186 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Think about living a billion billion subjective years in a full Matrix world with virtually no mental/material limitations in about 5 objective minutes...

Of course, who is to say we aren't in a simulation right now. (of the 5 or whatever minute variety) If it will someday be possible to model the whole universe in a simulation, then what is to say we aren't in a simulation ourselves?


There are some very interesting theories out there (google around a bit), but basically, either 1) humans will never be able to model the universe in a simulation form, or 2) most likely we are living in a simulation. There are no other alternatives, if you think about it. If the human species (aka us) is able to run simulations of everything up until this point (I believe we will in the next 100 years, but even if you believe it will be a lot longer, it doesn't matter as long as we are able to get there), then theoretically there will be millions of such simulations (if not billions) over the years. To say we don't live in one would be one in several millions (or billions), probably more because some of the simulations would run simulations of their own.

In other words, it is either 1) highly likely we are never able to run such simulations, or 2) highly likely we are living in one of these simulations.

Edited by shepard, 23 November 2007 - 05:31 AM.

[dimasok]

Are we even sure it will churn out new laws? This is multitudes beyond speculative...

Well, if the simulation argument is correct, then that would be a drop in the bucket of what would be possible...

[cyborgdreamer]

If the human species (aka us) is able to run simulations of everything up until this point (I believe we will in the next 100 years, but even if you believe it will be a lot longer, it doesn't matter as long as we are able to get there), then theoretically there will be millions of such simulations (if not billions) over the years. To say we don't live in one would be one in several millions (or billions), probably more because some of the simulations would run simulations of their own.

In other words, it is either 1) highly likely we are never able to run such simulations, or 2) highly likely we are living in one of these simulations.

That's a facsinating idea but I would hope that future people would outlaw putting people (or computer generated concsious minds) in simulations against their will.

[Live Forever]

If the human species (aka us) is able to run simulations of everything up until this point (I believe we will in the next 100 years, but even if you believe it will be a lot longer, it doesn't matter as long as we are able to get there), then theoretically there will be millions of such simulations (if not billions) over the years. To say we don't live in one would be one in several millions (or billions), probably more because some of the simulations would run simulations of their own.

In other words, it is either 1) highly likely we are never able to run such simulations, or 2) highly likely we are living in one of these simulations.

That's a facsinating idea but I would hope that future people would outlaw putting people (or computer generated concsious minds) in simulations against their will.

Perhaps. There are bound to be instances of it though, either before they outlaw it or illegally afterwards. Plus, I am sure there would be a lot of scientists that would be interested in modeling the universe to see what happens in different situations. To do so would necessarily give rise to consciousness if it is modeled correctly. It is not necessarily inhumane to allow consciousness to flourish in a simulation.

[DJS]

It is not necessarily inhumane to allow consciousness to flourish in a simulation.

I agree. If we are residing in a simulation, then I am quite appreciative of the simulator. [lol]

The very notion of simulation is often muddled. For all we know, simulation might be the way that all universes are created.

Of course these are exceedingly vague speculations. But it's fun to think about in a noncommitted sort of way.

[Live Forever]

For anyone more interested in the simulation argument (I find it highly interesting), here is some stuff by Nick Bostrom on the subject:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
(Here is a link to the pdf of the article about it from New Scientist which is the "bare bones" version: http://www.simulatio...om/computer.pdf )

He lays it out far more eloquently than I ever could.

[DJS]

Yes, Bostrom is good stuff Nate.

Random thoughts....

a - Could running simulations be the primary activity of ultra-intelligent entities? What goals and values would this activity be indicative of?
b - Could there be an intimate level of connection between the simulator and its simulations? What would be the nature of this intimacy?
c - If one postulates that we exist in a simulation, and if we also eventually run simulations, then this would mean that simulations are running in simulations...which could be running in a simulation, which could be running in a simulation, ad infinitum.
d- If there is some intimate level of connection between the simulator and its simulation, then would this intimacy extend forward to the next generation of simulations?

[Live Forever]

Yes, Bostrom is good stuff Nate.

