If you understood my answer, then it is “Its not possible”. This is not about “realistically or theoretically”, it is impossible. So any copy of the information that builds you inside of a computer, is not you. Therefore the question doesn’t make sense. No one can live inside a computer. Edit: A comparison to that logic is Emulators and Roms. The games you play are (let’s say) a perfect recreation bitwise. But its no longer the original hardware. YOU are the hardware, the computer program with an algorithm is the ROM (a copy) of your information, but its not you.
I’d like to have the option to kill myself in case
You are already dead. What you want is, that the machine code representing you (which is not you) should have an option to be killed.
That’s not what is being asked. OP put right in the post “afterlife” as in. Nobody is copying you into a PC. The post assumes that an eternal afterlifr exists, and in that scenario (which is possible, we simply do not know) would you choose a game to lice in. Like if heaven/hell were minecraft, would that be something you would want?
That’s it. It’s not about uploading our minds in our current alive world.
That’s not what is being asked. OP put right in the post “afterlife” as in.
That is being asked. I am talking that there is no afterlife if you copy yourself. The “afterlife” is meant to be “overcome the death” by cheating through copies. It’s not expressed with those words, but the logical application is a copy if we talk about this subject.
Nobody is copying you into a PC.
But that is the topic. It is about making an exact copy of yourself in a videogame (infinite game). I quote the article:
A game consists of players, an interface, an environment, and gameplay. All of these elements are readily accessible in a computer simulation such that an entity capable of simulating configurations of time/space/matter/energy would also be capable of instantiating a simulation which conscious energy may exist within.
Rather than limit possibilities to a single perspective, I dream of infinite games created and refined by their players in innumerable variants. The possibilities for play include all of the most hoped-for afterlives and offer other novel experiences to explore.
The word “copy” isn’t used in the article nor the op. You continue to engage in bad faith with a simple question instead of just answering it, for some reason. Imagine you could transfer your consciousness into a simulation like in Tron or whatever. That’s what they mean. Not a copy. But your actual self. Or if that’s too hard to accept, just think of a scenario where you’re the copy. You spawn into a world like that. What do you do? Do you play or do you just nope out?
Please read again. It is not possible to transfer consciousness into a simulation, without copying data. What does “transfer” mean if not copy? Also a simulation is an algorithm that describes how to simulate. In which case your copies genetic code, atoms and brain wouldn’t work without changing. Your body isn’t bits and bytes, it has to be converted into. And that happens while you are still there. So if anything of your mind and body is “transferred” to the simulation, it has to be copied and changed in order to integrate it.
To explain what that means with an analogy: Emulators and game ROMs are copies of the exact hardware. Roms would represent your bodies atoms genetic code. Then there is the environment side, the Emulators. Think of the entire simulation as the emulator, which has custom code to play back the games (you and the environment).
Also are you aware of Quantum Physics? It is impossible to measure everything with 100% accuracy and certainty. This is not a skill issue of us, this is how the universe works. So it is in fact physically impossible to create a 100% digital code of you. And even if it was, it wouldn’t be you.
You misunderstand. I understand everything you say. And you are correct, in the world in which we currently live as we currently understand it. However, the article and the question in op deals with imagination and fantasy.
To give you an example. If someone were to ask you “what would you do if you had a billion dollars?”. You would probably answer by saying something along the lines of “it is impossible for me to earn a billion dollars because x and y”. But that’s not the answer anyone wants when they ask that question. That’s what you’re doing right now. Not sure if you’re doing it to troll people or because you’re having issues with taking things too literally or some other reason. Either way, I’m done with this “conversation”. Have a nice day.
because you’re having issues with taking things too literally or some other reason
I brought up enough reasons why the question doesn’t make logical sense, not just if its possible or not. In fact, it seems like I’m the one who does not take it literally and answers the question in a different way as it was asked. Which is wrong? I explained why I can’t answer the question in any other way, because this is the only answer I can give, given the reasons. It does not have anything to do with imagining things or not, the question makes logically no sense.
It’s not like that I’m not allowed to discuss here and take the question as I want. No one have to respond to me if you do not want to discuss.
This is not about “realistically or theoretically”, it is impossible.
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible. We are, for the sake of the question, positing that it IS, in fact, somehow, completely possible, and asking what you would do in that situation. In THIS pretend scenario, it IS the real you, so it is irrelevant if it’s not possible IRL.
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible.
Do you not understand this is not about being possible? I also didn’t know that I had to ask you how to answer the question. The question doesn’t make sense and I explained it enough. Nobody can live forever in an infinite game, not because its not possible, because it makes no sense.
The question makes perfect sense to literally everyone else here (as seen by the dozen answers already given), that you’re not able or willing to engage beyond your assumption that it isn’t is on you.
I don’t understand what you’re so held up by. Is it the infinite time thing? Okay, then the “game” goes on until the heat death of the universe. This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
Is it the copying thing you were going on about in another comment? Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this. Our universe is a perfect simulation being run by a Superintelligence beyond our comprehension (a real one, not some chatbot the annoying orange wants to rename). We are already code in a machine, “death” just means having your code moved out of the main simulation and into a separate afterlife simulation. No copying is needed, this is the original “you” code being moved over. Would you be okay with/like this?
This is the exact same question but with an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason.
No, it does not, and I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
No it’s. This reply is proof you didn’t understand the issue I brought up. Even if the universe exists for an infinite time, that has nothing to do with the issue I was talking about.
Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about.
This is the exact same question
It’s not. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason
The issue I brought up is not unnecessary and this is not just philosophical. It is core to the logic and thought process.
I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
Alright, I’ll admit it’s not the exact same question. But living in an imperceptible simulation would change nothing about our lives or the way we perceive it. In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife, yada yada. All this does it give another potential mechanism for how it could happen.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
No. I think I explained it enough, that you just can go back and read and take your time. No need to be sarcastic.
In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife,
It does. And no, it would not be your afterlife. You are dead. It’s a new life form based on your memories, but its not you. Think of you create a robot and you give a backup of your memory after you die. The new robot is not you. But I guess you don’t understand the issue here, no matter how often I explain it.
You cannot live in an afterlife, after your death. A copy of you is not you. That’s why the initial question doesn’t make sense to answer and I tried to explain why. It’s not my problem that most people ignore or don’t care about this.
I understand the “issue”. I don’t even disagree with you, at least so far as an afterlife is concerned—according to everything we know, an afterlife is not possible. I do disagree wholeheartedly that a copy of you is not you, at least in a broad, all-encompassing sense, but I find the whole thing irrelevant regardless. The problem is your inability to engage with the hypothetical that it is somehow, magically perhaps, the real you and an afterlife is real… your unwillingness to do so is not thought provoking, just irritating.
It’s fine if you find the answer irritating and not acceptable. I answered the question as I like and think is the correct way. Nobody said has to agree with me. I expressed my opinion and reasoning why the questions is nonsense and cannot be answered in any other way that I do. Nobody said I have to answer it in a way you personally find it acceptable. It’s not my problem that you ignore the core issue.
If you understood my answer, then it is “Its not possible”. This is not about “realistically or theoretically”, it is impossible. So any copy of the information that builds you inside of a computer, is not you. Therefore the question doesn’t make sense. No one can live inside a computer. Edit: A comparison to that logic is Emulators and Roms. The games you play are (let’s say) a perfect recreation bitwise. But its no longer the original hardware. YOU are the hardware, the computer program with an algorithm is the ROM (a copy) of your information, but its not you.
You are already dead. What you want is, that the machine code representing you (which is not you) should have an option to be killed.
That’s not what is being asked. OP put right in the post “afterlife” as in. Nobody is copying you into a PC. The post assumes that an eternal afterlifr exists, and in that scenario (which is possible, we simply do not know) would you choose a game to lice in. Like if heaven/hell were minecraft, would that be something you would want?
That’s it. It’s not about uploading our minds in our current alive world.
That is being asked. I am talking that there is no afterlife if you copy yourself. The “afterlife” is meant to be “overcome the death” by cheating through copies. It’s not expressed with those words, but the logical application is a copy if we talk about this subject.
But that is the topic. It is about making an exact copy of yourself in a videogame (infinite game). I quote the article:
The word “copy” isn’t used in the article nor the op. You continue to engage in bad faith with a simple question instead of just answering it, for some reason. Imagine you could transfer your consciousness into a simulation like in Tron or whatever. That’s what they mean. Not a copy. But your actual self. Or if that’s too hard to accept, just think of a scenario where you’re the copy. You spawn into a world like that. What do you do? Do you play or do you just nope out?
Please read again. It is not possible to transfer consciousness into a simulation, without copying data. What does “transfer” mean if not copy? Also a simulation is an algorithm that describes how to simulate. In which case your copies genetic code, atoms and brain wouldn’t work without changing. Your body isn’t bits and bytes, it has to be converted into. And that happens while you are still there. So if anything of your mind and body is “transferred” to the simulation, it has to be copied and changed in order to integrate it.
