エピソード

  • Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation

    Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation
    2025/05/28
    Most of us first encounter the Simulation Hypothesis through science fiction, often experienced as something of a metaphysical thrill-ride. But as computational theory and cosmology advance, serious thinkers – philosophers like Nick Bostrom, physicists, computer scientists, and even theologians – have begun analyzing the feasibility of computed worlds. Recently, Franco Vazza published “ Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for this Universe: why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a simulation.” In this paper, he provides a scientific analysis of the Simulation Hypothesis. Vazza’s analysis is impressive in both scope and detail. He incorporates influential contemporary hypotheses about the relationship between information, energy, and the structural constraints of our universe. These include the Holographic Principle, Landauer’s limit, and astrophysical energy bounds. From them, Vazza reasons that any simulation of our universe (even on reduced scales) would require astronomically large amounts of energy. So large, he judges from his calculations, the energy requirements would be greater than anything feasible within our universe. Not even black holes instrumented as computers, at what he deems to be the bounds of theoretical speculation, could handle the demands of a low-resolution real-time simulation. Thus, he concludes, energy requirements render the Simulation Hypothesis practically impossible for any simulator that may operate within physics like our own. Of course he doesn’t know about physics unlike our own, which he admits. But he points out, rightly, the practical triviality of speculation about physics unlike our own. The more alien the imagined physics, the less such imagination implies anything meaningful about our own potential. So alternative physics can’t save the Simulation Hypothesis. Although I’m not expert in the related physics, I assume Vazza has accurately characterized the scientific hypotheses on which he calls. And although I haven’t carefully reviewed his logic and math, I assume they are valid and correct. However, even granting those particular assumptions, a model is only as strong as the ensemble of its assumptions. As much as I appreciate Vazza’s audacity, I find his conclusion overstated and his apparent confidence unwarranted. He overlooks or glosses over foundational assumptions that deserve more attention. It’s premature to declare the Simulation Hypothesis “impossible,” or even nearly so. Overestimating Costs Perhaps the greatest overreach arises from assumptions that Vazza uses to calculate energy requirements. He acknowledges the Simulation Hypothesis doesn’t depend on simulating an entire universe, or even an entire planet at full resolution, although he focuses considerable attention on such ideas. And he does briefly consider the possibility of solipsism. But he stops short of fully considering minimal costs for supporting subjective experience. Consciousness is not well understood by science or philosophy. Mind may emerge from or supervene on relatively coarse substrate, which resists easy quantification. We cannot say, at least for now, what a minimum necessary substrate for experience would be. But we can say, with the confidence of speaking from definition, that a simulation would need only provide whatever substrate proves sufficient for consistent and convincing experience. To achieve that, a simulation may economize substantially. For example, it could leverage compressed statistical descriptions of substrate that, in turn, feed on-demand minimal-resolution rendering of substrate. Vazza suggests this would still be too costly due to the energy requirements of error correction, which he briefly characterizes in a footnote as being consistent across both irreversible (standard) and reversible computing contexts. However, competing hypotheses suggest that the cost of error correction may be considerably decreased within the context of reversible computing. It’s worth recalling that, in calculations like these, small differences in assumptions can multiply into vast discrepancies between conclusions. We can see this across a diversity of approaches to the Simulation Argument. And that’s to be expected, as we can see this elsewhere. For example, small differences in values assigned to components of the Drake Equation yield wildly different estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Underestimating Superintelligence Central to the Simulation Hypothesis is the idea that the simulators are, compared to us, vastly more intelligent – superintelligent. Vazza’s assessment of energy production possibilities, however, come merely from contemporary observations of transient natural phenomena such as supernovae. What about hypothetical technologies for sustainable energy that humans can already imagine, such as encapsulating stars in Dyson spheres, extracting energy from the rotation of ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation

    Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation
    2025/05/07
