At least when it relates to his 'simulation argument, Bostrom raises some strong points.
I've tried to come up with my own 7-point process of staged contradiction, in order to try and disprove the simulation argument. And, I cannot.
I am of the opinion that we must wrangle more with these particular propositions highlighted. And that we must expend the time/energy/resources in order to be able to further peer into the nature (fabric) of reality. As well, continue to unearth the mechanism through which we will continue learning about our consciousness.
The making of these comment, is not so suggest that I endorse Bostrom's opinion about a whole range of issues. In particular, the issue, the claim, that certain technologies must be deliberately retarted.
"I envision a future, where all of us will have access to teaching assistants like Jill Watson, anytime, anywhere, for any task. I envision a future, in which education will be accessible to all. But teaching and learning will also be personal and fun." Ashok Goel
Jill Watson mentioned in the media.
In this video, Professor Brian Cox makes a very important case when it comes to the need for publicly funded Science. This is specific to the United Kingdom, but it applies to any and all the countries, including, Canada and the United States.
If you watch it, then please watch the entire video.
Between order and chaos, there is a space.
I sense that classical hierarchical structures are not equipped to deal with a rising level of complexity.
A phenomenon, if it is to be considered true and depending on the scope and complexity of the problem(s), shifts a system towards chaos. That is, systems that rely upon it's own hierarchical structure of control and decision making.
Where, on the spectrum, the system happens to be, is predicated upon a couple of different factors.
If complexity is rising and continues rising, then classical hierarchical structures become this box. In such a box, there are no variables to make sense out of what has just entered into the box.
Frustration creeps in.
This, in turn, results into a reality, where reason could become an after-thought and emotions may kick in.
If you slow down the mechanism by which decisions are being made in such a room, down to milliseconds, then, in the absence of an adequate amount of data, as well the inability to make objective sense out of the situation, the decision maker has no choice but to look nervously around the room, make sense out of the prevailing sentiment by glancing at the facial expression of some of the other decision makers in the room. And then, in the interest of time, acts upon the limited information that is on hand. Not very well aware of cognizant of the potential impact down the road.
All of these interactions occur super fast.
In the absence of no data or data that is skewed in order to meet a certain objective, this can only be the foreboding of bad and terrible things down the road.
Perhaps and most importantly, this phenomenon rolls up into problems much bigger of a magnitude, whereby that much more time/energy/capital is expended upon solving the mutated version of the problem that has been created.
A problem that should not have mutated to this scale in the first place.
If the right kind of a construct would have been enabled, perhaps, such as a, 'network of networks' or another construct that could make objective sense out of a developing situation by leveraging empathy as a lens. Then, the effort could have lead to better things, better designs.