On June 11 2016 13:06 whamm! wrote:
lol true. But what if my simulation is independent from yours and those starving people in africa are just holograms to keep me from being depressed about my own existence?
Im not saying everyone is an independent simulation, Im saying that I can see why he easily jumps to that conclusion, I bet somebody with a shitty life wouldnt feel like Neo.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NMcNasty United States. Jun 11 2016 18:10. Posts 2039
There's a huge difference between saying "every atom in this universe has been simulated" and "We are living in a simulation". With the latter you can take "We are" to mean "I am" in which case all you really have to simulate is one human brain. Other people could just part of my simulation, it wouldn't be necessary for them to have a simulation of their own. When I look at a white wall, my brain isn't processing every molecule, let alone atom, spin, etc. of that wall. The amount of processing necessary to replicate my neurons firing to show that wall is probably doable within the next 50 years, let alone 5000 or 5,000,000. The planet sized computer thing is meant to show how easy this would be, not difficult. If you believe a planet sized computer is possible, which would be pretty normal for someone's vision of the future in thousands of years, then you pretty much have to believe that we'll have the processing power to replicate brains at that point. So really, I have to agree with Bostrom's idea that it can't be technology as the reason for why we won't be in a simulation. Either we choose not to use it, humanity is destroyed before it gets to that level, or we are in fact in a simulation.
On June 10 2016 16:22 Daut wrote:
Apparently when you are a genius billionaire you don't have to adhere to math or logic. Also think his certainty shows a level of psychopathy: he is trivializing the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of other people on this planet and is projecting his lack of empathy on the world.
But my answer to this is generally the same as it is to free will arguments: we can't know and from our perspective it does not matter.
Why do you think the free will arguments don't matter? There is a huge body of science showing that the belief (or disbelief) in free will affects the way we interact with others. On one side you have the argument made by many people including Sam Harris who argue that knowing the truth about the illusion of free will is a very freeing idea, allowing us to be more compassionate. On the other side, there are studies showing that people are negatively affected by this belief in many ways. A few links on this:
On June 10 2016 16:22 Daut wrote:
Apparently when you are a genius billionaire you don't have to adhere to math or logic. Also think his certainty shows a level of psychopathy: he is trivializing the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of other people on this planet and is projecting his lack of empathy on the world.
But my answer to this is generally the same as it is to free will arguments: we can't know and from our perspective it does not matter.
Why do you think the free will arguments don't matter? There is a huge body of science showing that the belief (or disbelief) in free will affects the way we interact with others. On one side you have the argument made by many people including Sam Harris who argue that knowing the truth about the illusion of free will is a very freeing idea, allowing us to be more compassionate. On the other side, there are studies showing that people are negatively affected by this belief in many ways. A few links on this:
I meant more that from our perspective it appears as if we have free will, so whether we do or do not is irrelevant. But I agree that believing there is free will vs believing there isn't can have profound impacts on a person's brain
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
1
traxamillion United States. Jun 11 2016 22:27. Posts 10468
On June 11 2016 17:10 NMcNasty wrote:
There's a huge difference between saying "every atom in this universe has been simulated" and "We are living in a simulation". With the latter you can take "We are" to mean "I am" in which case all you really have to simulate is one human brain. Other people could just part of my simulation, it wouldn't be necessary for them to have a simulation of their own. When I look at a white wall, my brain isn't processing every molecule, let alone atom, spin, etc. of that wall. The amount of processing necessary to replicate my neurons firing to show that wall is probably doable within the next 50 years, let alone 5000 or 5,000,000. The planet sized computer thing is meant to show how easy this would be, not difficult. If you believe a planet sized computer is possible, which would be pretty normal for someone's vision of the future in thousands of years, then you pretty much have to believe that we'll have the processing power to replicate brains at that point. So really, I have to agree with Bostrom's idea that it can't be technology as the reason for why we won't be in a simulation. Either we choose not to use it, humanity is destroyed before it gets to that level, or we are in fact in a simulation.
