2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate

[Unknownfromheaven]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

[brimstoneSalad]

Well that may be interesting. I'm glad to see something that sounds like it's going to be more of an actual debate with criticism of the idea. Not sure how well handled it is yet. I'll have to watch this one later.

2016 Asimov Panelists:

David Chalmers
Professor of philosophy, New York University

Zohreh Davoudi
Theoretical physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

James Gates
Theoretical physicist, University of Maryland

Lisa Randall
Theoretical physicist, Harvard University

Max Tegmark
Cosmologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Who is arguing for simulation, and who is arguing against?

[Unknownfromheaven]

Its a debate, but without pro and counters, Neil describes to the audience that are listening to scientists that talk about things when they chill out:))

As from what i know, Gates proposed this several years ago, Max Tedmark also gave much insight into this and Zohreh talks about the ways science could experiment with this particular issue.

The baseline is this, even if you do not agree with me, i know this is not bullshit, not when i see scientists engaging this topic. Also its in 2016, so its very recently.

For me it was fun to watch and listen to them, i really love them with their jokes (since they know eachother very well) Gates stated at some point...”you can call me Morpheus”:)))

[brimstoneSalad]

I was glad to see them call out Gates on his "error correcting code" nonsense, and from several perspectives.
It was also nice to see him cornered into answering 1% chance at the end.

If you regard Gates as a reason to find this credible, then the MAXIMUM percentage you should think simulation probable is 1%,

Lisa Randall did a pretty good job, as did Zohreh Davoudi; they covered several of the arguments I have made. Note where Davoudi explained very clearly computational limits to the laws of physics; Randall also went into this and the optimizations that would be required. Lacking evidence of such optimizations, we should not believe in simulation (as we should reject the resurrection of Jesus on similar grounds of lack of evidence).

I don't know why Tegmark was there, he didn't say much.

[Unknownfromheaven]

Its a fun topic:)

Its really interesting that before i knew that Bostrom was one thing, Gates entirely another.