Re: [MAGIC-list] Dear Experts Please Review Ozkural's Essay

Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Eray Ozkural

Jan 2, 2017, 5:18:17 AM1/2/17

The probability upper bound in the paper is about 2^-100000, not 2^-100. You have apparently not understood anything about my draft paper and keep misrepresenting my work. This is getting truly annoying and offensive, perhaps you speak inadequate English. Please stop misrepresenting my work.

I see how you may have made that error though. You are still appropriating Tim Tyler's response to my paper:

Occam's razor

Eray Ozkural has produced some criticism of simulism - in: Why the Simulation Argument is Invalid. He says simulism involves creationism and solipsism. He claims a 2-99,000 chance of intelligent design creationism being true. Alas, his maths doesn't make much sense. He gives a p=2-1,000 chance of the universe and its seven billion human brains forming, but p=2-100,000 as a consevative estimate for one human genome - as a ballpark estimate for the probability of an intelligent designer such as god. Why god is so much more complex than all human civilization is not properly explained. If the universe consists of the execution of a 1,000-bit program, as Eray says, it might not require a rocket scientist to create it. Eray apparently neglects the possibility that god's brain evolved in a universe much like our own. If seven billion human brains can be the result of the execution of a 1,000 program, then so can advanced designers with the resources of a galaxy under their control. I directed Eray's attention to this issue, but he failed to give a coherent counter-argument.

Tim Tyler is an author, despite his strangely creationist views, I respected his other work. I will respond to his critique, however badly formed, but I will not respond to a critic who has no originality, and no respect for academic integrity. I welcome criticism otherwise, I even entertained your harsh, ignorant criticism full of strawman objections. The only part of it that seemed to make sense, however, was lifted from Tim Tyler's page. "Gods may have evolved, too", he insists, and that is the entirety of your objection as well. How brilliant. 

Tim Tyler's criticism is caused by his lack of command of information theory. I do not have to give formulae to support my reasoning in a purely philosophical paper. The mathematics, however, is correct, he just doesn't understand it. In a previous version of his response, he wrote the probability I offered was 2^-100 initially. He made this mistake because he assumes ID is true with 10% probability, which is ridiculous. And you are telling me what you saw in a previous version of his webpage, which you did not cite. Again, you are appropriating the work of at least four authors without proper citation/survey: Schmidhuber, Ozkural, Pearce, and Tyler. You have to cite the webpages we sent you the links of, you can cite URI's.

I never said anywhere that the probability of an intelligent designer is 2^-100, that is nonsensical and ridiculously large. 2^-100 is the a priori probability of the physical laws of our brane that I predict. I use 1000 bits here as a conservative estimate. You are mixing apples and oranges. Because you apparently understand absolutely nothing about this matter. Neither does Tim Tyler in this context, he is repeating creationist Dembski's and others' confused misunderstandings and distortion of information theory. That's not how it works. "Turtles all the way down" is no objection. "Gods may have evolved" is no objection. It is just more ridiculous superstition and is ruled out by Ockham. Tim Tyler has no idea what I am talking about, and neither do you. I did not correct him, because it was pointless. Perhaps, I did well to write briefly, so that I can see who understands my words, and who do not.

Note also that Tim Tyler correctly assumes that SA is a form of ID. Which you keep denying.

As for your claim about that particular condition "that the initial state of the real universe already contained the agents that built the simulation", that is gibberish. If there are no simulators, then that is not SA. And it is not a simulation because simulation means something else entirely than what you seem to think. Ancestor simulation in particular. I will just say that this does not make the slightest sense. And again, you are trying to lift the final section of my paper here, but misrepresenting it in an entirely ignorant manner that is offensively broken. Amazing. Here, I will show it:
For those that might have intuited correctly, the only way such an argument could be made probable is by decreasing the complexity of the "designer". So much that its complexity is more or less the same as the laws of physics. It could even be simpler. I recall Schmidhuber call this scenario a "bacteria god" (with a small "g"), a mindless procedure that simply generates and tests many child processes. However, note the huge difference here, this is not theological nonsense, it is clearly a hypothesis of digital cosmology. Such a process would not be an intelligent agent, it would not be simulating anything that existed before, or deliberately programming anything. It is just a kind of evolution in action. It is quite reasonable that the cosmos is a computer given universal quantum computer theory. If so, then it is conceivable that very small complexity generative processes can evolve in such a system. A very important distinction, such processes are not simulation, they are just sub-processes generated in succession, it is just an operating system like feature that has evolved. Thus, each such process could be like a universe with its own physical law. One could have a 2D space-time, one could have 4D, maybe another 11D. This is of course much more reasonable than SA. Thus, by induction, if we would like to venture beyond the observable universe, this would be the hypothesis to take seriously: Juergen Schmidhuber's Theory of Everything. Contrast freely to SA.

