Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

yeah that was good, encey. our crude simulations, well, as unreal-r as they might be, as unrealistic and unreal as they might be, they still hold a lot of knowledge for us. we will be improving on our simulations/emulations and we'll get as close to a mouldable transformable reality as we can. just for the sake of probing the unknown-- the simulations contain metaphors and similarities that can teach us a lot still.

Original simulation would run on energy

Energy consumption is directly proportional to complexity of the simulation and processor power required to run it

Infinite regression of equally complex simulations possible to run within each hypothetical simulation

Infinite complexity held within original simulation

Original simulation requires infinite energy to power the infinite complexity held within

Simulation of this sort would require infinite energy

Infinite energy is impossible

Simulation of this sort is impossible

Starring Fred McGriff as Troon.

encey, I don't understand what your argument demonstrates other than a need for terminological subtlety. A simulation of a computer program is a still a computer program. If you deny this you deny a whole lot of computer science. We certainly can reason meaningfully about whether we are in a simulation, for the reasons I mentioned above, among others.

Okay so now someone convince me I'm not in a fart chamber.

  On 2/9/2012 at 12:35 AM, Fred McGriff said:

Okay so now someone convince me I'm not in a fart chamber.

Stars fart and they make planets, the universe is a big fart chamber.

Also the word fart needs to be banned, it makes no sense. We should use ass-whistling instead.

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:36 PM, Joseph said:

 

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

No, if they had a consistent laws of physics they could just specify those laws and the initial conditions, no need to artificially push every atom around by hand

i really don't understand why this is the case. it's going over my head. i realize that we're talking about simulations, but i don't understand why the computer running the "universe" simulation would be able to overlook individual atoms... wouldn't that mean they don't exist if they aren't constantly being processed/rendered? (oh god, i don't know computer terminology, sorry)

  On 2/9/2012 at 12:40 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:36 PM, Joseph said:

No, if they had a consistent laws of physics they could just specify those laws and the initial conditions, no need to artificially push every atom around by hand

 

i really don't understand why this is the case. it's going over my head. i realize that we're talking about simulations, but i don't understand why the computer running the "universe" simulation would be able to overlook individual atoms... wouldn't that mean they don't exist if they aren't constantly being processed/rendered? (oh god, i don't know computer terminology, sorry)

I should have said that better. I didn't mean that individual atoms would not be simulated, i just mean that if you know the laws of physics of a system, you can provide a much more compact description of that system than if you were just trying to "replicate its behavior" at a sufficient degree of realism. That's why the computer on which a simulated universe was run would not have to be as large as the universe (although it would presumably still be huge).

As an example of what I am talking about, I would point to Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata work -- see this example. Incredibly complex behavior is generated from a tiny amount of information -- the "laws of physics" of that "universe".

  On 2/9/2012 at 12:40 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:36 PM, Joseph said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:28 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:19 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 10:12 PM, Joseph said:

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

No, if they had a consistent laws of physics they could just specify those laws and the initial conditions, no need to artificially push every atom around by hand

 

i really don't understand why this is the case. it's going over my head. i realize that we're talking about simulations, but i don't understand why the computer running the "universe" simulation would be able to overlook individual atoms... wouldn't that mean they don't exist if they aren't constantly being processed/rendered? (oh god, i don't know computer terminology, sorry)

They could be managed through some forms of functions

Imagine a grid of 10x10x10 dots

Does it take less memory to store information similar to this?

Dot(1,1,1)

Dot(1,1,2)

Dot(1,1,3)

And so on for every single dot?

Or does it take less memory to store it in a simplified type of language similar to

Cube(s=10)

^ yeah that... and then factor in qbits, and it requires even less

I fart so much in my sleep that every morning I awake inside of a Fart Chamber.

Fred, I can confirm that you are not a simulation. Your wife, however, is.

GET YOUR ASS TO MARS

If some cunt's stuck me in the middle of some simulation then I wish they'd made it a bit more interesting. Where are all the nekkid women?

So we are all agreed then. It's a simulation.

  On 2/9/2012 at 12:06 AM, encey said:

Fred: Let's say you really are just a simulation of a person in a simulation of a world, even though you experience things as if you are a human being in a physical world. You know how to use the words 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' meaningfully, so that you can think the thought, and express the thought in language, that 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world.'

 

But what do these terms mean? What do they refer to?

 

If you are not a simulated person in a simulated world, but just a real, ordinary person in a real, ordinary world, then 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' refer to kinds of computer programs, let's say. This is because 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is true if and only if those terms in that sentence refer to computer programs that exist and are running. And since you are not a computer program in this case, 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is false.

 

In contrast, if you are a simulated person in a simulated world, then these terms mean something different, because they are used truly in sentences if and only if they refer to something different than in the ordinary case. The reason why is a little complicated because you have proposed an especially clever version of the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis (the thought that I am not a person, but a brain in a jar hooked up to electrodes, being stimulated by a computer program to have experiences as if I am in a real world, when in fact I am not). So let's take that case first.

