/sci/ - Science & Math

Probabilistic arguments are stupid, and anyone who parrots them has zero experience in even so much as rolling dice.

>>16168176
At a universe scale, statements such as more likely are without any meaning.

>>16168176
Inferring anything about whether you are in a simulation or not is impossible probabilistically. You can never know whether anything is a simulation or not and hence it is futile to think about it. It's also not science because it doesn't discuss anything knowable. Because it doesn't matter anyways.

You also can't probabilistically infer whether your universe is expanding just by existence. Why would existence in an expanding universe be more likely? Maybe there are hidden factors or whatever.

>>16168200
Probability has meaning in deterministic settings because we lack perfect information. If we had complete information on everything it'd be a different story.

>Earth-like planets are expected to provide the greatest opportunity for the detection of life beyond the Solar System. However our planet cannot be considered a fair sample, especially if intelligent life exists elsewhere. Just as a person’s country of origin is a biased sample among countries, so too their planet of origin may be a biased sample among planets. The magnitude of this effect can be substantial: over 98% of the world’s population live in a country larger than the median. In the context of a simple model where the mean population density is invariant to planet size, we infer that a given inhabited planet (such as our nearest neighbour) has a radius r < 1.2r⊕ (95% confidence bound). We show that this result is likely to hold not only for planets hosting advanced life, but also for those which harbour primitive life forms.
>Further inferences may be drawn for any variable which influences population size. For example, since population density is widely observed to decline with increasing body mass, we conclude that most intelligent species are expected to exceed 300 kg.
>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07804

Ayys are more likely to be fat bastards

>>16168176
>(as evidenced by humans being the species with the most biomass on Earth).
Humans aren't the species with the most biomass.

>>16168432
Of all the animal species, homo sapiens has the biggest total biomass.

>>16168176
>That if there are many simulations

Which is 50/50 so the whole argument is pointless. Its 50/50.

>>16168176
>You guys know the probabilistic argument for simulation theory right? That if there are many simulations the chance to be in base reality is small.
I thought this was bullshit desu. It assumes the tick rate would be the same everytime you go down a level.
But i think the tick rate would have to diminish by 10 times or more each time.
For example minecraft ticks at 1/64 a second
That's not gonna improve by that much even if you had perfect CPUs
And then a redstone contraption ticks even slower still. By about 1 a second.
This isn't taking in to account whether each level could sustain enough complexity to simulate something else in the first place.
If you go down a level and it's impossible for endermen or villagers to attain a civilazation capable of building a simulation no matter how many thousands of year you let them play then you're stuck with just one level of simulation.

>>16169654
Homo sapiens is one species. ”Fish” is not one species. ”Arthropods” is not one species.

Can you guys even fucking read???

>>16170477
it can be possible for a single species to fit into arthropods and mog humans, brainlet. Let's say some sort of aphid.
>but there's trillion aphids so it's super unlikely!
kind of baked into the whole fast breeding, tiny shit animal meta, innit? So what's the point in the distinction???

>>16170540
>>but there's trillion aphids so it's super unlikely!
It would indeed be super unlikely.

>>16169654
>Viruses are 10% of the biomass of animals
Wtf

>>16170313
Yes there is some sort of loss of computational power for each step in the hierarchy. Eventually you hit the "gutter" simulations that lack the ability to meaningfully simulate further.

However, how big this complexity loss is for each stage can't be known.

>>16168176
>here's my argument for simulation theory
>first, assume there are lots of simulations
200 IQ

>>16168176
what are you babbling about. you talk of likely when n is literally 1.

>>16170658
>high intelligence biomass prevalence vs low intelligence biomass prevalence on Earth
>non-expanding space divided by expanding space volume
Are not cases of n=1

>>16170681
yes n=1. all your assumption base on this 1 and there is literally zero (0) evidence that any of our paradigms must fit onto what we would recognise as alien "life", whatever this is.

>>16170691
There is very good reason to believe that the alien life we would encounter proliferates. And intelligence hugely increases proliferation.

Pick a mass unit of biomass in the universe at random and you are near guaranteed to encounter a biomass that proliferates. That's just a basic statistical fact.

>>16170694
we know exactly 2 things:
sentience exists and we have a (local) upper bound on possible complexity (humans).
what form and shape this can take is anyone's guess. none of your other assumptions are valid.

>>16170701
Ok I guess you just don't understand how a simple ratio works.

>>16170702
I accept your surrender

>>16170707
Let me put it into baby terms for you: We are more likely to observe things that are numerous. So it is likely that any given thing we encounter is also common.

>>16170711
your assumptions are invalid. no idea how you cant understand that.

>>16170714
You can literally confirm my "assumptions" by looking out into space and almost only encountering stuff that is present in enermous quantities, i.e. things that are common.

If I have 100 apples and 1 orange and you select a fruit at random, you are nearly guaranteed to select the common fruit.

If you have a lifeform that proliferates and one that doesn't and you encounter a lifeform by pure chance, you are near guaranteed to have encountered a lifeform that prolfierates because it has more biomass.

You are more likely to encounter things that are numerous (common), how an adult can not understand this is beyond me.

>>16168176
Specifically egarding the multiverse argument and a bit OT:
Firstly the argument presented inverts the concepts of space and universe.
Secondly, if we agree to roll with it regardless, we can find that it is not the volume that dictates the likelyhood of encountering object x.
Example: If two universes, identical copies of each other at one point in each of their developments, antagonistically contracted or inflated, it would merely mean object x is equally likely to be found in both but at different density. Now: If object x is complex in nature, like all known observers are, it is far less likely to find it in the inflated universe, as the greater mean distance of very basic objects lead to a much lesser chance of complex arrangements forming.

>>16170720
pure chance? what do you think this is? lotto?