In other words, an evolved VM scenario is not a simulation argument, and it is not Intelligent Design either. I call that Digital Cosmology, and I think both Schmidhuber and I might turn out to be right, and you cannot call us "simulationists", because we are not. This part is digital physics, it is not ID/SA nonsense! SA itself is merely an abuse of digital physics, which Ed Frenkin himself committed, but I do not want to go there. I read more serious physicists like Smolin and Lloyd, because that is what a scientist would do.

My verdict: you do not even know what simulation means in this context. And I know I explained that to you on AI Philosophy group as well. Yours seems to be a conceptual error, you think that an evolved VM is a simulation because it sounds like a Turing simulation, I suppose. That is only a very loose sense, though, you can call running any program simulating it, even the code of evolution. But simulation in general means something else than that, it does require that the simulated program existed elsewhere before. At any rate, it's easy to see that the VM's I talk about and the "ancestor simulations" are entirely different things. It is sufficient that I disprove Intelligent Design, I do not care if you call a cosmic program "a simulation". You can call the laws of physics a simulation, but that is merely abusing the term, and pushing it too far, it's a conceptual/linguistic error, hard to understand I know. I suppose you should improve your English a lot.

The sense I use is this one, a computer simulation, modeling a system that existed BEFORE. It is not an error, it is the right use here. Your use is erroneous, because you do not know much about CS literature.

Computer simulations reproduce the behavior of a system using a model. Computer simulations have become a useful part of mathematical modeling of many natural systems in physics (computational physics), astrophysicsclimatologychemistry and biology, human systems in economicspsychologysocial science, and engineering. Simulation of a system is represented as the running of the system's model. It can be used to explore and gain new insights into new technology and to estimate the performance of systems too complex for analytical solutions.[1]

This is exactly the sense used in Beane's paper of course. We do not use the loose Turing sense, because then digital physics would seem to be connected, that is misleading as I refuted that connection separately. Again, Occam's razor rules out Beane-like nonsense: 

It is offensive that you think by rephrasing bits and pieces from my arguments in a poor, broken way, you have contributed something. You have not. You have merely distorted and misrepresented my work, and that is not welcome. It is embarrassing for you, as well. Perhaps you do not realize how dishonest and incompetent your effort has turned out to be. I bet you think permutation is a contribution, what if I lift a few sentences from Eray's papers, perhaps you think I am "not famous", or young, and you can get away with it, at any rate, you are a massively dishonest and hypocritical person. Honesty is more important than competence, BTW. Many AI papers are not that interesting or competent, but a good number of researchers observe academic ethics, for it is the foundation of our democratic community. To have a voice in academia, I suggest you to familiarize yourself with academic integrity rules. You can google it. You will not get far with your mindless demagoguery, misrepresentation, and scooping attempts, and disregarding what reviewers said about your work. That is the most offensive part of your attitude. You may be angry at the reviewers, but you still have to address the reviews. You are refusing to address the reviews, perhaps you are an Idiocracy age scientist, but I am not, and I will not let you do that. Either you cite the 4 authors I told you properly, acknowledging their contributions correctly, or you discard your paper. 

Amused and Intelligent New Year!

On Jan 2, 2017 9:02 AM, "Gabriel Leuenberger" <> wrote:
Eray Ozkural claims that his essay was successfully reviewed by experts on this forum which I highly doubt.
Most importantly he truly believes that his essay proves a 2^-100 upper bound of probability on Bostrom's simulation hypothesis.
I do not agree with Bostrom's simulation argument, however I also do not agree with Eray's refutation of the simulation hypothesis.
I think Ozkural's argument would only work if the simulation hypothesis would claim that the initial state of the real universe already contained the agents that built the simulation.

Before posting, please read this:!topic/magic-list/_nC7PGmCAE4
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MAGIC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages