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

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post #25 :

 

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. 

 

 

"Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube (excluding cooling and power supply) that would perform 10^<SUP>21</SUP> instructions per second. Another author gives a rough estimate of 10^<SUP>42 </SUP>operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet....One estimate, based on how computationally expensive it is to replicate the functionality of a piece of nervous tissue that we have already understood and whose functionality has been replicated <I>in silico</I>, contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~10^<SUP>14</SUP> operations per second for the entire human brain."

 

Sayonara³ said in post #25 :

 

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

 

 

It has to do with the theoretical possibility that our species exists as a simulation, given that the computing power required to create such a simulation is likely to be developed by our species if we are given ample time.

 

The paper does not intend to prove we indeed live in a simulation, merely that

 

"there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation."

 

I believe that was missed a few times. 

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post # :

"Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube (excluding cooling and power supply) that would perform 10^<SUP>21</SUP> instructions per second. Another author gives a rough estimate of 10^<SUP>42 </SUP>operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet....One estimate, based on how computationally expensive it is to replicate the functionality of a piece of nervous tissue that we have already understood and whose functionality has been replicated <I>in silico</I>, contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~10^<SUP>14</SUP> operations per second for the entire human brain."

lol

 

It has to do with the theoretical possibility that our species exists as a simulation, given that the computing power required to create such a simulation is likely to be developed by our species if we are given ample time.

 

The paper does not intend to prove we indeed live in a simulation, merely that

 

"there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation."

 

I believe that was missed a few times. 

Yes, I understand that. And I'm pointing out the gaping great logical fallacy that the paper carefully tries to pull the rug over.

[Hades]

i just know im very afraid of that bananana

[Rasori]

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.

 

I'll add one, thanks.

 

The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is reasonably good AND almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours.

 

Honestly, I hate just knowing I have a semblance of a mind. I wouldn't want to pass off this sorry excuse of computing power to anyone or thing else, and I have no need to study it via simulation because never will AI be quite the same as a true human brain. So why create a simulation of a mind like ours if it still isn't going to be the same and will yield little or no scientific fruits?

 

Oh, and someday I wish to earn 1,000 pseudoscience points in a single thread.

[alt_f13]

Rasori said in post # :

 

 

 

The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is reasonably good AND almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours. 

 

 

 

 

That was number two exactly.  Number one states we die and number two states we don't care, which is what you just said.  So no, that is not a new option.

 

 

 

[edit]

 

 

 

A few people have been reading these three options as if they can be matched with each other.  They can not. They also describe the UNIVERSE in its ENTIRETY, not one civilization or species.

 

They are the THREE END POSSIBILITIES, of which reality is one. 

 

 

 

I personally do not think number 2 is possible, as civilizations with billions or hundreds of billions of people in them are bound to have AT LEAST ONE organization willing to create a simulation of their past.

 

 

 

Of course every civilization might run one or two sims.  Organizations are not governed by one umbrella organization that controls all of them during the entirety of the civilizations technelogically mature existance.  There would be a period where simulations would not be outlawed or whathaveyou.

 

 

 

Think about it: if more than one civilization ran more than one sim, each subsequent sim would also run more than one, generating an exponential figure of simulated realities leveled one atop the other.

 

 

 

But, if technelogically mature civilizations each did one sim, the chances are around 50% times the ammount of technelogically mature civiliztions out of all civilizations that we are a simulation.

 

But I figure each civilization would run thousands of simulations througout its lifetime, so the chances are increased  exponentially as stated above.

 

But that assumes that most civilizations become technelogically mature.  I figure most technelogically mature civilizations would run simulations AT SOME POINT.  That would generate chances above 50% times the ammount of technelogically mature civilizations of total civilizations, again as stated above.

 

 

 

Conclusion: either we go extinct before maturity -or- avoid making simulations out of choice -or- create simulations out of choice.  This would be true of all civilizations so either most civilizations go extinct -or- most civilizations avoid simulations -or- most civilizations create simulations, increasing chances exponentially that we are in one.

 

 

 

For the record, I never claimed we are in a simulation, and since there is no way to prove so or otherwise, there is no use speculating.  One of the three options must be true though, as there are no alternatives.