    Nick Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument is a rigorous reworking of what is, at its heart, an ancient question. Are we living in a created world? He distills the answer into three stark possibilities, a trilemma: Doom: Almost all civilizations destroy themselves or otherwise fail before developing the capacity to create detailed simulations of their ancestors. Abstinence: Some civilizations develop this technological capacity, but almost all choose not to simulate conscious agents, for ethical or other reasons. Simulation: If our civilization survives and runs ancestor simulations, then simulated agents would vastly outnumber non-simulated agents, and, all else equal, our credence that we’re simulated should be very high. In a critical analysis, Brian Eggleston highlights an unstated assumption underlying Bostrom’s formulation: we are not alone as technological pioneers. Specifically, Bostrom’s trilemma only entails the third possibility, that we’re simulated, if we assume that some other civilization – not only our future descendants – already ran ancestor simulations before our present. Without this assumption, we could imagine humanity as the first or only simulator, collapsing the trilemma into merely weak possibilities without force. Principle of Technological Uniformity However, I believe there’s an unstated intuition, yet another unrecognized assumption, behind Bostrom’s formulation. And that intuition, when identified and formally expressed as an assumption, fully addresses Eggleston’s criticism and maintains the force of the trilemma. I call that assumption the Principle of Technological Uniformity (PTU): If a given technology is feasible, beneficial, and once achieved by a civilization, then, all else equal (barring radically unique physics or values), that technology probably has been or will be achieved by other civilizations operating within similar conditions. PTU has at least three important characteristics. First, it provides rational grounds for supposing that becoming a simulator increases the probability that other simulators exist. Second, it reflects and extends many empirical precedents, including those broadly categorized as convergent evolution. Third, it maintains the strength of Bostrom’s trilemma, solving the problem that Eggleston identifies without appealing to exceptionalism. Philosophical Support PTU is grounded in the principle of mediocrity, or what people sometimes call the “Copernican” principle. As Copernicus removed from Earth the privilege of being the center of our conceptualization of the cosmos, so PTU would have us resist the temptation to privilege our human civilization uniquely in time or space or significance. Instead, given uncertainty and no evidence for our uniqueness, we should regard ourselves as typical. Human civilization on Earth is just one among many technological civilizations, subject to similar physics and incentives. PTU is related to the anthropic principle. When considering the possibility of others developing technology like us, we shouldn’t default to flattering assumptions that would make us exceptional. To the contrary, as we observe ourselves developing increasingly detailed simulations, that should raise our credence that others have developed similar technologies before us. PTU is a meta-induction about technology diffusion, similar to but distinct from the self-sampling assumption. Eggleston’s criticism hinges on the possibility that another civilization has already become a simulator. PTU invites us to assume this possibility has a significant probability, both for the philosophical reasons mentioned above, as well as empirical reasons shared below. We should assume that, where potential and incentive align, scientific discoveries and technological developments propagate, not deterministically, but frequently enough to warrant inductive reasoning from specific observations to generalizations. Empirical Support PTU is not merely a philosophical abstraction. Biological, cultural, and technological evolution are replete with convergence. Life and intelligence within similar constraints repeatedly arrive at similar solutions to similar problems. Biological examples abound. The camera eye, constructed from radically different biological materials, appears to have evolved independently in both cephalopods (ancestors of the octopus) and vertebrates (ancestors of humans). Powered flight apparently evolved independently in insects, birds, and bats, reflecting similar constraints in aerodynamics. Where an environment rewards a particular function, nature finds a way to achieve that function, often more than once. Cultural examples also abound. Agriculture seems to have begun independently on multiple continents, perhaps millennia apart. Writing systems appeared at disparate times in Sumer, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica with little to no evidence of direct transmission. Even intricate toolmaking, such...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Distorting Transhumanism at Meridian Magazine

    Distorting Transhumanism at Meridian Magazine
    2025/05/07
