Comments on Sentient Developments: The dark side of the Simulation Argument

All of a sudden the uncertainty principle is looki...

2009-11-05T18:57:42.415-05:00

All of a sudden the uncertainty principle is looking like a compression algorithm no?

If this is a simulation, there is really no need f...

2009-07-08T09:33:45.751-04:00

If this is a simulation, there is really no need for any of you to exist outside of my brain (or whatever you call my computing machine). My interactions with the physical and with other entities is all purely simulated and no computing power is required outside of myself and the simulation program. This cuts way down on the computer's processing requirements because it is only simulating for my benefit. I could also be "rewound" and placed in different situations at different times to see how I react. Some of you have already indicated that continuity may be an illusion.

"We can't possibly be in a simulation. The OS woul...

2009-06-12T06:37:06.126-04:00

"We can't possibly be in a simulation. The OS would have crashed by now and the creators would've been left with the blue screen of death! Without the perfect operating system, which is impossible by its definition, there cannot be a perfect simulation. Thus the OS must've crashed at some point."

Whether or not a posthuman civilization could create a "perfect" operating system is debatle and not an issue. And even if they could not, they may very well be capable of interrupting the simulation, thereby effectively freezing our concept of time, and restart it after some patches applied. We would have no way of noticing this because we only perceive when we are simulated.

Maybe at some times they "rewind" the simulation a little to have some observable anomalies not occur, which could explain the strange phenomenom of dejá-vus.

"Or perhaps.....ah, forget it. My brain (which is ...

2009-06-05T17:01:19.013-04:00

"Or perhaps.....ah, forget it. My brain (which is probably sitting in a vat somewhere) hurts."

Lmao

Your assuming you have a brain out of the simulation, you may indeed be a complete simulation.

So the pain you feel is a simulated pain.

The concept of simulation is as easy to entertain ...

2009-05-14T19:29:00.000-04:00

The concept of simulation is as easy to entertain as the concept of divine creation, and probably as difficult to achieve.

This aspect of transhumanism is almost all "and then a miracle happens" and very little "this is how we do it".

Two key notions:

a) on the development path of creating a simulation, loss of control will occur regularly, intruding 'reality' into one's simulation

b) this will render the simulation not just the ant farm caprice of some demiurge but make it another reality as mysterious and valid as ours appears to us.

This is great stuff to discuss and on which to base speculative novels, but as meaningful prognostication or even consideration of present reality and the future of transhumanism, it is erratic at best.

We can't possibly be in a simulation. The OS would...

2009-05-01T17:44:00.000-04:00

We can't possibly be in a simulation. The OS would have crashed by now and the creators would've been left with the blue screen of death! Without the perfect operating system, which is impossible by its definition, there cannot be a perfect simulation. Thus the OS must've crashed at some point.

You can thank me later.

very small observation. To me it does not explain...

2009-03-31T17:10:00.000-04:00

very small observation. To me it does not explain the Fermi paradox. It would seem a simple matter to "program in" some "space noise" attributable to some far away beings.

If simulationism is correct, then seemingly a bug-...

2009-02-10T21:31:00.000-05:00

If simulationism is correct, then seemingly a bug-free program has finally been made. Lift your game programmers the bar has been set : )

Wow...this is basically the geek/scientist's versi...

2009-02-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

Wow...this is basically the geek/scientist's version of religion, think about it: an untestable, unprovable theory that there is some "creator" out there that controls everything, only this time it's through a computer simulation. This can be only proven through the observation of "glitches" (miracles). Why does the human race as a collective need some sort of higher power in control, whether it be secret societies, deities, or simulations? I think that is a more interesting topic then some silly "computer simulation", that, if true, is in practical senses unprovable, unobservable, and therefore pointless to pontificate in depth about.

Does it matter?If we do something to get the simul...

2009-01-17T20:36:00.000-05:00

Does it matter?

If we do something to get the simulation turned off, it will matter as much as anything can matter to us.

Maybe, once the idea that we're in a simulation becomes widely accepted, or even just known, it will invalidate the simulation. Or, when we start to run our own universe simulations, the exponential growth in demand for computing resources will get the job canceled.

Or, of course, we might simply produce the desired result. (My guess: release of the last Harry Potter movie on BluRay.)

BTW, a number of commenters seem to be assuming that the Great Simulator has adequate computing resources. The evidence is against this. Holographic simulation with heavy compression is only the latest piece of evidence. I've written enough bad code that I ought to recognize it, even from the inside.

How about the possibility that eventually, we will...

2008-11-02T03:21:00.000-05:00

How about the possibility that eventually, we will have the ability to generate such a simulation, however at such a massive energy cost (or other cost) the practice would not be wide spread. Seems to me this would greatly reduce the probability of any "present state" actually being the virtual?

Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy. This ha...

2008-10-31T15:49:00.000-04:00

Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy. This has been brought up before. Nothing new here.

Am I allowed to ask, although I do fear it is incr...

2008-05-28T16:24:00.000-04:00

Am I allowed to ask, although I do fear it is incredibly unsciency of me:
Does it really matter?
I mean, it's something so big and powerful, this simulated universe, that it wouldn't make much a difference whether we were actually simulated or not!
Other than the fact that we may be suddenly 'switched off', but surely it would be instantaneously and we wouldn't even have the time to grumble about our own pointless existence?

On the comment of compression:compression isn't ha...

2008-05-27T18:13:00.000-04:00

On the comment of compression:

compression isn't hard, and you're overthinking it.

example:
lets say you have a few dozen objects.
these objects have specific propertys, when combined, they get different ones. All you need a list of is how these few dozen objects react together and after that it's just keeping track of where they are.

Of course, you would only have to track them down to a certain point as well, further saving space. Would be a cheap answer for why things get wacky at quantom levels wouldn't it?

Regardless, this whole 'you're a brain in a jar' argument is stupid really. Fun idea, but you can't be serious to really belive it.

Evidence. Without that it's nothing more then a crazy guy shouting in the streets.

Just because technically something can't be DIS-proven, doesn't make it so.

Same argument I say about god though, and no one listens there either ;)

I don't see that simulating only subjective experi...

2008-05-27T01:45:00.000-04:00

I don't see that simulating only subjective experiences saves processing power. I'd argue it wastes it, actually. You can't have a forest being completely different for two different people who come years apart. But it can't be quite the same, either: you have to work out exactly how it ages, which is the same as working out the objective reality, even though it's only entering the subjective realities at two points. And it affects even people who aren't in it: perhaps by changing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, perhaps by changing the movement of the air, whatever. It's part of everyone's subjective reality, or, at least, everyone on this planet.

What's more, if you only use subjective realities, you have to calculate stuff again every time it affects someone new.

So we have to points here: subjective realities are as large as any objective reality need be and the are overly redundant. Why not just do the solar system, particle by particle, and just add in the stuff (light, gravity, what have you) from the rest of the universe? This also nicely sidesteps the problem of which subjective realities you bother with. You don't have to work out who's sentient at all.

Wow... 2000+ years later, and people are still arg...

2008-05-26T19:34:00.000-04:00

Wow... 2000+ years later, and people are still arguing about Mencius...

Ultimately, the question is not "are we in a simulation?" but "does it matter if we are in a simulation?" and "can we do anything about it if we are in a simulation?".

I would argue (from a philosophical standpoint) that the answer to both of those is "no." After all, if we are in a simulation, I doubt the rules of the simulation allow us to observe that we are in a simulation, and even if we could do so, the creators of the simulation are likely powerful enough to prevent us from doing anything about it.

Sorry, one more comment...A simulation assumes the...

2008-05-02T13:52:00.000-04:00

Sorry, one more comment...

A simulation assumes the existence of a material universe.

Don't assume anything.

A simpler explanation for experience is waves disturbing formless consciousness. Everything is You.

Where do the waves come from? Unanswerable. Not even a valid question.

to Johnathan Hartley,There is no need for all that...

2008-05-02T13:42:00.000-04:00

to Johnathan Hartley,

There is no need for all that compute power. For each conscious creature involved in the simulation (if indeed there is more than one), you only need to simulate what they are experiencing at the moment. If you are staring at a blank wall and not thinking much, the computational costs are slight.

But even typical experience is not nearly as rich in data as we think it is. Actually, the brain is already constructing most of reality for us out of snippets of "outside" information.

A few million, billion, or trillion consciousness using this level of computer power...no problem. The human race will be able to do this century.

What makes you think that the simulation we are in...

2008-05-02T13:35:00.000-04:00

What makes you think that the simulation we are in is anything like reality. Perhaps the simulation is like nothing that ever existed in the universe. Or perhaps the whole idea of a universe - stars, galaxies, big bang - is just an advanced civilization's science fiction.

"Given the technological potential to colonize the...

2007-11-02T09:17:00.000-04:00

"Given the technological potential to colonize the Galaxy, why haven't advanced civilizations done so? "

The short answer must be, there are probably more than one hundred billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe, what makes Milky Way so lucky? Perhaps we are the most improbable Galaxy in the know universe undertaking such a task.

I'm going to entirely ignore the above "refutation...

2007-08-23T05:34:00.000-04:00

I'm going to entirely ignore the above "refutation" of skepticism because it's so ridiculously philosophically invalid that it smacks of lit-crit.