[Pinch Paxton]

This topic isn't original, but I never stopped to think of the likeliness of us being in a simulator. The article makes sense that it is very likely for us to be in a simulator. The technology is obviously possible. Forget about the Matrix when you read these things, I had similar ideas long before the Matrix film. If there was a sci-fi film about the big bang before anyone thought of it, then you might avoid the big bang as an explenation.

 

What about sleep then? What about night, and day? What about God? Why Dinosaurs? Why phobias? Why are most people afraid of Spiders?..........

 

Any answers to these questions are pure speculation, but the point is that there are answers to these questions so they do not dissaprove the theory.

 

Time travel? If the theory is correct then we are already in the past. Do you see any brain simulators around? We are at the dawn of the computer age. This is the time that I would choose to be here as a matter of interest to me. I would like to see the first computer games, and the first home computers, and I have. My age was 18 when the Speccy was first on the market, and that is about perfect for me. If you think of the likeliness of this, it is in the millions that we would be here now, maybe the billions. If you think how long mankind can survive for, and then calculate that there are 20 years of your life that are compatible with the computer age, say from 9 to 29 are best suited. Now divide mans possible existence (Say back 4 million years and forward to the demise of the sun) by 20, and you have the chances of us being here now. Then you have to imagine this chance combined with the beginning of life on earth, the odds of the DNA strand etc. It's quite possible that we are in a simulation.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post # :

A few people have been reading these three options as if they can be matched with each other. They can not. They also describe the UNIVERSE in its ENTIRETY, not one civilization or species.

 

They are the THREE END POSSIBILITIES, of which reality is one

No. They are not the only possibilities.

 

I have already given two others, and here's another one:

 

Simulating a civilisation may not be mathematically and computationally possible at any level of technology.

[Pinch Paxton]

Yeah it is. It's quite clearly possible. It's not the maths thats a problem , it's mainly just the speed, but spooky science shows that the speed is also possible. Besides, you probably wouldn't know that you were inside a slowed down universe anyway, because if everything is slowed down then your reactions are slowed down, so everything looks perfect to you. Maybe that's why we sleep, because the simulator is slow, so they only show half of your day.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Yes, because we all sleep at the same time and for the same period of time

 

Can we keep the "I wish there was more to existence" whimsy out of the Modern/Theoretical Physics thread please?

 

I challenge you to show evidence that that kind of computational power is possible, if not practical.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

I have already given two others, and here's another one:

 

Simulating a civilisation may not be mathematically and computationally possible at any level of technology.

What about The Sims?

 

Yes, because we all sleep at the same time and for the same period of time

No, the simulator can only run a certain amount of "people" at a time.

[Sayonara]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :

What about The Sims?

Not a civilisation by any measure.

 

No, the simulator can only run a certain amount of "people" at a time.

Pseudoscience at its worst.

 

The Modern/Theoretical Physics thread is not for "any old ideas that don't need to take current models into account", it is for Modern and Theoretical Physics.

 

Spam this thread with useless nonsense and you'll get warnings.

[Pinch Paxton]

Yes, because we all sleep at the same time and for the same period of time

 

This is a misunderstanding of what I said. If you were in a simulator for 74 years of your life, if the simulator was running at half speed, you would spend 148 years in there. But if you went to sleep for half of the time they could leap it forward to the next day whilst you were simulating sleep.

 

As for the computational power, I know it can be done because I make programs similar to that. Not to the same scale, but scale has no meaning in computer power terms. Scale just means that you need more speed really. Speed is not theoretical in processing terms, it is factual. These spooky atoms could be used as instant computer gates. No slowdown at all, so speed is not a problem.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

This is a misunderstanding of what I said. If you were in a simulator for 74 years of your life, if the simulator was running at half speed, you would spend 148 years in there. But if you went to sleep for half of the time they could leap it forward to the next day whilst you were simulating sleep.

And you are misunderstanding what I said.

 

As for the computational power, I know it can be done because I make programs similar to that. Not to the same scale, but scale has no meaning in computer power terms. Scale just means that you need more speed really. Speed is not theoretical in processing terms, it is factual. These spooky atoms could be used as instant computer gates. No slowdown at all, so speed is not a problem.

Fine.

