186 replies to this topic

[basho]

Maybe we both live in a simulation and don't live in a simulation. In an infinite universe, or an infinite number of universes, all possibilities play out an infinite number of times. There are simulated versions of us discussing this, and non-simulated versions of us discussing this.

Here's an intro-level Scientific American article on the topic: ParalellUniverse2003.pdf

One of the many implications of recent cosmological observations is that the concept of parallel universes is no mere metaphor. Space appears to be infinite in size. If
so, then somewhere out there, everything that is possible becomes real, no matter how improbable it is. Beyond the range of our telescopes are other regions of space that are identical to ours. Those regions are a type of parallel universe. Scientists can even calculate how distant these universes are, on average.

In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.

[Cyberbrain]

Maybe we both live in a simulation and don't live in a simulation. In an infinite universe, or an infinite number of universes, all possibilities play out an infinite number of times. There are simulated versions of us discussing this, and non-simulated versions of us discussing this.

Indeed! With the existence of p-branes, super strings and such, who is to say "what is the true plane of reality?"

There could be and infinite planes of existence!

[Luna]

Living in simulation.. scary thought..
Hope it's not real

[Aegist]

Living in simulation.. scary thought..
Hope it's not real

Well if we are living in a simulation, none of this is real

But don't worry, it doesn't really change a thing.

Ever seen Thirteenth Floor? Cool movie.

[Athanasios]

What if we [i]are[i] that program? Imagine that. We are the first (or maybe one of many) successful Artificial Life based AI programs run in order to see if the results of the program can produce novel solutions to problems faced by our creators. 'God' is just a software engineer, and in the beginning he wrote the software, a complicated algorithm which guides the general evolution of the entire program (our universe). Inevitably (they assumed, just as I now assume) the evolutionary process would have to create something 'intelligent' (eventually...which could be seconds, minutes, hours or years of their time) and at that point they would 'interact' with the software to draw answers out of it.

Douglas Adams much?
I loved reading through Hitchhikers Guide.

[samson]

The question whether we live in a simulation is practically meaningless for as long as we have no way to either communicate with the runner of the simulation nor have access to the source code. Philosophically, it damn sure is interesting. Maybe we should initiate a universe-wide bug hunt. Find that backdoor! [tung]
If this universe is a simulation, consider the possible purposes for it. To me, only two sensible ones come to mind. Either this is simply amusement for the runner, or we (and all other intelligent life in the universe) have the purpose of creating a superior intelligence. I mean, the eventual consequence for intelligent life in a universe is that it becomes saturated and completely 'hijacked' by it, eventually. Strikes me as kinda divine. We have a purpose after all. Heh. Of course, if this is simply amusement for some otherwordly kid, he'll just turn it off before anything interesting happens. Then again, there is an infinity of possibilities for reasons to run a simulation, so that's that, but the eventual destiny for the universe is to be saturated by inteligence in some for or another (before breaking down due to heat death).

[Luna]

http://www.nytimes.c...all&oref=slogin

That's a depressing article..

[lunarsolarpower]

I don't see how Bostrom's simulation passes Occam's razor personally. Then again, every so often, the razor could be wrong...

[Live Forever]

I don't see how Bostrom's simulation passes Occam's razor personally. Then again, every so often, the razor could be wrong...

That could be said of any technology development. Telling someone before computers were invented that they would be, according to Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is that they wouldn't be. What you have to weigh is what you think is more possible. (that these simulations will be developed or that they won't) If you think they will be, then we are probably living in a simulation, if you think they won't then we probably aren't. For Occam's Razor, that is the simplest answer for each path.

Edited by Live Forever, 15 August 2007 - 02:17 PM.

[Luna]

Even if they will be developed, it dosen't imply that we're living in one..

[Luna]

Indeed! With the existence of p-branes, super strings and such, who is to say "what is the true plane of reality?"

There could be and infinite planes of existence!

Let's hope we're existing in the real, eternal one

[caston]

A very interesting idea. If the universe is a quantum computer how can we use this knowledge to "hack our way" to immortality?