The thing about Bostrom's argument is he is not even talking about about humans creating the sim. He is talking about any sentient life in the universe. Most likely it is NOT humans creating the sim. Therefore in order to simulate humans, beings millions/billions of light years from Earth would have to have a sim so accurate and powerful that it maps out the entire creation of the universe and all life within it. His argument certainly has nothing to do with simulating 1 human's consciousness and having everything else be 'props'.
1
NMcNasty United States. Jun 11 2016 23:12. Posts 2039
On June 11 2016 21:27 traxamillion wrote:
The thing about Bostrom's argument is he is not even talking about about humans creating the sim.
Yes he is.
- The basic idea of this paper can be expressed roughly as follows: If there were a
substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and
run many ancestor?simulations, then how come you are not living in such a
simulation? -
His argument certainly has nothing to do with simulating 1 human's consciousness and having everything else be 'props'.
I'm referring to the paper not the videos (didn't watch all of them), but in the paper he's clearly talking about the human mind (part 3).
- The amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can
likewise be roughly estimated. 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 in silico,
contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~10^14 operations per second
for the entire human brain.6 An alternative estimate, based the number of
synapses in the brain and their firing frequency, gives a figure of ~10^16?10^17
operations per second.7 Conceivably, even more could be required if we want to
simulate in detail the internal workings of synapses and dendritic trees.
However, it is likely that the human central nervous system has a high degree of
redundancy on the mircoscale to compensate for the unreliability and noisiness
of its neuronal components. One would therefore expect a substantial efficiency
gain when using more reliable and versatile non?biological processors-
Last edit: 11/06/2016 23:14
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 12 2016 12:45. Posts 3093
On June 11 2016 13:06 whamm! wrote:
lol true. But what if my simulation is independent from yours and those starving people in africa are just holograms to keep me from being depressed about my own existence?
ya, if a simulation then nobody is actually running the starving african kid one, everyone is hooked up to a smart/beautiful/good one and all the stupid/ugly/bad people are only in it because abilities are relative.
Apparently the first paper had some flaws and so Bostrom went back and wrote a patch that is focused on mistakes made on the math involving the probability http://www.simulation-argument.com/patch.pdf
However after watching that 2hr video debate on the simulation argument there appears to be ways that we can test if we are a simulation though the experiment has only been proposed and not undertaken. From what I understand of what Zohreh Davoudi said in the video somethings would be impossible for a computer to simulate according to our current model of physics and that if we measured these cosmic waves would be able to find evidence of the computer having to make a short cut to simulate it. So according to Davoudi this is a testable idea in principle. Also Max Tegmark also had a unique remark in regards to Bostrom's argument. Tegmark commented on the fact that Bostrom's argument is based off of empirical principles of this universe,and that if we accept that simulation is possible it does not follow that we are according to probability a simulation. The reason being is that we could only take an accurate probability of being a simulation if we are the original universe. If we are a simulations its not possible for us to calculate the probability if we have no access to the original universe and original empirical principles.
1
traxamillion United States. Jun 13 2016 15:58. Posts 10468
I expected LP to have a disproportionately high % of people who were accepting of the argument compared to the average member of the western population, who is usually quick to find any reason they can to dismiss the argument as it contains the notion that their reality might not be "real".
That should be expected though right? Ideas like this threaten how important our human ego feels and we probably have some biases that prevent us from entertaining such ideas. I think the unspoken belief here is that if you start giving serious consideration to the simulation argument, you are also somewhat admitting that maybe your life isn't as "real" as you thought it was, that it doesn't matter as much as it did before.