 

Then provide a model that demonstrates a simulator capable of providing 6 billion aspects of reality, the wrinkle of every leaf, the curve of every smile and the wave of every blade of grass. Show how raw processor power can be harnessed to represent emotional context and all the myriad nuances of individuality, the slightest reaction to a stimulus already lost to time, the power of ambition's draw and the chaos of broken reason.

 

Show me a model of a system that can do this on a planetary scale and then you will actually have evidence instead of rhetoric.

 

 

Incidentally, this is all beside the point since the "3 options", as quoted from the article, are artificial constraints.

[Pinch Paxton]

I don't need to provide a model surely most people know that those things are easy to do. Wrinkles in a leaf? Each part can be made as a seperate program today. That's today! But only 1 small part can run on a single computer, so you simply need more speed. Maybe I could simulate 1000 blades of grass, that's all I need to do to show that a billion blades of grass can be simulated. maybe I can wrinkle 50 leaves, that proves that a billion leaves can be wrinkled. It is about speed, and I already told you how the speed can be achieved. So really it is not my requirement to prove this to individuals like yourself, it is your requirement to learn these things, by learning to program, or just search the net for grass simulations, cloth simulations (Which are the same as leaves), the flight of birds, wind emulation, etc. You have actually chose a lot of simple things there which surprises me. What do you mean we don't all sleep at the same time? I think you have the Matrix in your mind. I don't think the topic is about the matrix. You are thinking that we are all 1 simulation, but I am suggesting that we are all have an individual time clock. I would also suggest that most of the emotional stuff is real, and not simulated. We have a real body somewhere, so why simulate everything? Really though, I am very surprised by your belief that the universe is hard to emulate. I think that 30% programmers know that it is a matter of speed, but on a science forum I expect 90% to know such things.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

I don't need to provide a model

The exact point where your argument loses any credibility.

 

I also think Godwin's law should be expanded to include the matrix.

[Pinch Paxton]

It's not an argument though. You are asking me to prove something that has more artistic credibility, than asthetic. Like you want me to prove that it is possible to paint a picture of a blackhole if I could find one. You already know that you could paint one, but you want me to find one and paint it anyway.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

It's not an argument though. You are asking me to prove something that has more artistic credibility, than asthetic. Like you want me to prove that it is possible to paint a picture of a blackhole if I could find one. You already know that you could paint one, but you want me to find one and paint it anyway.

Hello, this is the Modern and Theoretical Physics forum.

[Pinch Paxton]

But we are talking about a computer related subject, and I know a lot about computers, and what's possible. It's my job.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

But we are talking about a computer related subject, and I know a lot about computers, and what's possible. It's my job.

Giant man-eating space carrots are possible, but we don't simply assume they exist.

[Pinch Paxton]

Were not talking about something not existing. Were talking about something that already exists, like computer generated grass, and leaves. All you are asking is that can they have all the detail of real life? I am saying yes they can. The only reason that they don't have much detail today is because they would slow your computer down. This is not science it is fact. Some of the topic is Modern and Theoretical Physics, but not the part that you are not understanding.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Were not talking about something not existing. Were talking about something that already exists, like computer generated grass, and leaves. All you are asking is that can they have all the detail of real life? I am saying yes they can. The only reason that they don't have much detail today is because they would slow your computer down. This is not science it is fact.

I KNOW.

 

If you are going to argue with me it might help if you familiarised yourself with the discussion as it was prior to your involvement, instead of just the bit that interests you.

 

Try looking at the logical fallacy in the original proposal that inadvertantly renders impossible the very simulation it is propounding.

[Pinch Paxton]

I don't see anything wrong with the theory. It seems to be correct with the 3 choices.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

I don't see anything wrong with the theory. It seems to be correct with the 3 choices.

See, that's the problem.

 

The theory seems to be correct with the 3 choices.

 

The theory is the inevitable consequence if and only if those are the only possibilities, as is suggested, but they are not.

 

The author has created an artificial set of constraints that return his answer as the only possible one.

 

Hence: pseudoscience.

[Pinch Paxton]

All of science does that. Like we decide on the most probable theory for gravity, for the big bang, for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Then you just pick the most probable. He is giving 3 choices, but science usually only gives you 1 choice, otherwise it goes in pseudoscience. Well this site does anyway, I don't know about other science sites.

[Sayonara]

Wtf?