Travelling back in time.. whilst living in a simulation.

[alt_f13]

Read this:

 

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

 

Basically it is telling us that:

 

"(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

 

"(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours"

 

-or-

 

"(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation."

 

 

 

With simulated minds, only the input and output of the mind is really important and the physics of the universe takes a back seat, but a simulated universe would obviously put physics first.

 

 

 

Anyway, in a simulated universe, where exactly would the past and future be stored for a real-time simulation?  Could this perhaps be the reason we have not determined the possibility of time travel.. or even the origins of the universe?

 

 

 

Discuss SVP

[alt_f13]

Another interesting thought:

 

Perhaps our reality is the training ground for future minds of a lower level reality. Much like the learning to learn model of public schooling, perhaps things like Christian law etc. are the rules that guide the mind until "birth" into the "real" world, and pergatory is where you are picked to move on and uploaded into a physical body.

 

That is what I would call a model society.

[Sayonara]

There's no proof that we aren't all being dreamed about by the omniuniversal super banana, Geoffrey.

 

SO WE PROBABLY ARE!

 

 

Reality sucks, the real world is boring and dull, you will never be a spectacular superhero. Get over it.

 

 

Anyway, bitterness at seeing the same lame arguments and raped logic aside:

 

In order to answer where the future and past might be stored we need a common frame of reference as to what processes and machinations create this simulation you are talking about.

 

Two things to consider in the meantime:

 

(i) If a civilisation like ours is more likely to be a simulation than a real species living out day-to-day life, doesn't that make a species that could create such a simulcrative reality somewhat unlikely?

 

(ii) If our minds are purely simulated, does that mean they obey wide-ranging but fixed rules? The answer to this question will have important implications for this scenario.

[YT2095]

and what would be the purpose of sleep and or dreaming? surely as "they" messed with time, it would be more efficient to let us stay awake 24/7 and run the simulation 1/3 faster

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post #4 :

and what would be the purpose of sleep and or dreaming?

Assuming that the simulation was artificially devised, it follows that all effects we witness "within" the simulation are the result of functions that are normal procedural events.

 

Therefore answering that question requires knowledge of the final objective of the simulation.

[JaKiri]

It's not science to discuss this, as if we cannot know it is a simulation, it is precluded by Occam's Razor.

[Sayonara]

I would have moved this thread earlier but (i) I couldn't decide on Philosophy or Pseudoscience, and (ii) I didn't care because all the "Matrix-inspired" threads and articles and posts and discussions all over the web are blending into one giant, drab crucible of banality that is easy to ignore.

[YT2095]

actualy, I was thinking even further back than that, didn`t the ancient Greeks used to beleive that the "Gods" on Mount Olympus used to use and play with us like chess peices as if it was one big simulation, mankind, How Quaint

it`s been done to death since time began dude

[Sayonara]

Yes, it has.

 

That was the underlying significance of my "matrix 'philosophy' is hardly original" tirades in other threads, and also why it appeals so strongly to the -- not to put too fine a point on it -- illiteratti

 

I think the question Alt is really after an answer for here though is "can we achieve time travel through simulation rather than actual travel?"

[YT2095]

YT2095 prepares to decompile the subroutines, Alt_f13 Knows too much! Agent Sayo, prepare for upload LOL

[Sayonara]

I need to know how to pilot a Killatron KF-300.

[YT2095]

"Operator,, yeah ok, standby for upload" Fzzzzt, SCreeee, <insert digital tones> {dialing} white noise, !Click!

Damn this New Years cellnet Traffic!

 

 

lol, I can see our posts being moved to the holding area if we keep this up LOL

[Sayonara]

I'll probably do it myself later tbh

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post #3 :

 

(i) If a civilisation like ours is more likely to be a simulation than a real species living out day-to-day life, doesn't that make a species that could create such a simulcrative reality somewhat unlikely?

 

(ii) If our minds are purely simulated, does that mean they obey wide-ranging but fixed rules? The answer to this question will have important implications for this scenario.

 

 

 

The assumption is we are a simulation used to "see" back in time and for

 

(i): yes, chances also are that the lower level civilization is simulated as well.

 

(ii) perhaps, but do they not obey wide ranging but fixed rules anyway?  For example.. we cannot create something purely original with our minds.. like a new color for example.

 

 

 

Sayonara³ said in post #3 :

There's no proof that we aren't all being dreamed about by the omniuniversal super banana, Geoffrey.

 

SO WE PROBABLY ARE!