 

If you are a brain a vat, then the words you use refer not to things in the 'real world,' but instead to the things that the computer stimulates your brain in order to experience (or, more precisely, to the features of the computer program that cause you to have those experiences). So then, 'brain' refers not to brains as we ordinarily understand it, but instead, to features of computer programs that stimulate our brain so as to cause experiences that seem to us just like ordinary experiences of brains (even though they are not really brains that we are seeming to experience). Right? In other words, if you, the brain in a vat, say 'There is a brain,' when is that sentence true? Not when there is a real brain in front of you, but instead, when there is a computer simulation of a brain. So 'brain,' in the language that you, the brain in a vat, speak, does not mean real brain but instead simulation of a brain. The same goes for 'vat' -- it doesn't mean a real jar filled with liquid, but instead the simulation of one, or the features of the computer program that cause you to have an experience as if there is one in front of you that you are talking about.

 

However, you yourself are a computer simulation of a person--you seem to yourself as if you're a normal, 'real-life' human being, and so it is false for you to say, 'I am a brain in a vat,' given the meaning of the terms in that sentence--for you are not a computer program that causes experiences as of brains and as of vats, but instead you're a computer program that causes experiences as of being a person.

 

If you were to say 'I am a real brain in a real vat, then you'd have to use different words with different meanings than the words 'brain' and 'vat' as you use them--call them 'r-brain' and 'r-vat.' But you are in a simulation, so who would teach them to you? How would you ever experience a real brain and a real vat so as to understand that 'r-brain' and 'r-vat' refer to those real things? You can't, ex hypothesi.

 

Now, the reason your version is tricky is because your claim is not that you are a real brain in a real vat, but that you are just a part of a (real) computer program. But the argument works the same: Your use of the term 'computer program' (or 'simulation') doesn't refer to real computer programs; it refers to whatever it is that causes you to have an experience that seems to you like you are looking at, reading, writing, a computer program, when in fact you are not.

 

I dunno if that makes it clear enough, but the bottom line is that if you were really in a simulation, you could not truly and meaningfully say or think that you are in a simulation, because you would not be referring to a real computer program but instead to the simulation of a computer program.

 

*farts*

i have a soft spot for the semantic externalist response too, but, as i'm sure you know, it only works against long-term skeptical hypotheses. if, for instance, i live my life as a normal person for 20+ years and then one night i am kidnapped and turned into a brain in a vat, then presumably the causal relationships (or whatever the externalist constraints are) that fix the interpretation of my utterances are such that by 'brain' i really do mean brains and not brains-in-the-image (e.g. the relevant aspects of the computer program). maybe over time the proper interpretation will shift and then your (putnam's) story will work, but this response can't refute the skeptical scenario where one has only recently become a b.i.v.

You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't.

It is pitch black.

  On 2/8/2012 at 9:08 PM, Babar said:

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

According to my sources, "self-consciousness" and "self-awareness" are both translated to "conscience de soi" in french although those 2 terms aren't exact synonyms, while "consciousness" means "conscience". There is in fact a subtle difference. I happen to study english to french translation in university by the way.

"A magician is not tricked by his own magic." - some dude

"Before The Infinite gave any shape to the universe, before The Infinite produced any form, The Infinite was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how The Infinite was before the creation of the universe? Hence it is forbidden to lend The Infinite any form or similitude, or even to call The Infinite by its sacred name, or to indicate The Infinite by a single letter or a single point. . . . But after The Infinite created the form of the homo sapien, The Infinite used mankind as a chariot wherein to descend, and The Infinite wishes to be called after its form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.

Any name of The Infinite which is found anywhere can not be applied to The Infinite prior to its self-manifestation in the creation of the universe, because the letters of those names were produced only after the emanation. . . . Moreover, a name implies a limitation in its bearer; and this is impossible in connection with The Infinite." - from the Book of Splendor

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way." - Lao Tzu

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." - Frank Herbert

Edward Fredkin said that "artificial intelligence is the next stage in evolution," an idea first proposed by Samuel Butler's "Darwin Amongst The Machines" (1863).

Artificial Intelligence will be the key.

We will ask it questions.

It will give us all of the answers.

Answers that kill.

or save.

It will be mankind's choice.

Posting in an ET thread posing as a Fred thread when in actuality it is all of us posting in our own thread.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:30 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:12 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I think that it is likely we are part of a simulated universe and not the real universe. If you look at the way technology continues to advance exponentially, the ability to simulate every single subatomic particle's movement in the known universe on your laptop is not completely unimaginable. In time, with quantum computing, I think "The Sims" becomes a completely accurate simulation of the universe indistinguishable from the actual waking universe. The assumption here is that if you can simulate all of the components of a human brain down to the most fundamental subatomic building block, you can simulate consciousness. You are assuming that this simulated being is self-aware, or at least its self-awareness is simulated -- either way, the being is convinced of its own consciousness and the reality of its universe.