    Meridian Magazine positions itself as a publication for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination. I don’t know much about Meridian or the people behind it. But today I learned that they’re willing to publish a fear-mongering distortion of Transhumanism, “Human 2.0 Is Here — And You Didn’t Even Notice” by Alexis Tarkaleson. Despite their positioning, I wish to make make clear that such behavior is not aligned with the values that the Church advocates. Tarkaleson says “mind uploading” is an outlandish tale. What’s her take on tales of transfiguration and resurrection? Are those equally outlandish? Surely she’s aware that those doctrines require the possibility of mind (or spirit body) moving from one physical body to another, consistent with hypotheses of mind uploading. How about cryonics, yet another outlandish tale she identifies? I’m curious to know what she thinks about the Church’s advocacy to collect genealogy and preserve family history, with intent to facilitate redemption of the dead. And what about proxy rituals that we perform for the dead? Most of the world probably thinks the Church’s practices in these areas are at least as outlandish as those of cryonicists. What about “the god-like ‘posthuman’”? She says that’s outlandish too. Is she aware that Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church, claimed that God “was once a man like us” in his last general conference sermon? If Joseph was right, as I trust, that would literally make God a posthuman. If these Transhumanist ambitions are merely “crazy sci-fi,” as Tarkaleson suggests, then the doctrines of the Church are crazy religious fiction. You see, the biggest difference between these ambitions isn’t their audacity, which detractors would disparage as mere fiction. Rather, the biggest difference is the narrative esthetic in which these ambitions are commonly expressed. Esthetics do matter, but not so much that we should willfully distort common underlying functions. Tarkaleson echoes someone else’s professed concern with Transhumanism’s “obsession” with anti-aging and perfectionism. That seems hypocritical coming from a member of a Church, in whose buildings one can hear, just about any Sunday, that human immortality is part of the work and glory of God. But Tarkaleson has bigger concerns with Transhumanism, she says. She identifies those concerns as “gender ideology,” “reproductive technology,” “abandonment of religion and family,” and “diminishing value of human life and human relationships.” Let’s look at what she says. Gender Ideology First, Tarkaleson addresses gender ideology. And she starts by criticizing a strawman of the concept of morphological freedom. She characterizes it as “unlimited freedom to transform your body … on a whim,” while mentioning but not fully taking into account the fact that most Transhumanists actually would limit that freedom to be “so long as it does not harm others.” I wonder if she doesn’t like the doctrine of agency, as advocated by Mormon scripture and the Church? Whether we like it or not, morphological freedom is a kind of agency. Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists have given morphological freedom “the ultimate position of sacredness by placement in the Transhuman Bill of Rights.” As it turns out, Mormon scripture has done functionally the same thing with the doctrine of agency. Our scriptures even go so far as to claim that Satan “sought to destroy the agency that God had given to His children.” Whose side is she on? To emphasize her concern with gender ideology, Tarkaleson aims her criticisms at two prominent Transhumanists. One is Martine Rothblatt, who is transgender. And the other is Fereidoun M. Esfandiary (FM2030), who advocated for androgyny and asexuality. Such Transhumanists are, Tarkaleson correctly points out, natural allies with the transgender movement. Yet some Transhumanists have concerns with how some expressions of the transgender movement have harmed others, going beyond the limits of morphological freedom. Some of us think gender is a blessing rather than a curse, and more likely to extend into than disappear from our posthuman future. And some of us know that secular persons and values are hardly the oldest forerunners of Transhumanism, which can actually trace its history back through deeply religious proto-Transhumanists and beyond to ancient religious analogs of Transhumanism. Reproductive Technology Next, Tarkaleson addresses reproductive technology. Here, she starts with asserting that Transhumanism finds its roots in birth control and abortion. This claim is absurd to the point of being stunning. The best evidence she can muster is a quote from a non-Transhumanist advocate of artificial reproduction. Tarkaleson says that Transhumanists cry out, “More, more, more,” as society speeds ahead with unethical reproductive technology...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Marek Wójtowicz on the New God Argument

    Marek Wójtowicz on the New God Argument
    2025/05/01
    Philosopher Marek Wójtowicz recently published a paper in Roczniki Filozoficzne titled “ Lincoln Cannon’s Transhumanist Argument for Faith in God,” offering a formal critique of the New God Argument. While the paper identifies some valuable opportunities for elaboration, it also affirms key strengths of the argument and mischaracterizes others. This article summarizes Wójtowicz’s core analysis, shares my responses, and outlines directions for improving the New God Argument. Wójtowicz recognizes several merits of the New God Argument. He describes it as an “original manner” of approaching the question of God’s existence. And he highlights it as a “pioneering attempt to adapt transhumanist ideas to the format of research conducted within the realm of the philosophy of religion.” He also affirms the validity of the logical structure and the benefit of clearly identifying assumptions in advance. Wójtowicz offers an admirably thorough formal analysis of the logic of the New God Argument. But, in the second half of his paper and particularly toward the end, he misinterprets the assumptions and intent of the argument. Several clarifications are in order to set the record straight, in hope of advancing discussion constructively. Clarifications The New God Argument is prospective and empirical in the sense that its