Random thoughts....

a - Could running simulations be the primary activity of ultra-intelligent entities?  What goals and values would this activity be indicative of?
b - Could there be an intimate level of connection between the simulator and its simulations?  What would be the nature of this intimacy?
c - If one postulates that we exist in a simulation, and if we also eventually run simulations, then this would mean that simulations are running in simulations...which could be running in a simulation, which could be running in a simulations.
d- If there is some intimate level of connection between the simulator and its simulation, then would this intimacy extend forward to the next generation of simulations?

a - I can't speculate as to the actual goals and values, but some possibilities might be just an understanding of how the universe works, or a desire to play a really really realistic game, or watch some really really reality television. Very crude models of the universe are simulated on supercomputers now. I can see people simulating for a variety of reasons. (probably lots of simulations as to what different physics would mean in different universes, so our simulators might not live in a universe anything like ours)

b - Could be. They would in essence be "God" to us. Their level of intimacy could range anywhere from living among us, to being an All Mighty A-hole, to a level of detachment and just seeing what the simulation would do. (Note: if intelligent life evolved other places than just on Earth, we could be far from the most interesting things to study)

c - Yes, that is one of the reasons it is so likely. There is an exponential growth if you assume billions of simulations are run, and in some fraction of those, billions of simulations are run, and so on, and so on. If this were the case, the number of simulated minds would be so insanely large that the odds of us not being in a simulation would be astronomically small.

d - Who knows. It depends on the motives of the creator(s) of the simulation. From what I see every day, if we are in a simulation, then the creators of said simulation are a very hands off "God". They don't seem (to me anyway) to be showing themselves in a way that would indicate high levels of interaction. We could just be a moderately interesting part of their simulation. Imagine what the world religions would do if the creator(s) of the simulation chose to make themselves known?

[dimasok]

I wonder if we are simulated, then there must be some sort of a preprogrammed simulated afterlife right?

[DJS]

You're joking, right?

[dimasok]

Who knows
I don't really believe that, but we can't be sure of it just like we can't be sure if we're living in a simulation at all... why wouldn't there be? It certainly is not a necessity, but perhaps our mastermind creators are benevolent creatures after all

[Live Forever]

I wonder if we are simulated, then there must be some sort of a preprogrammed simulated afterlife right?

I would assume not. I would assume we would be on the order of bacteria to them; Interesting to study, but no level of intimacy with. Plus, why would they waste resources putting that into the simulation? Especially if it is a simulation of lots of different universes at the same time to see the differences in them, why would they want to add something in outside of what should naturally be there?

Ultimately however, it is an exercise in futility, because unless they expressly want to communicate something to us, there would be no way to get inside the mind (if they have minds) of an entity running a simulation. I know some of the things I might do if I created a simulation, but to impart my desires on another (most likely much more highly advanced) entity, is disingenuous.

[dimasok]

why would they want to add something in outside of what should naturally be there?

That assumes that the afterlife is outside of the universe, but does it have to be?
Moreover, if as you say there are simulating multiple different universes at the same time, why wouldn't they, for whatever reason, implement death in order to test us in a variety of different environments with different physical laws, etc and death was the "smooth" transition they opted for instead of suddenly transporting us during our daily lives in this simulation?

Also, what do you mean by "natural"? Everything is natural! Every brain state of every person, every multiverse possibility, every simulation, every superintelligence, etc. If we're bacteria to them, we are just as natural as they are. I never understood why this obsession with "supernatural" or whatever that our society has always had. Sure, there is no evidence that in our particular universe these powers, etc are actually exhibited, but in a different universe where they are possible, they would be perfectly natural! And ergo their presence there or absence here is equally natural!

[Live Forever]

That assumes that the afterlife is outside of the universe, but does it have to be?
Moreover, if as you say there are simulating multiple different universes at the same time, why wouldn't they, for whatever reason, implement death in order to test us in a variety of different environments with different physical laws, etc and death was the "smooth" transition they opted for instead of suddenly transporting us during our daily lives in this simulation?

You are assuming we are much more important than we really are in the grand scheme of things. Would you, if you created a simulation, give afterlife to all animals? If not, which animals would you choose, and why? Us vs them would be something on the order of an ant trying to understand a human. (or at least could be)

But, just for the sake of argument, you say that there is something "magical" about humans apart from other animals to a degree that should allow for us to get to go to an afterlife, and not them. At what point in human evolution do you start taking humans to the afterlife? Whoever is the first one to go is bound to wonder why their parents didn't make it. (Note: Evolution being a gradual process, whoever the "first" one you let in is bound to be almost identical to his/her parents.)

[dimasok]

You are assuming we are much more important than we really are in the grand scheme of things. Would you, if you created a simulation, give afterlife to all animals? If not, which animals would you choose, and why? Us vs them would be something on the order of an ant trying to understand a human. (or at least could be)

Sure, why not? Just like David Pearce, I believe that animals shouldn't suffer just like us so if I was to give afterlife to humans, I would certainly give it to animals too! I love them after all

At what point in human evolution do you start taking humans to the afterlife?

Not sure, perhaps after they come out with the hypothesis that they're being simulated?

[DJS]

Uouh boy... Where to begin...

Simple inductive reasoning would make clear that, if our universe is simulated, the simulator's moral framework is radically different than the one you currently maintain.

[Live Forever]

Uouh boy... Where to begin...