 

Well the main idea is that either:

 

"(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

 

"(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours"

 

-or-

 

"(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation."

 

 

 

So take your pick. 

 

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html is the actual paper and has the formula in it.. it makes sense.

[NSX]

Just to expand on MrL's reply. I didn't know what Occam's Razor was.

However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.

 

Source: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

 

-----

 

What didn't I think of that?

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post #14 :

(i): yes, chances also are that the lower level civilization is simulated as well.

 

&

 

(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

I think you might have missed my point. I was suggesting there may be a logical gap in this theory. Let me rephrase:

 

If, as you say, the chances of a species becoming technologically mature before driving itself extinct are so small, is it not then even more unlikely that a species will become technologically sophisticated enough to devise and construct such an advanced simulation as the one we are discussing?

[alt_f13]

I meant that either they will go extinct, develop the technology and not use it, or develop the technology and use it.

 

The chances that every species goes extinct before they get to that developed a state are small and so are the chances that they have no interest in creating a simulation of themselves.

 

The chances are then, there are tonnes of species who conduct experiments like this and will conduct more than one experiment throughout their existence... within those experiments may be nested further experiments, if the bottom level species so chose to let them get that far. The growth rate of such a nested system is exponential therein, and would yield many more simulated species than those that exist at the root level.

 

Now if individuals had the power to conduct a simulation like the one the paper describes, there would be an expansive ammount of simulated realities, and moreso nested within simulations.

 

Basically it's like dice throwing dice.

 

 

Read the equation in the paper http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html .

[elfin vampire]

That article is such a shameless use of movie hype associated with the "The Matrix."

 

It reminds me of bible-bashers running around claiming everything anyone could possibly be interested in is an example of their desire to become christians.

 

Here is my response to this thread:

 

Point score table for Pseudoscientists.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawking" or "Feynman".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his undergraduate physics textbooks.)

26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence).

28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc.

29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

[alt_f13]

elfin vampire said in post #18 :

That article is such a shameless use of movie hype associated with the "The Matrix."

 

It reminds me of bible-bashers running around claiming everything anyone could possibly be interested in is an example of their desire to become christians.

 

Here is my response to this thread:

 

Point score table for Pseudoscientists.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous....

 

 

 

1. Which flamer Matrix bashing site/thread/smarter person did you copy that from?

 

2. I didn't read the page because of the word Matrix, and whether you did or not, I don't know.

 

3. If you had any deductive abilities whatsoever you would have noticed that matrix.html was a synopses of a much longer paper which draws few parallels to the Matrix at all.

 

4. This subject is so much closer to the movie "The 13th Floor" (and in fact, that movie is based on this concept entirely, down to the nested realities) I am surprised anyone has even mentioned the Matrix at all.

 

5. By starting this thread I was promoting precisely shite and do not consider "but how will it benefit the gross profit of the makers of the matrix and other popular sci-fantasy flicks" before I say something.

 

6. The theory is as much a mathematical prediction as it is hypothesis.  Go to the full paper and read through the equation.

 

 

 

NOW, back to my original point...

 

Would it be economic for a simulation to store time as a fourth dimension, and even if it did, how would it be possible at all to travel into the future, assuming that is possible on the root level?  It probably is not, and therefor the simulations might not be accurate at all in terms of physics.

 

Travelling into the future at the root level implies that reality takes a linear path...but doesn't your absense from the past change the future?  Even down to the universe losing mass and gaining it again. Time cannot predict the future (ie predict your return to the past ), so wouldn't zapping through time change the timeline as a result, and end up changing the future for you but not for everyone else?  You would never see the future in which you are born, live out your days and die... you would only see the future in which you dissapear into the future.  So, for example, you will never be able to go into the future and see yourself when you are older, as you do not exist.  Think grandfather paradox.

 

I think there has to be an underlying problem with the way we view time as a dimension, and the simulation idea has chimes ringing all over.

 

 

[alt_f13]

SORRY SAYO, I believe I know why you were confused.  I will rephrase the original post.

 

alt_f13 said in post #1 :

 

Either

 

"(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

 

-or-

 

"(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours"

 

-or-

 

"(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation."

 

 

is true.  There are no other options.  If you can come up with one, I would very much like to hear it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If this were a simulation, and the creators found out we found out, wouldn't they pull the plug? Or do they have satisfaction seeing their creations get mad?

The whole idea was in New Scientist magazine a year or two ago.

