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

[Pinch Paxton]

There are lots of reliable theories for gravity, but because the standard theory is so old it has gained an unfair advantage over the other theories. You are saying that there are a lot of possible outcomes for this topic, and you are saying that it gives the possible answers an unfair swing. It's the same thing.

[Sayonara]

No, that is not what I am saying.

 

Furthermore, you will not hijack this thread for your unfounded gravity imaginings.

[Pinch Paxton]

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

you will not hijack this thread for your unfounded gravity imaginings.

 

****************************************************

 

You say that I am hijacking the thread???

 

Pincho.

[Pinch Paxton]

Ok let's look at these again.....

 

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

 

****************************************************

This is false. There is the mutation of genes to consider!

 

****************************************************

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

****************************************************

Of course 2 is a deliberate negative. So we are interested in this technology.

****************************************************

 

(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation.

 

****************************************************

Cheating!

 

So the paper cheats. I agree, but I say that science cheats also. It uses past unproven knowledge to substantiate future knowledge.

 

The speed of light cannot be passed...

 

This is not proven, but it is used all the time to prove other things like.......

 

Nutrinos change state therefore they have mass!

 

This comment is decided because they are not allowed to travel faster than the speed of light. There were two choices.

 

1/ Nutrinos have mass

 

2/ Nutrinos travel faster than light.

 

But 2 was ignored completely.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

You say that I am hijacking the thread???

Yes, whereas you'll notice I managed to stay spectacularly on-topic.

 

Your criticisms and misunderstanding of the scientific method, and references to your so-called "gravity theory" which provides no new mechanism, are irrelevant to this discussion and wouldn't allow you to disregard logic even if they were relevant.

 

You're forcing me to invest a lot of time in this joke of a discussion. Demosthenes can tell you how much of a good idea that is.

 

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

Ok let's look at these again.....

Cheating!

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out.

 

So the paper cheats. I agree, but I say that science cheats also. It uses past unproven knowledge to substantiate future knowledge.

The speed of light cannot be passed...

This is not proven, but it is used all the time to prove other things like.......

Nutrinos change state therefore they have mass!

This comment is decided because they are not allowed to travel faster than the speed of light. There were two choices.

1/ Nutrinos have mass

2/ Nutrinos travel faster than light.

But 2 was ignored completely.

That's not so much "science cheating" as it is you again failing to understand how theories work.

[Pinch Paxton]

I think that you fail to understand a lot of the comments. That's why you keep typing...

 

wtf?

[Sayonara]

I'm saying "wtf" because of your complete lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion.

 

I strongly suggest you drop this line of approach.

[Pinch Paxton]

I'm saying "wtf" because of your complete lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion.

 

Prove that I have a lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion.

 

This is one of you methods for obscuring a discussion. You use prove this, and that. Then we give you examples like Grass is already programmed, leaves are already programmed. Then you ignore the replies, or cancel them out by saying that I am misunderstanding, whereas actually, you do not know what I mean about computers. Then you misunderstand the nutrino argument, which is also evidence for this topic. You start a one to one debate with me, now you are saying that you are replying to me, but actually, I am replying to you.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Prove that I have a lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion.

I cite your above posts as evidence.

 

This is one of you methods for obscuring a discussion. You use prove this, and that. Then we give you examples like Grass is already programmed, leaves are already programmed. Then you ignore the replies, or cancel them out by saying that I am misunderstanding, whereas actually, you do not know what I mean about computers. Then you misunderstand the nutrino argument, which is also evidence for this topic. You start a one to one debate with me, now you are saying that you are replying to me, but actually, I am replying to you.

You really are a complete muppet, aren't you?

 

I understand the points about computers, and simulation being a matter of processing power. However when you get to the level of processing required to simulate an entire civilisation -- and not just the frills such as water, light and blossom, but the essential shit like SELF AWARENESS, IMAGINATION and EMOTION, and transient self-propogating information like data, metadata and so forth -- you end up with mass and energy requirements that give you a computer the size of a small star.

 

It is you who misunderstands what is going on, because for the n^th time I am not saying that such technology is impossible per se, I am saying that the article relies on a state where no civilisation capable of such technological feats could exist as anything but a simulation, which is clearly nonsense.

 

When you read my comments like the one about the computational power required to simulate a civilisation not being possible, it helps if you don't choose to ignore key words like "possibility" and "may not be".

[Pinch Paxton]

Processing power is speed, you do understand that part. Speed is reliable on how fast computer gates can be opened. Computer gates are on/off switches. Spooky behaviour shows that On/Off switches can be instant. There is a theoretical computer that has no speed loss at all, and I have already told you about it. Are you sure that it is me that is not following the given information?

 

Pincho.

[Pinch Paxton]

the article relies on a state where no civilisation capable of such technological feats could exist as anything but a simulation, which is clearly nonsense.

 

 

The article may state that, but theories don't have to rely on the original wording of the theory. Someone who does not use English well could still be on the right track. I am more in favour of interpreting the paper as a good argument for the simulator, but not worded well. The paper does include details that show that statistically, it is very likely that we could be in a simulator because if man could reach that point of technology, he would want to make something like this.

[Sayonara]

This thread isn't here to discuss what's in your head, it's here to discuss that article. As it is.

 

I suggest you make a thread about the potential for simulated realities in the computing forum, because it's clearly something you have given a great deal of thought.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

Processing power is speed, you do understand that part. Speed is reliable on how fast computer gates can be opened. Computer gates are on/off switches. Spooky behaviour shows that On/Off switches can be instant. There is a theoretical computer that has no speed loss at all, and I have already told you about it. Are you sure that it is me that is not following the given information?

That's only a factor to his equations if you can show the probability of such a device being built by a race before they became extinct, and the probability that such a computer would be used for that purpose if constructed. Neither of which make any of my additional possibilities invalid.

 

I think the Drake equation might end up coming into this... groan.

[Pinch Paxton]

Well the on/off switches have already been made, but people didn't think of using them in computers. I think that I thought of it myself..dunno. So we are on the brink of that possibility. But it would take thousands of years to develop the entire human race, plus all of our technology, and all of our history. This would require a computer language to be developed that can incorporate the entire internet as individual digital presentations in solid 3D form, manufactured from molecules. We are not really close to that. Then this would have to be neurally connected to you so that all of your emotions, and feelings, are readily available to be used. The simulator would not simulate these things, it would use your actual brain, or whatever you have in the real world.

 

What's the drake equation?

[Sayonara]

It's a formula that is used to predict the emergence rate / prevalence of communicative sentient races in the galaxy (N):

 

N = R * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L

 

R - Rate of formation of suitable stars in our galaxy (number per year)

Fp - Fraction (percentage) of those stars with planets

Ne -Number of "earths" per planetary system

Fl - Fraction (percentage) of those planets where life develops

Fi - Fraction (percentage) of sites with intelligent life

Fc - Fraction (percentage) of planets where technology develops

L - "Lifetime" of communicating civilizations (years)

 

 

The question of how much work the simulator has to do depends on to what level we are assuming our civilisation is simulated. The system in the Matrix (which, by the way, I think is bollocks. I mean the system itself could work, but not for or because of any of the reasons given in the film) got off light because all it had to do was present the external stimuli of "being in a world".

This philosopher chap who wrote the article, however, seems to be assuming 100% simulation - that is, no bodies anywhere - just data controlled externally. Kind of a circular argument.

[Pinch Paxton]

Hmm your equation.... It is not required for a computer system with no slowdown at all. Also the storage capacity of the computer could be tiny as well if most things were created by mathematics like a mandelbrot or fractal system, which actually is funny because......... well most things are made from a mandelbrot or fractal system.

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Pinch Paxton said in post # :

Hmm your equation.... It is not required for a computer system with no slowdown at all. Also the storage capacity of the computer could be tiny as well if most things were created by mathematics like a mandelbrot or fractal system, which actually is funny because......... well most things are made from a mandelbrot or fractal system.

Well it's not really mine, hence why it's not called the Sayonara Equation.

 

The necessity of that equation comes from the fact that you have to work with species probabilities, and is not anything to do with the mechanics of simulation technology (which, again, are not relevant to the question really) but rather to do with the actual discussion.

 

By "tiny" I am assuming you mean "compared to something an awful lot bigger".

[Pinch Paxton]

By "tiny" I am assuming you mean "compared to something an awful lot bigger".

 

By tiny I mean even my computer in front of me can make mandelbrots, it is just too slow to make billions of them in a fraction of a second. Again it's speed that's the problem.

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

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.

 

 

 

He does not.  He even said himself that it is not an argument for the third option, if that is what you mean.  The options are not an argument for themselves, the paper is an argument for the options. 

 

All the "other options" you've stated thus far, Sayo,  are reasons for the first option.

 

I must appologise as I have been arguing for the third option for the sake of my thread which assumes it is true.  That has confused the subject of the thread.  My original post has not even been addressed, so forget it (4D travel). 

 

I have also been arguing for a simulated universe, rather than simulated minds in an unrendered universe, in which case nested realities is impossible and the universe that a simulated mind experiences runs on the "holodeck" pricipal, in which most of the environment experienced has little to no detail before being approached.