Simple inductive reasoning would make clear that, if our universe is simulated, the simulator's moral framework is radically different than the one you currently maintain.

Very true. Also, all of the logical arguments against "God" in the traditional sense would apply to these runners of the simulation. If we are living in a simulation, then I find it highly unlikely the ones running the simulation are anything like a traditional (Christian, Muslim, whatever) concept of God, because of the inherent contradictions in that type of being. (discussed ad nauseum on other parts of this forum)

Trying to understand what a simulator's reasons for running a simulation, or how they would run such a simulation, are completely based on one's on subjectivity, which is most likely not going to be the same as theirs. Now, when we are able to run our own simulations, you can run one however you want. (Be any type of "god" you want to be), and the entities in that simulation will attempt to understand why you are running your simulation.

[dimasok]

Now, when we are able to run our own simulations, you can run one however you want. (Be any type of "god" you want to be), and the entities in that simulation will attempt to understand why you are running your simulation.

Yeah, I guess that's the only viable alternative. Any idea when that might happen? If we have mind-uploads by 2030, maybe simulations by 2100?
If we take the Kardashov scale then:
"According to Kaku, Kardaschev has estimated the development of such a civilization at the year 7800. However, Dyson has argued that relativity "may delay the transition to a Type III civilization by perhaps millions of years" due to the light speed limit. [11] Since our Milky Way galaxy is approximately 40,000-50,000 light years in radius, and our sun is about 25,000 light years from the galaxy's center, it would take at least 65,000-75,000 years for our civilization to reach every part of the galaxy if no way around the light speed limit can be found."

"Zoltan Galantai has defined a further extrapolation of the scale, a Type IV level at 1046W that is within a few orders of magnitude of the energy output of the visible Universe. Such a civilization approaches or surpasses the limits of speculation based on current scientific understanding, and may not be possible. Frank J. Tipler's Omega point would presumably occupy this level, as would the Biocosm hypothesis. Galantai has argued that such a civilization could not be detected, as its activities would be indistinguishable from the workings of nature (there being nothing to compare them to)."


Maybe these estimates are outdated?

[cyborgdreamer]

I still think it would be unethical for a posthuman to put their creations into a simulated world full of death and suffering, decieve them into thinking that they live in the 'real' world, and just delete their files when they die. After all, they could presumably put us into a utopian world where we would all be immortal and know the truth.

I think there is some chance that posthumans would have a sense of ethics since posthumans would have come from normal humans. After all, how many people would engineer it so that they or their decendents treated current humans as bacteria?

[DJS]

Regarding some of the papers I have read on simulation:

There seems to be a generally pervasive level of overextension and/or misconceptualization as to what exactly an advanced simulation would be. Why are the architects (as they are refered to in the literature) so interested in modeling humans rather than other forms of life? Why must simulations be prefab constructs (ala matrix style) and not cosmos that evolve over billions of years. Why must time be viewed in an absolute sense where there is a direct correspondence between the temporal continuity of the simulation and the "architect"? Why must one conceptualize an architect as being external to the simulation rather than the simulation being an internal aspect of the architect? (which is why I use the term simulator)

There are lots of unknowns and speculations when it comes to simulation scenarios. Trying to be realistic about our speculations are difficult, but the attempt should at least be made.

[DJS]

decieve them into thinking that they live in the 'real' world, and just delete their files when they die.

Being simulated, even in a "the plugs going to be pulled tomorrow" scenario doesn't bother me much. Think of it like this, in a reality of infinite possibility, you are one unique possibility. Your current existence is this possibility being actualized. Actualizing the possibility multiple times doesn't even make sense if it is possible to imagine a deeper level of existence where spaciotemporal dimensions do not apply. All of your actualizations would be one and the same actualization, in the realm of possible worlds, that is.

[Live Forever]

Regarding some of the papers I have read on simulation:

There seems to be a generally pervasive level of overextension and/or misconceptualization as to what exactly an advanced simulation would be.  Why are the architects (as they are refered to in the literature) so interested in modeling humans rather than other forms of life?  Why must simulations be prefab constructs (ala matrix style) and not cosmos that evolve over billions of years.  Why must time be viewed in an absolute sense where there is a direct correspondence between the temporal continuity of the simulation and the "architect"?  Why must one conceptualize an architect as being external to the simulation rather than the simulation being an internal aspect of the architect?  (which is why I use the term simulator)

There are lots of unknowns and speculations when it comes to simulation scenarios.  Trying to be realistic about our speculations are difficult, but the attempt should at least be made.

Yes, it is natural to think since we are human that humans must be the central theme. Who is to say they even know we are here? If they are modeling billions of years in a few subjective minutes (assuming time is even a concept outside of our model of physics), who is to say they even care that some type of animal that is slightly smarter than the other billions of animals on one of the billions of planets in one of the billions of galaxies is even something interesting to study? We simply aren't that interesting in the grand scheme of things.

