Firstly, we know of life evolving once. Just one planet. In the entire universe. We can postulate that with such a vast universe (and possibly multiverse) that it’s probable that other life exists elsewhere, but we don’t know that. It could be a unique event or an incredibly rare event. We can’t say, because 1 is way too small a sample size to extrapolate from.
But you’re not even extrapolating from 1 datapoint. You’re extrapolating from something that you think might be true at some point in the future.
I am skipping steps because this topic demands thought, research, and exploration, but ultimately the conclusion is, in my view, inevitable.
We are already building advanced simulators. Video games grow in realism and complexity. With realtime generative AI, these games will become increasingly indistinguishable to a mind. There are already countless humans simultaneously building the thing.
And actually, the lack of evidence of extra-terrestrial life is support of the idea. Once a civilization grows large enough, they may simply build Dyson sphere scale computation devices, Matrioshka brains. Made efficient, they would emit little to no EM radiation and appear as dark gravitational anomalies. With that device, what reason would beings have to endanger themselves in the universe?
But I agree, the hard evidence isn’t there. So I propose human society band together and build interstellar ships to search for the evidence.
The logic is not faulty, it is predicated upon conditional statements. It is actually a synthesis of Bostrom’s trilemma, Zuse/Fredkin digital ontology, Dyson/Fermi cosmological reasoning, and extrapolation from current computational capabilities.
Okay, if you prefer to frame the flaws in your reasoning like that, then I’m happy to do so. That doesn’t make the conclusion less flawed. The conversation isn’t about the hows and whyfores of formal logic, it’s about whether the conclusion is likely to be true.
From my perspective it is 100% true as I have seen the other side. Having the conclusion known gives a small advantage in forming the logic to get there.
There’s a few wild leaps in logic, here.
Firstly, we know of life evolving once. Just one planet. In the entire universe. We can postulate that with such a vast universe (and possibly multiverse) that it’s probable that other life exists elsewhere, but we don’t know that. It could be a unique event or an incredibly rare event. We can’t say, because 1 is way too small a sample size to extrapolate from.
But you’re not even extrapolating from 1 datapoint. You’re extrapolating from something that you think might be true at some point in the future.
I am skipping steps because this topic demands thought, research, and exploration, but ultimately the conclusion is, in my view, inevitable.
We are already building advanced simulators. Video games grow in realism and complexity. With realtime generative AI, these games will become increasingly indistinguishable to a mind. There are already countless humans simultaneously building the thing.
And actually, the lack of evidence of extra-terrestrial life is support of the idea. Once a civilization grows large enough, they may simply build Dyson sphere scale computation devices, Matrioshka brains. Made efficient, they would emit little to no EM radiation and appear as dark gravitational anomalies. With that device, what reason would beings have to endanger themselves in the universe?
But I agree, the hard evidence isn’t there. So I propose human society band together and build interstellar ships to search for the evidence.
None of what you’ve said ameliorates the faulty logic I highlighted. You have instead just added more assumptions.
The logic is not faulty, it is predicated upon conditional statements. It is actually a synthesis of Bostrom’s trilemma, Zuse/Fredkin digital ontology, Dyson/Fermi cosmological reasoning, and extrapolation from current computational capabilities.
The “holes” are epistemic, not logical.
Okay, if you prefer to frame the flaws in your reasoning like that, then I’m happy to do so. That doesn’t make the conclusion less flawed. The conversation isn’t about the hows and whyfores of formal logic, it’s about whether the conclusion is likely to be true.
From my perspective it is 100% true as I have seen the other side. Having the conclusion known gives a small advantage in forming the logic to get there.