 

In the model that the paper ACTUALLY suggests, there would not be scores of nested realities and exponentially large ammounts of simulated civilizations, but rather, there would be multiples of the actual civilizations recreated in a much simpler universe, probably with a time constraint that does not allow for the species to leave the solar system ( or some simmilar constraint keeping the program to a minimum ).

 

Sayo, you made an interesting comment early in the thread.

 

Sayonara³ said in post # :

 

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]

 

Now, you seem EXTREMELY opposed to the last option, and option two is highly unlikely, so much of the argument for simulated realities rests in the first option.

 

So, unless you come up with another option that isn't just another reason that most species don't go extinct before reaching this stage of development (impossibility of reaching that stage included), this says alot about the nature of civilization.

 

 

 

Just dropping the subject for a moment here, that comment could be key to the whole thing.  Like I suggested, if indeed we were a simulation, our time would likely be coming to a close as we speak, not suggesting that it is unlikely for a real species to reach a point of technelogical maturity, but that a simulated species would be eliminated before doing so, out of concious decision by its controllers. 

 

See where I'm going with this?

 

If indeed it is possible for a real species to reach a point that allows it to simulate a planet, it would be very likely that the simulation would end before that new species reaches that point.  If that were the case, to (kindof) quote Sayo directly, "it is more likely that any race at our stage of development is ... on the dawn of its own self-annihilation" because "it is a simulation controlled and/or devised by another race."

 

So chances are probably 1 of 000s that we are a simulation about to be terminated, on a scale of several hundred years from now.  Nifty. 

[alt_f13]

elfin vampire said in post # :

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

 

 

 

lol, you dork.  I scored 0 on the pseudo scientist scoring board because of the -5 starting credit and typing in ALL CAPS. 

 

Oh, and the smarter person you copied that from was SAYO. 

 

[edit]

 

My quote was a quote of elfin quoting me, but he didn't know how to use the quote feature at the time.

 

Sorry for the double post.

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post # :

He does not.  He even said himself that it is not an argument for the third option, if that is what you mean.  The options are not an argument for themselves, the paper is an argument for the options.

...

Sayo, you made an interesting comment early in the thread.

Now, you seem EXTREMELY opposed to the last option, and option two is highly unlikely, so much of the argument for simulated realities rests in the first option.

 

Just dropping the subject for a moment here, that comment could be key to the whole thing.  Like I suggested, if indeed we were a simulation, our time would likely be coming to a close as we speak, not suggesting that it is unlikely for a real species to reach a point of technelogical maturity, but that a simulated species would be eliminated before doing so, out of concious decision by its controllers. 

 

See where I'm going with this?

 

If indeed it is possible for a real species to reach a point that allows it to simulate a planet, it would be very likely that the simulation would end before that new species reaches that point.  If that were the case, to (kindof) quote Sayo directly, "it is more likely that any race at our stage of development is ... on the dawn of its own self-annihilation" because "it is a simulation controlled and/or devised by another race."

Kindly don't take what I said and butcher it to serve a different purpose (last para). I had no intention of saying any such thing and do not believe there is any evidence for it, especially not "philosophical evidence".

 

It would appear that we are largely in agreement, if for different reasons.

 

However you ought to be more careful in your interpretation of his 3 options, because they are carefully worded so as not to be an exhaustive list.

 

"All the "other options" you've stated thus far, Sayo, are reasons for the first option"

No they aren't. Sets, you see.

 

Now, you seem EXTREMELY opposed to the last option, and option two is highly unlikely, so much of the argument for simulated realities rests in the first option.

 

So, unless you come up with another option that isn't just another reason that most species don't go extinct before reaching this stage of development (impossibility of reaching that stage included), this says alot about the nature of civilization.

Exactly what is it you think I'm saying? I'm getting pretty sick of having the actual structure of an argument ignored or misdirected.

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

Kindly don't take what I said and butcher it to serve a different purpose (last para). I had no intention of saying any such thing and do not believe there is any evidence for it, especially not "philosophical evidence".

 

I was only quoting you because I found it humorous.  I know there is no evidence for what I was saying, and would not even imply so called "philosophical evidence."  The idea just seemed intriguing.

 

Exactly what is it you think I'm saying? I'm getting pretty sick of having the actual structure of an argument ignored or misdirected.

 

Sorry, but I don't know anything about the structure of an argument.  Perhaps you should rephrase what it was that I misunderstood.

 

No they aren't. Sets, you see.

 

I don't get it.  Rephrase?

[Sayonara]

It's not my job to make you know more stuff.

[Sayonara]

alt_f13 said in post # :

My quote was a quote of elfin quoting me, but he didn't know how to use the quote feature at the time.

Sorry for the double post.

I think he, she, or it has gone now...

[alt_f13]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

It's not my job to make you know more stuff.

 

A rephrase is too much to ask?