[DJS]

Yes Nate, but we must be cautious against valuing or devaluing things either way.

If the simulation exists within the simulator, that is, if they are somehow really one and the same, then literally everything in the simulation is not just interesting to the simulator, it is the simulator.

[Live Forever]

Yes Nate, but we must be cautious against valuing or devaluing things either way.

If the simulation exists within the simulator, that is, if they are somehow really one and the same, then literally everything in the simulation is not just interesting to the simulator, it is the simulator.

True, but I have lots of bacteria living in my stomach that are integral to keeping me alive. I don't know each of them individually, even though we are in essence one and the same (same with individual cells, etc.) even to the point of being integral to each other's survival. (perhaps a lousy example)

[cyborgdreamer]

Being simulated, even in a "the plugs going to be pulled tomorrow" scenario doesn't bother me much.  Think of it like this, in a reality of infinite possibility, you are one unique possibility.  Your current existence is this possibility being actualized.  Actualizing the possibility multiple times doesn't even make sense if it is possible to imagine a deeper level of existence where spaciotemporal dimensions do not apply.  All of your actualizations would be one and the same actualization, in the realm of possible worlds, that is.

Forgive my stupidity but I'm not sure I understand this post. Are you suggesting something like the 'many worlds' theory of quantum physics whereby by anything that's possible happens and there are infinitely many incarnations of an individual?

[dimasok]

Something along the lines of what Clifford Greenblatt proposed I guess...

[DJS]

Yes Nate, but we must be cautious against valuing or devaluing things either way.

If the simulation exists within the simulator, that is, if they are somehow really one and the same, then literally everything in the simulation is not just interesting to the simulator, it is the simulator.

True, but I have lots of bacteria living in my stomach that are integral to keeping me alive. I don't know each of them individually, even though we are in essence one and the same (same with individual cells, etc.) even to the point of being integral to each other's survival. (perhaps a lousy example)

Unforunately it is a bad example. We are not really simulators of anything. We are relatively crude conceptualizers. This difference in proportions are, I'm sure you would admit, staggering. The use of the words simulation and simulator may be semantically inappropriate as well. Actualizers might be a much more exact term for the concept I am looking to describe.

Some of the ideas I have had on this subject are still fairly fresh and the result of a synthesis between a few different philosophical ideas. I'll give you a brief synopsis via PM, but I'm hesitant to expound upon my ideas online as I am thinking of writing a paper. It would be kind of like coca-cola giving away the secret recipe. [lol]

[DJS]

Being simulated, even in a "the plugs going to be pulled tomorrow" scenario doesn't bother me much.  Think of it like this, in a reality of infinite possibility, you are one unique possibility.  Your current existence is this possibility being actualized.  Actualizing the possibility multiple times doesn't even make sense if it is possible to imagine a deeper level of existence where spaciotemporal dimensions do not apply.  All of your actualizations would be one and the same actualization, in the realm of possible worlds, that is.

Forgive my stupidity but I'm not sure I understand this post. Are you suggesting something like the 'many worlds' theory of quantum physics whereby by anything that's possible happens and there are infinitely many incarnations of an individual?

Kind of.

My position is utilizing conceptualizations such as MWI, modal realism and identity theory, along with a number of other speculative notions.

[Live Forever]

http://en.wikipedia....mulated_reality

For an overview of the concept.

(Note: I split this thread from the original)

[ikaros]

I think that the simulation argument is rather illogical and tends to be a philosophical specualtion which has its roots in unexplored and yet unproven territories.

Why I think it's nonsense:

a.) the computational power to run a real-life universe simulation would require unimaginable resources and, if I may add, room (on condition the simulation simulates every elementary particle in the universe plus quantum phenomenon) because the "computer" would be forced to engrasp the universe it resides but that is unfortunately a paradox

b.) unless the future humans are complete morons in economics, they should understand that if they wished to run any tests or experiments, a non-simulated world would be greatly more cost-efficient (for example create a supercomputer that solves every given problem). Personally I can't imagine any scenario which would entail running an experiment in a simulation (such as our world) to "find anything out".

c.) the homo sapiens is likely incapable of ever creating an exact form of itself in a digital form, first because it's empirically and practically impossible to correlate neuronal phenomenon to actual thoughts and feelings which renders the possibility of ever creating an humanlike AI futile.

d.) history has shown, the more advanced (I should actually stress the word "educated") a species becomes the higher the ethical values of that given species are. Running a simulation like our world violates even my lower-being ethics.

e.) there is no logical motive to undertake such a painstaking quest to build a real-life simulation

Feel free to object.