assumptions and conclusions lend themselves to experience-based verification or falsification, even if that experience belongs to future or non-human natural observers. This contrasts with classical arguments for God that rely solely on a priori reasoning. While Wójtowicz questions this empiricism, the distinction remains fundamental to the argument’s philosophical orientation – Pragmatic rather than Platonic. As part of its logical structure, the New God Argument employs disjunctions in the Compassion and Creation arguments. The disjunctions aren’t necessarily exclusive. The logic holds whether or not the disjuncts are mutually exclusive, and even if more than one disjunct is true. Wójtowicz’s concern about disjunctive ambiguity is thus formally irrelevant. Wójtowicz observes that the New God Argument depends on defining “probably” as a probability greater than 50%. This clarification is true, important, but not problematic. Consistent with Bayesian reasoning, the strength of the argument scales with how probable one finds its assumptions. For example, Nick Bostrom, whose Simulation Argument informs part of the New God Argument, uses similar references to probability. Wójtowicz also claims the argument becomes circular when it concludes that superhumanity is both our descendant and our creator. This is a misunderstanding of generational recursion. Just as humans can be both ancestors and descendants across time, superhumanity can exist before and after us in different instantiations. This does not entail logical contradiction. The New God Argument uses the term “God” to describe a superhumanity that is more compassionate than we are and that created our world. This concept is not a departure from religious tradition but rather an authentic characterization of the ancient doctrine of theosis, perpetuated today as exaltation in Mormonism and divinization in Catholicism, among others. This characterization also lends itself to integration of divine attributes with a naturalistic frame of reference. Opportunities Wójtowicz’s critique is most helpful in identifying where the New God Argument would benefit from further development. Definitions of words like “superhumanity,” “compassion,” and “creation” merit more elaboration. Such elaborations would emphasize observable behavior and technological capacities rather than inaccessible emotions or antinatural theological positions. I should frame the Faith Assumption, and the assumptions in the Compassion Argument and the Creation Argument, within greater emphasis of contemporary scientific and philosophical literature. That would include referencing Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument, as well as discourse in AI ethics, computational epistemology, and cosmic evolution. Embedding the New God Argument more deeply in existing literature would facilitate more productive deliberation. Logical transitions within the Compassion and Creation arguments merit more explanation. Wójtowicz shows the value of thoroughly analyzing the inferential logic. This would make the argument more accessible to both critics and advocates. And that, in turn, would help orient our shared focus toward more salient features of the New God Argument. I should explain recursive creation in more detail. Narrative accounts of ancestor simulation or evolutionary emulation could clarify how humanity may both originate from and lead to superhumanity. This would help dispel confusion about logical contradiction and highlight the plausibility of cyclical or branching cosmologies. Finally, I should consolidate and present, in ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Ordaining Priesthood for Resurrection

    Ordaining Priesthood for Resurrection
    2025/04/28
    Occasionally, I receive questions about the relationship between Mormon Transhumanism and priesthood. Generally, the questions come from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which we esteem priesthood as the authority of God. Implicit in the questions, or sometimes explicit, is concern that our esteem for priesthood would be rendered meaningless in a world where miraculous technology is generally available. Who needs a priest when an algorithm can raise the dead? Although I’ve responded to such questions in public interviews and private conversations, I’ve also been meaning to publish some thoughts in writing. Now seems like the perfect opportunity. Yesterday in conference, my stake (a group of local wards or congregations) voted to sustain me as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. And, despite what some assume about Transhumanists, I’m grateful for their expression of support. My Ordination A few weeks ago, my son Spencer approached me with a request that I ordain him as a high priest. His stake had called him to serve in a position that requires this ordination. Traditionally, when this need arises, the person to be ordained asks someone he knows, who is already a high priest and authorized by the stake, to perform the ordinance. Of course I was pleased that Spencer would ask me. But there was a problem. Decades ago, as a teenager, and at the invitation of the Church, I had been ordained successively as a deacon, teacher, and priest in the Aaronic priesthood, and then as an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. But I had never been ordained, nor invited to be ordained, as a high priest In this case, the Church wasn’t asking. But my son was asking. And I wanted to accept his invitation. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the Church? A passage of scripture came to mind. In the Pearl of Great Price, we read the following in the voice of Abraham ( chapter one, verses two through four ): “And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness⁠, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge⁠, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations⁠, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest⁠, holding the right belonging to the fathers. “It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn⁠, or the first man, who is Adam⁠, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.” Look how many times the text indicates that Abraham intentionally seeks for ordination as a high priest. “I sought for the blessings … and the right whereunto I should be ordained,” begins Abraham. He proceeds with several indirect expressions of desire for ordination. And closing, he says, “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood.” Encouraged by this passage of scripture, I reached out to the bishop of my local ward, as well as the president of my local stake. After explaining to them my son’s request, I asked. Would you please consider authorizing my ordination as a high priest, so that I may ordain my son? My bishop and stake president both warmly welcomed my request. And, subsequent to completing the requisite interviews, they authorized my ordination. Then I got to invite someone to perform the ordination. As a teenager, I had asked my father, Layne Cannon, to perform my previous priesthood ordinations. He had been ordained as a high priest. And I would have liked to ask him to perform this additional ordination. But he’s dead – for now. So I traveled to Spokane, Washington, where my maternal grandfather, James Plumb, lives. In his nineties, he’s my only living ancestor who has been ordained as a high priest. And he had happily accepted my invitation to ordain me. With my stake president as a witness via webcam, my grandfather and his son (my uncle, also named James Plumb, and also a high priest) performed my ordination. They placed their hands on my head. My grandfather spoke: “Lincoln Connelly Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.” He then proceeded to speak additional words, blessings, as he felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience. A few days after my return from Spokane, I visited an office in the building where my son attends Church services. His ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Finding Transhumanism in the Scriptures

    Finding Transhumanism in the Scriptures
    2025/01/20
    The Mormon Transhumanist Association in Africa recently invited me to speak. Because of their strong motivation and inspiring work, their membership has been growing rapidly. My understanding is that, since inception about a year ago, the African area of the association has grown to around 200 members. Below is a lightly edited transcript of my sermon, which I delivered to them remotely. Friends, it’s good to be with you today. What I’d like to do is speak with you about the scriptures. In fact, I’d like to read the scriptures with you today. If you have your scriptures, I encourage you to get them because we’ll be looking at them together. So if you could grab your Bible and your Book of Mormon, we’ll be using those. What I’d like to read about in the scriptures together is the Gospel of Christ and how it relates to transfiguration, to the ideas that we teach and proclaim and share here at the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Become Christ If you would, let’s turn together, first of all, in the New Testament of the Bible to the First Epistle of John, chapter 3. That’s where I’d like to start. Right there at the beginning of the chapter, let’s read the first two verses together. “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:1–2) Think about that for a moment. Think about what it says. Think about what it implies about the relationship between us and Christ. It says that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. Imagine what kind of change is required for that to happen. Imagine the kind of people we will be when that happens. All throughout the New Testament, this idea is taught – this idea of transformation or transfiguration, of profound change. We must become as Christ is. We must become Christ with Jesus. Do the Works of Christ Let’s move on to the second passage of scripture. This one is in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 12. “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things.” (John 14:12) Again, I invite you to think about the words that are written here by John. What’s he saying? He’s saying that we should do the works of Christ and even greater works than those that are talked about in the New Testament. This is Jesus speaking in this passage. He says that whoever believes in him will do the works that he has done. And they will do even greater things. This extends the same message we received in the First Epistle of John, where we’re told that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. How will we be like Christ? This scripture tells us we will be like Christ because we will do the works that Jesus showed us, and even greater things. That’s a stunning idea. It’s a big idea – one that should sober us, cause us to reflect, to think about what potential we have, but also how far we have to go. Create Heaven on Earth Let’s go to another passage of scripture. This one is in the Book of Revelation, or the Apocalypse of John, which is the last book of the New Testament. We’ll go to chapter 21 and start at the beginning, verses 1 through 4. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” (Revelation 21:1–4) In this passage, John is describing the future of Earth – this place where we now live – when it has been transformed and become a heaven, and God lives on Earth. How will God live on Earth? Well, we’ve already read in other passages of scripture that when Christ returns, we will be like Christ. So, when Christ returns, we will be God with Christ, with Jesus. We will be like Jesus. We, as God with God, will live on Earth. This will be our heaven transformed. It’s a beautiful idea – an idea worthy of our hope and worthy of our work. It’s an idea not just about power, but about compassion. It’s about becoming the kind of people who, as the scripture says, will wipe every tear from the eyes of our family and our friends and everyone else. It’s about seeing their suffering and helping to relieve it, about becoming the kind of people that Jesus Christ exemplifies. When we ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Don't Die Can Be Good But Thriving Is Always Better

    Don't Die Can Be Good But Thriving Is Always Better
    2025/01/14
    Celebrity biohacker Bryan Johnson recently sent a provocative email to his followers. “I am the healthiest person on the planet,” he claims. True or not, he probably has your attention. I don’t have concerns with the sensationalism, at least not in itself. Hopefully Bryan is every bit as healthy as he claims. His data is impressive, to say the least. And I admire his courage and tenacity. But I do have some concerns with the ideology that Bryan promotes throughout the remainder of his email. He calls it “Don’t Die.” It could be a good start – better than so many alternatives vying for our hearts and minds. But, at least so far as he has yet articulated, the ideology has practical limitations that must and will ultimately impede its potential for primacy, as I’ll explain. Bryan first introduced the “Don’t Die” ideology in a 2023 book by the same name. The book repeatedly, both explicitly and implicitly, touched on Bryan’s relationship with Mormonism. So, at the time, I wrote about that relationship in particular. Now, while enjoying the provocation of Bryan’s recent email, I feel to write some more general thoughts. Before I get to my concerns, however, I want to establish some personal context. I like Bryan. And I think his work is nothing short of momentous on a sociocultural level. So if you’re looking for a reason to hate him, make fun of him, or dismiss him, go away. Don’t Die Is Not the Universal Game After elaborating on his health claim, Bryan characterizes “Don’t Die” as the “oldest and most played game in human history.” He says religion, business, military, politics, and even procreation are forms of this game. “It’s the universal game,” he says. There’s an extent of truth to this. In the most general sense, survival is a necessary condition for the achievement of any goal. That which doesn’t exist doesn’t have any goals, let alone any capacity to achieve any goals. Thus, some extent of survival must be at least an instrumental goal. But survival in the most general sense doesn’t necessarily entail evasion of death. That may sound nonsensical at first. But hear me out. You’ll undoubtedly end up agreeing. In practically impactful ways, you can survive your death. And innumerable people already have. They’ve done this by teaching their children, loving their friends, creating artwork and machinery, and organizing communities that outlast their bodies. In each of these and countless other ways, people have been continuing to achieve their goals even after they die bodily. To my mind, this means that part of us can survive death. In the least, it’s our influence and creation. It’s our esthetic. We might call it our “spirit.” Now of course I’m not content with this kind of merely spiritual survival. After all, I’m a proponent of (nearly) universal resurrection, understood in the most literal sense as embodied resurrection, and pursued in the most practical sense as technological resurrection. But despite my discontent, I could not rightly claim that nothing survives bodily death. That’s simply a false idea, even if we were to concede to those who are skeptical of more elaborate notions of a spiritual afterlife. So, returning to Bryan’s characterization of “Don’t Die” as the universal game, we can see a problem. As it’s true to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood broadly, it’s likewise false to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood narrowly. And this problem has practical ramifications. Countless people, as recorded in history and envisioned in myth, have intentionally died in the narrow sense to facilitate achievement of their goals. A parent may sacrifice her life to save her child. A soldier may sacrifice his life to defend his country. Of particular note, the most influential ideology on Earth, Christianity, epitomizes the perpetuation and even magnification of goal achievement after bodily death. These observations reveal that narrowly construed “Don’t Die” is not the universal game, even if it’s a prevalent game. At least some of us have been playing a different game since the dawn of history, recognizing that narrow death doesn’t necessarily terminate and may even facilitate pursuit of our goals. Again, the other game might be a broadly construed “Don’t Die.” But, in that case, I think we can give it a less confusing name. Some Things Are Worse Than Death Bryan observes that, in this time of accelerating technological evolution, we’re “giving birth to superintelligence. And we “no longer know how long and how well we can live,” or “how expansive and rich existence could be.” Compared to our superhuman potential, we’re like our prehuman ancestors who couldn’t begin to conceive of contemporary science, let alone understand it. And yet we’re embroiled in “debauchery, greed and violence,” killing ourselves and each other. He’s exactly right. Maybe it...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • God the Cosmic Host, and AI Creation