That is how I first felt about the simulation argument but for some reason I was drawn to it (I don't usually indulge in things like this too much as I think they are kind of a waste of time) and the more I thought about it, the harder it has become for me to reject the argument. So, pending any unknown developments, I accept the argument, here are my personal %'s for each proposition. Obviously these are hugely subjective and will change day to day:
1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero"
(30%)
- This also includes the chance that we have an extinction level event before we reach the technology
- This % goes down every day we survive and advance closer to the technology of being able to able to run "high-fidelity ancestor simulations" until the day that we do and the % lowers to pretty much 0
- This % could go up if some technology is discovered that has a high potential to create an extinction level event or if there is some human social dynamic (WW3) that makes things unstable
2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero"
(5%)
- can't think of many scenarios where at least some simulations wouldn't be run containing humans with experiences similar to the ones we are having now
3."The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"
(35%)
----
this only adds up to 70%, I have cowardly reserved 30% for "unknown" explanation to the simulation argument either via a mistake in the initial argument or another potential proposition we haven't yet thought of.
There we have it, the line has been set, taking action at 2:1 we live in a simulation
you send first on stars, bets will be settled upon verification ^^
1
CrownRoyal United States. Jun 15 2016 01:35. Posts 11385
Didn't read the thread but since I'm interested in the topic I thought I might post
There is some compelling evidence that we live in a simulation, I would make the argument, however, that a lot of these points are based on where we currently stand with technology/intelligence
-The double slit experiment - Quantum physics: There would be no reason for a simulation to render and process every bit of information that exists inside of itself. Computer games, for instance only render and process what is going on in your field of view to optimize the experience. The double slit experiment could very easily be explained by a simulation.
-The big bang looks an awful lot like turning on a video game: If you were a conscious and intelligent mario living in the toadstool kingdom and you were curious about your origins a video game turning on looks _a lot_ like the big bang. A sudden explosion of information that creates and sets the rules for everything around you, created in order and expanding outward.
-Error correcting code located in string theory equations that look identical to computer code. Literally error correcting code functioning in the fabric of reality all around you.
I'm sure a lot of my other points will have already been mentioned in the thread but here goes
-A simple thought experiment assuming that all things either are or are not possible; If we can create simulated universe we absolutely will. You can functionally speed up this universe that mocks our own- Maybe 1hr in our universe is setup to be 100,000 years in this simulated universe. We get to watch a universe play out in front of our eyes in fast forward, all of the technology, all of the ideas, every thing that ever lived can be studied. We get to see what every single civilization that comes out of this accomplishes and can assimilate it into our own knowledge. Maybe a civilization in our simulation creates their own simulated universe and gets all of their technology, so on and so forth down 100000 chains of simulated reality. The ability to create a simulated universe is the ability to know the answer to anything.
-If we _can_ create a universe it has already been done. It would be preposterous to assume we are the first universe, the one on top.
On June 13 2016 14:58 traxamillion wrote:
If it was a sim we would have better drugs imo
lol I kind of feel the same, if this is a simulation then why all the painful and unpleasantness ?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 15 2016 06:49. Posts 5296
Smuft your overconfidence is ur weakness.
Rate of extinction for the human race has been high since nuclear weapons were stockpiled. There have been two instances where a single russian military officer refused orders from the kremlin to carry out a nuclear war. Stanislav petrov and vasily arkiphov were there names. Dozens of cases where both the us and russia thought a nuclear war was being carried out because of bad programming and microchip malfunctions, and aggressive military excercises
In pakistan military officers have permission to nuke india without politicians knowledge.
Did you factor all of that into ur calculations? I use this example because its widely unknown, but it shows there are many factors to calculate that we probably dont know about. Your assuming 70 percent information known in answers to questions that are millions of times more complex than anything thats part of science.
This thread lacks humility from people arguing from the pro similation side, you guys should have close to zero comfidence in ur theory unless you actualy have some solid evidence. So far ive seen none.
Your taking action on something that can't be verified, unless you can unplug someone from the matrix?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 15/06/2016 07:50
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 15 2016 07:11. Posts 5296
On June 13 2016 14:58 traxamillion wrote:
If it was a sim we would have better drugs imo
lol I kind of feel the same, if this is a simulation then why all the painful and unpleasantness ?
