There's two discoveries that will change mankind forever and we are now pretty sure that we will achieve it...

>Conjecture never increases probability.

Sequential logic has nothing to do with probability.
As for probabilistic logic, conjectures can "increase the probability" (whatever you meant by that), if the way this conjecture is structured leads to increased probability. Structure can be unimportant too, if one chooses some model theoretic interpretation that increases probability.

Tbh if you could just live in an alternate reality you choose without knowing it once you're in I wouldn't waste a second.

>a variation on Descartes' demon
I love those!
>the way this conjecture is structured
The economy is not part of the "structure" of your conjectures.
...And not a second out of place.

>created to fool my senses
How do you know you aren't a program?

I can be spontaneous.

Literally don't understand this "free will is an illusion" bullshit. What kind of shitty designer would program would allow a completely chaotic outcome?

youtube.com/watch?v=t_RwcGzGurc

I'm a consciousness in the "real" world playing an Avatar in this one which is simulated by a server in the "real" world. All of my interactions here are dependent on measurements, that is to say if I or any other player don't measure or observe anything, the server has no need to send data. If the materialism and determinism were right, then how come what I just said can be proven on a quantum level? Watch the video, it's very illuminating and based in science.

This is not a science problem, please stop.
This issue is pure philosophy, no matter how you want to frame or argue it.
It's also really, really old, people much more intelligent than you will ever be have thought about this.

You can't have free will, if determinism is true (which it most likely is as far as we can tell) and physicalism is also true (which is a question we cannot answer).

Free will doesn't need to be timeless and beyond the realm of physics for it to be "truly" free. You can still be entirely capable of free decision so long as there's any mechanism for it at all.

If its mechanical then its determined and not free. If free will exists then its a kind of magic

>You can still be entirely capable of free decision so long as there's any mechanism for it at all.
Yes, but for such a mechanism to exist and function independently of physical reality, physicalism must be false.

>determined and not free
The two are not mutually exclusive. Determinism doesn't imply that the reason things turn out the way they do isn't because you were capable of deciding how they'd turn out.
Nobody ever said anything different.

Determinism by definition means that what follows is caused directly by what came before. There was never any possibility of something different happening

>what came before
At some point in the future, what came before was your decision itself. Saying that decisions are part of a continuous chronology does in no way imply that such decisions weren't made freely. Decisions are hard to define, sure, but your ignorance of the inner workings of decision itself is not an argument that those decision don't have freedom within the processes that made them possible.

If there was ever a real chance that things could have happened differently, then it was not mechanical

If such a mechanism does not function independently of physical reality, its actions must be determined by something in physical reality.

If it is determined by something in physical reality we can regress this chain of causes to a cause so far removed from the person making a decision that it is certain that the person couldn't have done anything physical to influence the outcome of the mechanisms actions.
The idea of causality is not limited to a linear understanding of time.

Does a rock "decide" what path to take when rolling down a mountain? If the mind is mechanical its just a more complex version of the same thing

Decisions can be fully mechanical, but still be free.
>couldn't have done anything physical to influence the outcome of the mechanisms actions
There's a subtle counterfactual there. The fact that we can make consistent decisions regardless of a variety of possible predecessor states is the very definition of free decision.
>just a more complex version
...Yes, to the degree that we can say the complex processes of the mind are capable of having a new type of trait entirely: Decision capacity.

"Oh that? No, that's just ONE BRAIN'S WORTH of difference in complexity levels. They're virtually the same thing, right?"

If complexity is the difference between two things, those two things aren't the same thing.

Explain how a system whose outcome is entirely decided by prior conditions be "free"

A mechanical mind is just a whole lot of rocks rolling down hills. If you are adding properties like "decision making" then the system is violating causality and no longer mechanical/determined

>then the system is violating causality
Except it isn't. To use your analogy, decisions are the capacity of a falling rock to bounce off of other rocks in new and interesting ways. Then it breaks because rocks falling down a hillside aren't able to retain energy levels or state bits. Your brain suffers no loss of entropy by making a decision. It still has the same structural integrity as before, and it has new ways of connecting to itself. If the rocks as they fell could position themselves into a tower, or a pyramid, or a double helix, that would be one thing. You can't just create more interesting patterns just by adding more rocks. The only shape you'll get at the end of a rock slide is a pile of rocks. There's a very real measure of entropy in such a system. In the analogy, there is a gradient.

But reality isn't actually a fully analogous fractal.

/thread

Why are you so sure?

>already been achieved in the future
nigga, get your tenses straight

Here's my theory, in working towards artificial intelligence we'll discover that humans aren't even intelligent.

...

My theory is that we'll find machines aren't even intelligent and fairy logic will reign supreme.

I love this game. Who wants to play?

Nobody. Veeky Forumsfi is perfectly fine on this board so long as it's discussed in a Veeky Forums fashion. This is not not a philosophy board. Hell, even /b/ can be a philosophy board if you really want to get into it.

The simulation hypothesis was first published by Hans Moravec. Later, the philosopher Nick Bostrom developed an expanded argument examining the probability of our reality being a simulacrum.

His argument states that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:

1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.

2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.

3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.

There is no such thing as the "future". It doesn't exist until it's the present.

/thread

> CS jobs
xD

The simulation hypothesis is self-indulgent wankery that doesn't go anywhere, it being true doesn't mean anything.