To explain what that means with an analogy: Emulators and game ROMs are copies of the exact hardware. Roms would represent your bodies atoms genetic code. Then there is the environment side, the Emulators. Think of the entire simulation as the emulator, which has custom code to play back the games (you and the environment).
Also are you aware of Quantum Physics? It is impossible to measure everything with 100% accuracy and certainty. This is not a skill issue of us, this is how the universe works. So it is in fact physically impossible to create a 100% digital code of you. And even if it was, it wouldn’t be you.
You misunderstand. I understand everything you say. And you are correct, in the world in which we currently live as we currently understand it. However, the article and the question in op deals with imagination and fantasy.
To give you an example. If someone were to ask you “what would you do if you had a billion dollars?”. You would probably answer by saying something along the lines of “it is impossible for me to earn a billion dollars because x and y”. But that’s not the answer anyone wants when they ask that question. That’s what you’re doing right now. Not sure if you’re doing it to troll people or because you’re having issues with taking things too literally or some other reason. Either way, I’m done with this “conversation”. Have a nice day.
Oh now I’m a troll?
I brought up enough reasons why the question doesn’t make logical sense, not just if its possible or not. In fact, it seems like I’m the one who does not take it literally and answers the question in a different way as it was asked. Which is wrong? I explained why I can’t answer the question in any other way, because this is the only answer I can give, given the reasons. It does not have anything to do with imagining things or not, the question makes logically no sense.
It’s not like that I’m not allowed to discuss here and take the question as I want. No one have to respond to me if you do not want to discuss.
Removed by mod
Mods: I don’t know how this question was ableist. I was not making any negative connotation.
Are you dumb?
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible. We are, for the sake of the question, positing that it IS, in fact, somehow, completely possible, and asking what you would do in that situation. In THIS pretend scenario, it IS the real you, so it is irrelevant if it’s not possible IRL.
Do you not understand this is not about being possible? I also didn’t know that I had to ask you how to answer the question. The question doesn’t make sense and I explained it enough. Nobody can live forever in an infinite game, not because its not possible, because it makes no sense.
The question makes perfect sense to literally everyone else here (as seen by the dozen answers already given), that you’re not able or willing to engage beyond your assumption that it isn’t is on you.
I don’t understand what you’re so held up by. Is it the infinite time thing? Okay, then the “game” goes on until the heat death of the universe. This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
Is it the copying thing you were going on about in another comment? Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this. Our universe is a perfect simulation being run by a Superintelligence beyond our comprehension (a real one, not some chatbot the annoying orange wants to rename). We are already code in a machine, “death” just means having your code moved out of the main simulation and into a separate afterlife simulation. No copying is needed, this is the original “you” code being moved over. Would you be okay with/like this?
This is the exact same question but with an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason.
No, it does not, and I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
No it’s. This reply is proof you didn’t understand the issue I brought up. Even if the universe exists for an infinite time, that has nothing to do with the issue I was talking about.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about.
It’s not. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
The issue I brought up is not unnecessary and this is not just philosophical. It is core to the logic and thought process.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
Alright, I’ll admit it’s not the exact same question. But living in an imperceptible simulation would change nothing about our lives or the way we perceive it. In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife, yada yada. All this does it give another potential mechanism for how it could happen.
No. I think I explained it enough, that you just can go back and read and take your time. No need to be sarcastic.
It does. And no, it would not be your afterlife. You are dead. It’s a new life form based on your memories, but its not you. Think of you create a robot and you give a backup of your memory after you die. The new robot is not you. But I guess you don’t understand the issue here, no matter how often I explain it.
You cannot live in an afterlife, after your death. A copy of you is not you. That’s why the initial question doesn’t make sense to answer and I tried to explain why. It’s not my problem that most people ignore or don’t care about this.
I understand the “issue”. I don’t even disagree with you, at least so far as an afterlife is concerned—according to everything we know, an afterlife is not possible. I do disagree wholeheartedly that a copy of you is not you, at least in a broad, all-encompassing sense, but I find the whole thing irrelevant regardless. The problem is your inability to engage with the hypothetical that it is somehow, magically perhaps, the real you and an afterlife is real… your unwillingness to do so is not thought provoking, just irritating.
It’s fine if you find the answer irritating and not acceptable. I answered the question as I like and think is the correct way. Nobody said has to agree with me. I expressed my opinion and reasoning why the questions is nonsense and cannot be answered in any other way that I do. Nobody said I have to answer it in a way you personally find it acceptable. It’s not my problem that you ignore the core issue.