[Live Forever]

http://www.nytimes.c...all&oref=slogin

That's a depressing article..

I don't know, I find it kind of interesting. )

Even if they will be developed, it dosen't imply that we're living in one..

Yes, that is the point. If it is possible that it will be developed, then for every instance of it occurring, that is another chance for us to be inside of the simulation. If we develop it and ran the simulation (again, all of the thought history of everyone that has ever lived into less than a second taking up less than 1% of the computer only using currently understood design principles) that would mean that it is possible, and the people that we simulated would have no idea they were simulated. Multiply this by however many universes that you think might conceivably exist, which would then be multiplied by however many civilizations that you think might ever have existed in the average universe advanced enough to run such a simulation (or if you think ours is the only universe, then however many you think have existed or will exist over the course of the life of our universe), and multiply that by how many of the said computer you think each civilization would build over the course of their existence, and multiply that by how many simulations on each computer that you think would be run over the life of the computer, then multiply that by how many simulations within simulations (how many simulations the simulators will run) on the average individual simulation. Whatever number you get (probably astronomically high), then those are the odds (1 in 10^40 or whatever number you got, sub for 10^40) that we live in a "top level" environment and not a simulation. It would make me uneasy if the odds were 1 in 2 (50%), but I fear the odds are much lower than that.


(btw, I merged the relevant parts of that other thread with this one)

[Luna]

Even if we can make a simulation like that, it dosen't mean we're living in one.
Especially, considering the fact that one universe must be real, and if that one universe could run the simulation, it makes them consider they might be in one, dosen't imply they are in one.

I don't mind being in a simulation as long as it will never be turned off :X

The odds for living in a simulation is very high because, well, for once.. you can't prove otherwise.
You can't prove you're right either.
It's just like arguing about God.

[Luna]

Oh and what kind of a sick person would create consciousness just to destroy it? that's so cruel.

[Live Forever]

It's just like arguing about God.

Haha. There are certain elements "God"-like about it. ) That is the most disturbing part for me.

We won't know one way or another for awhile anyway (until we can show proof of concept in an actual working simulation), but until then, it is an interesting thing to contemplate.

Oh and what kind of a sick person would create consciousness just to destroy it? that's so cruel.

That is one of the dangers, but as stated earlier, trying to figure out the morals of beings so much more intelligent than us (as would be required to build the thing) is like ants trying to figure out our morality. There is no way for us to do it.

[Luna]

Well first of all.. I feel sorry for bugs and avoid killing them :X
And second, super-intelligent beings like us don't need us!

[Live Forever]

super-intelligent beings like us don't need us!

Given the opportunity, I would run such a simulation, and I am sure a fair amount others would. Of course, that is beside the fact that we aren't "super-intelligent beings". (I suppose that would be a comparative statement, but in the way you used it in reference to what I was saying, of course I meant beings much more intelligent than us)

[samson]

http://www.nytimes.c...all&oref=slogin

That's a depressing article..

Goddamit, I wanted to post that. Now you have deprived me from contributing. I hope you feel just fine and fucking dandy now. Besides, the article was interesting. Good to see transhumanist consepts trickle to the news, even if it's still just in the internet.

Like I've said before, the administrator of every simulation is an omnipotent (and omniscientific) god within the simulation, and therefore we have all the things to be afraid of as with a divine god. That is, none. Atleast for me. Whether he decides to delete the simulation is ultimately out of our reach, since like LF said, it's like ants contemplating on humans.
So, until the runner decides to affect the world in any way, we'll just keep doing things we intend to (that is, taking drugs and killing each other). If the runner wants something, he'll be sure to get it. Maybe he's waiting for the simulation to produce an intelligence that would be able to have a discourse with him. I mean, I would.

[Live Forever]

I feel sorry for bugs and avoid killing them :X

I only kill the ones that get into my house. (through the use of bug spray generally) I don't go looking for them to kill, and if one is crawling across the sidewalk I will try to avoid it. I try to avoid any unneeded suffering (one of the reasons I am a vegetarian), but I wouldn't try to cast my morals on other humans much less anything more intelligent.