Continuing.

I think your pessimism in response to the possibility of us residing in a simulation is predicated on some poor assessments. The real question is what sort of future us would be even the slightest bit interested in running simulations of ourselves?

To begin with you'd have to assume that there are a lot of better or more interesting things they could be calculating. So only a very small fraction of the matter they have will be applied to our simulation, but we'll nevertheless expect them to make a great many simulations. So that seems to assure that they'll have at least chewed up a good portion of the universe, if not--as we are otherwise usually inclined to think--all of it. Furthermore, I think it's pretty likely that we'll travel fast in chewing up the material universe of the Real World. ...Which all means that there won't be very much space-time left in any base universe for another race to have ever developed.

This solves the Fermi Paradox in a completely different way: If the teleology of Sentient Life is, indeed, to tear apart the universe into computronium and fill every last iota of matter with consciousness via a million simulacrum (or even just a small portion of that matter), and if we can assume some small degree of improbability to the natural development of sentience in parts of the universe, then it stands to reason that the first race to arise will probably fulfill this goal before any other race arises. Thus we can ONLY be the first lonely race to look out at the stars, because any first race will hit the Singularity and succeed in completely taking over the universe before any other race arises.

(Or if the extremely post-human cloud of nanobots turning the universe into computronium happens upon a developing society of thick skulled barbarians, it seems likely that even if the post-humans appreciate this new culture they will not appreciate its proportionate use of thinking matter. So much easier to just eat the planet in a flash and then restart an exact copy of that society in a compressed file where it's not selfishly using up as much space. We could be precisely just such a society. The forefront of some Alien Singularity's light-cone hit us in, say 1963, decided we were worth bookmarking, and everything since has taken place in a quantum gel pack the size of a soccer ball.)

But what's so horrific about living in such a simulation? To be more precise, why should our Gods (or Ontological Server Administrators) be evil? It seems particularly banal of a God just to poke at copies of its earlier self and see what makes it tick, or how it would respond. Are they not Gods? One would think they'd already know this stuff by the time they ascended to God-hood.

The ONLY rational or justification I can see for a God to recreate earlier versions of itself is to procreate. To create more companions. By setting up and recreating the same conditions that allowed itself to come into existence.

Say you're immensely post-human and kickin' it with your other buddies out in some fantastical space-scape. But say for some reason you want to have NEW fellow post-humans. (Either the old ones are dying out, or you want more folks in your army/side with completely new and diverse personal perspectives/paradigms/histories outside of that which already exist at the core of the different post-humans in this landscape... whatever.)

The easiest/quickest way to create a sufficiently new post-human that would also be able to have a conversation with you (enough points of common history/structure) would be to set up a couple ant farms and wait for the ants to jump out of the tiny glass window and buy you a drink.

This is a particularly open interpretation because it covers all sorts of Gods with all sorts of intentions and all sorts of levels of personal intervention.

The only effect such logic has upon our day-to-day dealings with the world is a rejection of laziness. If God(s) exist, there's no reason for them to coddle us like some old Testament Toddlers and command us to live like ants. No fucking God could seriously get THAT bored. If we exist in a simulcra created by vastly more developed consciousness(es), then we should get off our asses and strive to be the best that we can be. And one day we might bootstrap ourselves (either morally or cognitively—which are two sides of the same coin in my book) to the point where said God(s) can reach down and help us the rest of the way up without completely blowing our frail little pus-sacks of brains. (And, even if the nature of our God(s) is less than desirable, it doesn't mean jack-squat for morality, which will remain just as objective and discoverable as it could ever be.)

Or. If we don't exist in a simulcra. And no God(s) exist. And we're really all there is. Then that's just as much a reason to stand up and make a damn out of our lives and the Universe around us. Either way the end result is exactly the same: strive.

That's not a downer at all. That's an uplifter.

There's actually a quite nifty a priori argument t...

2007-08-17T16:08:00.000-04:00

There's actually a quite nifty a priori argument that shows that we are not "Brains in a vat."

Do note the quotation marks though, because they're important. The argument was brought forth by Hilary Putnam, and refined dozen of times later. In its most basic (and thus, of course, imperfect) form, it goes like this

1.) Imagine yourself. What is it, that the word "tiger" (or any other non-concept noun) points at for you. Of course, it means "tiger", whatever a tiger may be for you.

2.) Now imagine a Brain in a Vat. Everything is simulated for it, so that everything it can perceive is a perfect simulation. But here's the catch. What does "tiger" mean to the Brain in a Vat? While the Brain may clearly think that it means those striped cats, it really means "tigers, as simulated".

The reason for this is, that the Brain in a Vat has, by definition, no contextual contact to a "tiger" as understood by us, no matter what it actually is that we perceive as being a tiger.