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post #20 :

SORRY SAYO, I believe I know why you were confused.  I will rephrase the original post.

 

alt_f13 said in post #1 :

 

Either

 

"(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

 

-or-

 

"(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours"

 

-or-

 

"(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation."

 

 

is true.  There are no other options.  If you can come up with one, I would very much like to hear it.

 

OK...

 

(4) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature are non-existant,

 

(5) The ability to run a self-aware, reality-questioning simulation does not require mere technological maturity, it requires such advanced technology that none of this type can be found on any civilised world.

 

 

Let's assume that your point (1) is correct. If this is true, it is more likely that any race at our stage of development is real and on the dawn of its own self-annihilation, than it is a simulation controlled and/or devised by another race. QED.

[elfin vampire]

1. Which flamer Matrix bashing site/thread/smarter person did you copy that from?

 

2. I didn't read the page because of the word Matrix, and whether you did or not, I don't know.

 

3. If you had any deductive abilities whatsoever you would have noticed that matrix.html was a synopses of a much longer paper which draws few parallels to the Matrix at all.

 

4. This subject is so much closer to the movie "The 13th Floor" (and in fact, that movie is based on this concept entirely, down to the nested realities) I am surprised anyone has even mentioned the Matrix at all.

 

5. By starting this thread I was promoting precisely shite and do not consider "but how will it benefit the gross profit of the makers of the matrix and other popular sci-fantasy flicks" before I say something.

 

6. The theory is as much a mathematical prediction as it is hypothesis. Go to the full paper and read through the equation.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2512

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post #22 :

 

OK...

 

(4) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature are non-existant,

 

(5) The ability to run a self-aware, reality-questioning simulation does not require mere technological maturity, it requires such advanced technology that none of this type can be found on any civilised world.

 

 

Let's assume that your point (1) is correct. If this is true, it is more likely that any race at our stage of development is real and on the dawn of its own self-annihilation, than it is a simulation controlled and/or devised by another race. QED. [/b]

 

  First of all, these are not my points.  This is not my idea.  This is not my paper.  If it was my paper, the website would look alot cooler ; ) .

 

My question had to do with time travel from within said simulation.  But to address this post:

 

(4) is basically (1) and (5) was addressed in the paper; the requirements for such a simulation have been roughly calculated.  (5) falls under (1) as well because the 3 options do not specify a time frame.  I mention timeframe because the manner in which you wrote (5) implies that the level of technology needed to "run a self-aware, reality-questioning simulation" is impossibly high and will never be reached, when no time frame is given. 

 

Assuming we humans don't go extinct we will enevitably achieve the required technelogical advances unless there is some sort of universal computer speedcap (there enevitably are universal speedcaps when it comes to quantum computers etc, but it's doubtful that a planet sized quantum computer would be unable to simulate a single planet full of people, after all... we are the real thing and do not occupy that ammount of space!!!  [at least within this reality.. but as the paper pointed out, who really knows?] ). 

 

It doesn't seem like you guys are reading the paper because these ideas have been addressed.  And I know this idea has been kicked around plenty of times.. but so has every idea. 

 

 

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post #24 :

First of all, these are not my points.  This is not my idea. This is not my paper. If it was my paper, the website would look alot cooler ; ) .

Yeah I know, it's just easier to address the points as you made them rather than saying "the point from that paper you posted about" each time

 

My question had to do with time travel from within said simulation. But to address this post:

 

(4) is basically (1) and (5) was addressed in the paper; the requirements for such a simulation have been roughly calculated.  (5) falls under (1) as well because the 3 options do not specify a time frame. I mention timeframe because the manner in which you wrote (5) implies that the level of technology needed to "run a self-aware, reality-questioning simulation" is impossibly high and will never be reached, when no time frame is given.

 

I would contend that 4 and 5 are not 1, because 1 assumes that some civilisations will develop the required technology at some point. 4 assumes that all civilisations go extinct before reaching this point, and 5 assumes that no matter how much time they are given, no civilisation will ever be this sophisticated.

 

The paper omits 4 & 5 because it assumes the technology must exist right from the start, which helps a lot if you are devloping a formula to show that the technology exists.

 

I don't think this really has anything to do with the theoretical possibility of simulating the past though

 

 

And I know this idea has been kicked around plenty of times.. but so has every idea.

Anyone who tells you that deserves to have their eyes poked out. It seems to be a "trendy" idea at the minute, that there's nothing left to be thought up, because we're all so jaded by the constant doing stuff. Weird.