[platypus]

I just bumped into the simulation argument today. Funny stuff, IMO, I cannot take it too seriously.

One question: Why didn't the purported posthuman simulators already simulate a posthuman utopia for us? I this just our bad luck, or is this the best of all possible worlds, or are we just made fun of? [lol]

[Live Forever]

I just bumped into the simulation argument today. Funny stuff, IMO, I cannot take it too seriously.

One question: Why didn't the purported posthuman simulators already simulate a posthuman utopia for us? I this just our bad luck, or is this the best of all possible worlds, or are we just made fun of?  [lol]

Well, I know your question is only half serious ) but as has already been discussed we couldn't possibly know the motivations of said posthumans. (not that they have to be posthumans at all, but could be something completely different, who knows) I could speculate and say that if we ever ran such simulations we would want to make them as realistic as possible (and probably as many different variations as possible) to test different parameters in each one, etc. Simulating a utopia would be a fairly boring simulation to run, imo.

[platypus]

Found this, probably old news here:

http://henrysturman....simulation.html

[Live Forever]

Found this, probably old news here:

http://henrysturman....simulation.html

Yes, he brings up 8 points (some of which are ok). There was some discussion of them in this thread:
http://www.imminst.o...&f=67&s=&t=3402

where some people responded directly to each of the points. Also, on the Simulism.org wiki that was mentioned previously, there is a bit of a section with small responses (more of a discussion) of each: http://www.simulism....in_a_simulation

Edited by Live Forever, 16 August 2007 - 01:54 AM.

[DJS]

I guess the butchering of this concept is to be expected. It's not like metaphysical speculations serve that much utility anyway but, then again, neither does a Van Gogh (probably even less so).

Crisp, daring imagination is a scarce resource. Most human minds are so constrained by their humanness...

[DJS]

There is a certain futility in communicating oneself, especially when the divide is great.

Why build a bridge when one can be an island with a set of binoculars?

Sir, I find your sense of aesthetics distasteful. Well, so be it!

[dimasok]

Simulating a utopia would be a fairly boring simulation to run, imo.

I hear that a lot, but aren't the ones simulating us boring themselves? If you're saying that utopia would be a boring simulation and that violence, etc is the way to go, then what makes you think they're not knee-deep in this as well? Would they even have time to simulate anything given these issues that may be plaguing them?

[Live Forever]

I hear that a lot, but aren't the ones simulating us boring themselves? If you're saying that utopia would be a boring simulation and that violence, etc is the way to go, then what makes you think they're not knee-deep in this as well? Would they even have time to simulate anything given these issues that may be plaguing them?

I wouldn't hazard to guess what their reality was like or what their motivations would be. All I know is what our reality is, so if it did happen to be a simulation, then it of course isn't a utopia, and is what we see around us. Beyond that, anyone's speculation is as good as anyone else's.

[AdamDavis]

Well first of all.. I feel sorry for bugs and avoid killing them :X

Good work, dude. I'm exactly the same. Whenever I go for a walk or something, and see a creature, whatever it is, on the footpath I relocate it directly to a safe area like a patch of grass on the side. Just think, they could be uplifted! It has potential personhood. But I'd rescue them anyway. Once I rescued a slug, and it made me think, what a possibly trippy experience it must have been for it, being disconnected from the ground (held it with two fingers on each side) probably for the first and only time, travelling at my walking pace which must have been incredible for it. Divine intervention for a slug...I kind of envy it.

And yes, I also wanted to post that link to the NY Times, but I knew someone would do it first . It's like a competition.

[AdamDavis]

I guess the butchering of this concept is to be expected. It's not like metaphysical speculations serve that much utility anyway but, then again, neither does a Van Gogh (probably even less so).

Crisp, daring imagination is a scarce resource. Most human minds are so constrained by their humanness...

Yeah. Not everything has to have functionality. Aesthetics is important. I do not believe science is superior to art, and the two should be married.