So, take 1) and 2) together and you arrive at the conclusion, that the subjects of 1) and 2) speak fundamentally different languages and thus, cannot be identical.
No matter what we are, and what predicament we currently are in, we cannot be the Brains in a Vat as imagined by us, for the Brains actually speak a wholly different language.

And as such, we cannot be identical to the Brain in a Vat, especially not if we posit that we as an individual are the Brain in the Vat.

Now remember the quotation marks I told you to mind. What this argument does not prove is, that what we see is real. This can be easily shown by imagining the Brain in the Vat repeating the same argument and arriving at the conclusion that it is no Brain in a Vat.

So what does it prove? Easy: We are no "Brains in a Vat".

Or put in less obtuse words: We can be certain that, no matter what we imagine, it will be wrong, because we certainly don't imagine what actually happened to us, because we're actually utterly unable to express it.

When the Brain in a Vat thinks of Brains in a Vat, it really thinks of the simulation of a Brain in a Vat, because its language cannot escape the boundaries of its surrounding simulation, as such it can neither imagine nor express its horrible predicament at all. It can only imagine and express a simulated version, at best, which is, necessarily, not the real thing.

So whatever we are, we can be certain that:
a) We're either right (if we actually perceive reality) or
b) We're wrong, but then we can neither express nor imagine the predicament we are in. For everything we can express remains in the boundaries of our illusion. As such, the question itself is pointless.

So yeah, we may be Brains in a Vat, as seen from the perspective of an outsider (like we see the hypothetical Brains in a Vat of our frame of reference), but we certainly are not "Brains in a Vat" in concepts that are actually accessible to us.

Summed up a last time: If the reality we perceive is not THE reality, then no matter what we imagine to be the reason of this delusion, it simply can't actually be the reason, because every concept we'd use for imagination, is simulated.

And if you didn't understand the point of this argument -- or deemed it shockingly inadequate and idiotic, due to the unenlightening, because question-begging nature of its conclusion -- well, don't fret, nobody but certain kinds of philosophers does. ;)

We are living in a natural simulation which is cal...

2007-08-16T20:25:00.000-04:00

We are living in a natural simulation which is called reality. The universe is a kind of massive parallel quantum computer calculating all possibilities real time, for any given place/time/frame, with variations in the outcome everywhere since nothing is the same. While calculating we are being calculated and therefor we experience real time calculation as a given fact while in fact there are no such concrete things as space or time, except within our experiences. What a sentence. Never mind. What we experience is derived from an approach of outcomes from infinite pools of probabilities. Interpreted by experience, our personal biology, our cultural background, our global time frame, our age, believes, whatever. Never mind II.

Artificial simulation is in fact stimulation. Since we have tools we have been stimulating reality. Plays, books and recently video games/VR are simulations to stimulate our minds, our experiencing. As technology advances we'll find better ways to directly stimulate reality in order to bring us the experiences we want. It will do the trick and there is no need for reinventing the wheel, simulating the entire universe including human-like life.

Somehow it's like living in the 1950's again while a space horror movie just hit the screen. Stories, speculations everywhere.

No, we are not living in a simulation. And yes, it's way too quiet out there. But what would you expect? Even without intervention the human race is quite capable of believing in Godlike creatures, believing in after lifes, higher goals, believing it's something very special, believing it's something that has a universal mission, believing it needs to correct/blow up things. Although still quite primitive and populated with many anti-scientific thinking we may consider ourselves to be quite 'pure'. In other words, we could have never reached this point of advancement and common sense if there were 'gods' somwhere in the past, including hard evidence for it. This has always been the first thing that came to mind, regarding this Fermi Paradox. You don't fool with creation. life, or whatever you name it. It is very inappropriate and very dangerous.

Maybe it's something else. Maybe we'll discover that there is something like universal privacy. Maybe we'll 'also' won't feel the urge to contact co-civilizations when we are ready with our technology because we understand everything that needs to be understood. And we will also avoid contact with newly discovered primitive intelligent lifeforms.

If the universe is simulation, consider the benefi...

2007-08-16T16:28:00.000-04:00

If the universe is simulation, consider the benefits of quantum effects. When it comes time to generate a simulated result, the simulator can generate random answer that's perfectly valid...such as the position of an electron, the probability of radioactive decay, and other quantum effects. It doesn't have to carry on a huge amount of precise calculations of relationships. Quantum time effectively provides a limit on clock rate of the simulation.

One might deduce that the quantum nature of the universe is a key indicator that we live in a simulation. Otherwise the computer would have to have infinite storage , clock rate, and "bit width".

If the universe is simulation, consider the benefi...

2007-08-16T16:27:00.000-04:00