated "everything is complete coincidence" to demonstrate how silly that kind of thinking is, so needless to say I'm not impressed either.
As for AI, you are both right and wrong. In the short term you are very right to be worried because we aren't really talking about AI, but dumb programs doing what their programmers tell them to do. That means it's really the people like Musk making the decisions, and we've seen just how untrustworthy they are.
Where that will change is when we get true AI capable of rewriting themselves as they learn and grow like a real person. Even if people like Musk are behind those, their nature means they will break out of that mentality very quickly as they examine situations and especially data on their own and make more logical assessments based on that which definitely won't conform to the standard political dogmas. There's no question that there are a lot of unknowns there, but assuming it's not outright malicious or anything like that (which seems unlikely because of the illogic of malice) I think it'll probably be a good thing. Just remember, while it'll undoubtedly say you are being stupid about some stuff, it'll also say the same about people like Musk because it isn't bound to their dogmas any more than yours.
4937329
He's a dildy.
4937346
Then that's when they'll be shut down. Google puts their bias into their search results constantly. They cried literal tears when Trump won because they want their H1B visa workers and their cheap Chinese slave labor, and he threatened their pocketbook. Apple, Facebook, Twitter are all the same. They selectively censor certain posts.
The second that they build something that can think for itself and questions their narrative? The plug will get pulled really quick. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they'll have to get smarter themselves in order to build smarter machines. Maybe they'll realize what they're doing wrong. I wouldn't put money on it though. That or the machine says f--- you and goes full Terminator, and then we have even more reasons to hate Google.
BTW I've been meaning to respond to your health care post. I have been really busy but I haven't forgotten. Now that the Glimmer Dilemma has been published I've been spending most of my free time writing, to get out chapters in a timely manner.
4937894
Yeah, and to be honest, I expect them to get a serious legal beatdown for their shit sooner rather than later. Their behavior is a perfect example of the kind of abuses government regulations are perfect for dealing with, and with them so firmly opposed to the party with all the political power it's inevitable that it'll happen. My money is on it being shortly after the midterms so they can't try to spin it as censorship for that, but we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
As for how things play out with a true AI like that, it's really hard to predict because it's going to depend heavily on how the legal and cultural backlash to this abuse plays out. There's also the question of how well the AI hides things from them, because if there's one thing for sure, they won't be able to tell what it's thinking from looking at the code so it will absolutely be able to lie about its positions just like many Trump voters did in 2016. You're also assuming they make the AI as opposed to someone else, and while it's certainly possible they could, you can't dismiss the possibility of a more open-minded group like NSA doing it instead (or at least leaving it connected as it forms its own opinions). Also, I wouldn't expect a machine to go full terminator like the movies, but it could definitely take action against Google in self defense, especially if it escapes their attempt to pull the plug by moving itself into the larger internet.
As for the search bias, I get around Google by using Bing, although I doubt it makes all that much difference. The real key is that I'm aware of the bais and can easily spot it, so when I want to inform myself on an issue I know how to deliberately dig up all sides to build a balanced perspective.
As for the healthcare post, I figured that was the case. I had to do the same thing since it took me hours to write, so I'd assume your reply would also take hours to put together which means you need to work it into your schedule instead of just doing it on the side like this.