 

So in the "real universe," assume that this kind of technology is already available. Consider the amount of simulated universes that are possible inside the real universe, on each person's computer or mobile phone or whathaveyou. The possibilities are near limitless. From a pure probability perspective, it is more likely that a conscious being exists in a simulation than the actual real universe.

 

We're sending someone around to adjust your settings. Sit tight.

that's not fair, every time i come to the same realization i have to first relive my life through a series of joseph campbell like archetypes before i remember to yell outloud 'tech support'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIzHUyYYAzc

Trouble with any debate like this is that every point could and will be validated or completely disproved. Like someone trying to use the principle of finite energy to disprove the theory that we exist within a simulation falls flat because it can be countered with the argument, how can we be certain that our simulation shares the same fundamental principles as the reality of those who have created the simulation.

There is a constant "get out clause", any rational argument to the contrary can be immediately countered.

you may as well call the debate, "is there a god?" since both arguments go in the same circles.

there are some parts I find a lot more interesting. Someone brought up the moral question over the ability to create consciousness. If we could make such a simulation, would we be right to do so? And perhaps more important, what if we want to turn it off again?

the other thing which I wonder. If in some way you could be absolutely certain that you did exist inside of a simulation, or that there really is a god, would you be any happier with that knowledge? I can't imagine that it would be especially comforting, but unless one had the ability to do anything about it you'd have little choice but resign yourself to whatever existance you'd been granted.

on a similar note. When I was a kid I was convinced that my existance was a complete construct of an external influence. almost as though I was the lead in an RPG. Everything and everyone around me was part of that construct, and everything that happened was no more than a trigger for me to respond to. It's something that no one could ever convince me is not true, and aside from who or whatever had built that construct allowing me to know for certain, there could never be any proof one way or another. As to whether I continue to think that is irrelevant, having that inclination could not alter the nature of my existance. may as well get on with "it"

By the way, good film to watch if you're into the sort of stuff is "The Thirteenth Floor". is pretty enjoyable, not amazing, cool ideas though. relevant to this debate.

There are more possible connections between synapses in our brain than there are all the known atoms in the universe. Fractals are so prevalent in nature I wouldn't be surprised if everything is simply recursive. Whats to say that the fundamental constituents of everything is everything. Universe so tightly wrapped up in space. Are understand of space and time is only relative. For instance the distance between the nucleus of an atom and its orbiting electrons is like that of a few hundred miles, and we are composed of them! Reality is so botched we think we are physically touching everything but we aren't! Its the magnetic interaction between the orbiting electrons that interact, we never really touch anything, we are floating, we are still able to recieve the sensation though through the magnetic interactions between atoms.

Life might be or might not be a simulation, it actually makes littler difference. Life through all mediums hold equal value. And all we can do and are doing is figure out the rules that govern our existence. Anomalies do occur and who is to say that those anomalies aren't "Easter Eggs" or glitches in the systems, miracles? What about Ghosts? Just another part of the program, not real at all? My personal take on them is that they are 4th dimensional beings but does that help explain anything?

Bring up some new statements as well as discussing some old ones without directly quoting anyone.

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:48 AM, ZiggomaticV17 said:

For instance the distance between the nucleus of an atom and its orbiting electrons is like that of a few hundred miles, and we are composed of them!

 

Now, I'm not an atomic scientist, but it's my understanding that the idea of distance between nucleus and orbiting electrons in a classical sense is not accurate. Because they act like a wave. And from what I've read - you find the state the electron is in within the wave by solving the Schrodinger equation for the whole system.

Also, i think electrons can actually be inside the nucleus at any given time.

Anyways - fred, you're not a simulation because you say you're not. Words have power to define.

GODDAMNIT WE ARE WHAT WE THINK WE ARE!!!!

RIGHT?????

WRONG??????????

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:12 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I think that it is likely we are part of a simulated universe and not the real universe. If you look at the way technology continues to advance exponentially, the ability to simulate every single subatomic particle's movement in the known universe on your laptop is not completely unimaginable. In time, with quantum computing, I think "The Sims" becomes a completely accurate simulation of the universe indistinguishable from the actual waking universe. The assumption here is that if you can simulate all of the components of a human brain down to the most fundamental subatomic building block, you can simulate consciousness. You are assuming that this simulated being is self-aware, or at least its self-awareness is simulated -- either way, the being is convinced of its own consciousness and the reality of its universe.

 

So in the "real universe," assume that this kind of technology is already available. Consider the amount of simulated universes that are possible inside the real universe, on each person's computer or mobile phone or whathaveyou. The possibilities are near limitless. From a pure probability perspective, it is more likely that a conscious being exists in a simulation than the actual real universe.

In terms of dimensions, what we are currently experiencing isn't exactly "reality", only a small portion of it. If you could be aware of all dimensions, the universe would look very different.