    God the Cosmic Host, and AI Creation
    2024/12/10
    It’s getting harder to be an atheist. A quarter century ago, it wasn’t so hard. But things have changed – quite dramatically. It’s become increasingly difficult to remain an atheist while coherently aspiring to a thriving future for humanity. Now keep in mind that I’m not talking about atheism toward any narrow conception of God. It remains pretty easy to be that kind of atheist. I’m talking about atheism toward that which functions as God in the general sense, whether or not you can bring yourself to use the label “God.” In function, God always has been, and is at least, a superhuman projection. The main reason that atheism is getting harder is accelerating technological evolution. We can now do things that our ancestors would have considered God-like. We can even do things that some of our younger selves, if we’re old enough, would have considered God-like. And, more clearly than ever, we can see how this is likely to become increasingly the case – as long as we don’t destroy ourselves. Most Transhumanists have great hope, generally of the active sort, that humanity can and will evolve into superhumanity – something approximating God in function. But some, like me a quarter century ago, remain stubbornly atheist regarding the notion that such superhuman intelligence already exists. I changed, for various esthetic and pragmatic reasons, as I became familiar with the ideas that would eventually coalesce into the New God Argument. As I came to understand the matter, it’s simply incoherent, logically and probabilistically, to trust in a superhuman future for humanity while being skeptical that superhuman intelligence already exists. Nick Bostrom As the reality and potential of AI has become increasingly obvious, the incoherence of trusting in an eventual human merger with AI, while maintaining atheism toward that which functions as God, seems to be reaching a breaking point. The latest evidence for this comes from the prominent secular Transhumanist philosopher, Nick Bostrom. He recently published a paper entitled “ AI Creation and the Cosmic Host.” In it, he argues that we have moral and practical reasons for “an attitude of humility” toward “the cosmic host.” This is the same Nick Bostrom who published the most popular formulation of the Simulation Argument. His formulation was important in my own early transition from closet atheism back to enthusiastic belief. Two decades ago, I used his argument as a basis for developing a generalized simulation argument, which became part of the New God Argument. And the argument has become broadly influential among religious Transhumanists. Now we have Nick doubling-down on the hypothesis that superhuman intelligence already exists. And it exists, not just inconsequentially far away, but immanently. Superhuman intelligence may have simulated our world, as he suggested in the Simulation Argument. And in his latest paper, he says that “human civilization is most likely not alone in the cosmos but is instead encompassed within a cosmic host.” The Cosmic Host Is God Nick points out, so that I don’t have to (but of course will), that the comic host could be not only galactic civilizations or simulators, but also “a divine being or beings.” He even allows for “nonnaturalistic members of the cosmic host.” That’s more generous toward theism than I am, given that I consider anti-naturalism to be even more incoherent than atheist Transhumanism. In any case, I call the cosmic host “God,” and consider it to be quite natural, despite being miraculously powerful from humanity’s perspective. Nick says that the existence of God (my word) is probable. He bases this conclusion on the combination of the probabilities of a few possibilities: the simulation hypothesis, the immense size of the universe, the multiverse hypothesis, the “supernatural” God hypothesis, and potential future superhumanity. The most salient of these possibilities are potential future superhumanity and the simulation hypothesis. Trust in superhumanity is essential to the Faith Assumption (or what some have begun calling the “Courage Assumption”) of the New God Argument. And the simulation hypothesis is even more salient when generalized to the creation hypothesis, agnostic to any particular engineering mechanism, which would thereby include the multiverse hypothesis to the extent that such could be engineered. This generalization is essential to the Creation Argument of the New God Argument. Influence of God Nick suggests that God might not control all aspects of the cosmos. For example, life might be too sparse in some regions, making control practically difficult or impossible. Or God may intentionally refrain from controlling all aspects of the cosmos. Perhaps such control would undermine God’s purposes or the potential of other agents within the cosmos. If you’re Mormon or familiar with Mormonism, this should sound familiar to you. As ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満