There are polls done on people that show most people would not want to live in an experience machine that gave them happiness even if they could, so u would have to force some people into the simulation, which is unethical. So
that actually makes sense to me. If the world was unethical enough to put human beings in simulated realities. then they could be unethical enough to make that sim really shitty.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On June 15 2016 05:49 Stroggoz wrote:
Smuft your overconfidence is ur weakness.
Rate of extinction for the human race has been high since nuclear weapons were stockpiled. There have been two instances where a single russian military officer refused orders from the kremlin to carry out a nuclear war. Stanislav petrov and vasily arkiphov were there names. Dozens of cases where both the us and russia thought a nuclear war was being carried out because of bad programming and microchip malfunctions, and aggressive military excercises
In pakistan military officers have permission to nuke india without politicians knowledge.
Did you factor all of that into ur calculations? I use this example because its widely unknown, but it shows there are many factors to calculate that we probably dont know about. Your assuming 70 percent information known in answers to questions that are millions of times more complex than anything thats part of science.
This thread lacks humility from people arguing from the pro similation side, you guys should have close to zero comfidence in ur theory unless you actualy have some solid evidence. So far ive seen none.
Your taking action on something that can't be verified, unless you can unplug someone from the matrix?
I don't think we should refer to my random guess as a "calculation" but I have thought about the stuff you mentioned a little bit. I don't think nuclear war is going to totally wipe us out any time soon for a few reasons;
1. rational people are holding all the bombs, people that know they cant nuke anyone else without getting nuked back (if some radical islamic group got ahold of a large amount of nukes it'd be much more dangerous)
2. even if nuclear war does break out, even if 90% of the population is destroyed, that still leaves ~700k people, that's more than enough to rebuild
I think for existential threats it's more things that we aren't aware of, the things that we are already thinking about we can plan for and mitigate, it's the unknown that we haven't even considered that is most likely to kill us IMO.
-
If you think I'm overconfident you'll have to find a fundamental flaw in Bostrom's initial argument or give me a good reason to put more weight on proposition #1 or #2 over #3. I'm very open to changing my weights or abandoning the idea altogether, I just haven't heard any good reasons to do so.
On June 13 2016 14:58 traxamillion wrote:
If it was a sim we would have better drugs imo
lol I kind of feel the same, if this is a simulation then why all the painful and unpleasantness ?
There are polls done on people that show most people would not want to live in an experience machine that gave them happiness even if they could, so u would have to force some people into the simulation, which is unethical. So
that actually makes sense to me. If the world was unethical enough to put human beings in simulated realities. then they could be unethical enough to make that sim really shitty.
Not sure if Stroggoz or anyone else is misunderstanding the simulation's referred to in this argument are not the same as in the matrix. If we are living in a simulation, it's most likely that we are living entirely in the simulation, that our entire existence begins and ends inside of it. ie. our bodies are not plugged in
On June 13 2016 14:58 traxamillion wrote:
If it was a sim we would have better drugs imo
lol I kind of feel the same, if this is a simulation then why all the painful and unpleasantness ?
to keep it real obv :D
How d you guys get to the point of discussing nukes :/
And yeah agree with Smuft, such simulation is the case where we would be like a computer code run in a system, not farmed and plugged in. And it would be like that about everything we know.
Its a game that talks exactly about this, about consciousness uploaded into a simulation and mankind's future preservation in a simulation state in an ark thing...
Its a horror/story game by the makers of Amnesia, great stuff.
If this was a simulation nothing about the pain and lack of perfection is surprising. It's a simulation after all they would have created the world and just see it through however it may end up. It could have ended up with humans not being pieces of shit, but here we are. If it is a true simulation it is to explore how something ends up, not to create a nice little fairy tale world for us to live in. Either way this is still not anything I can come even close to thinking is realistic. If this simulation started at the big bang it could have ended with nothing but lava and bacteria. I understand simulation time wouldn't be aligned with real time but the amount of computing power you would need to sit through billions of years of evolution just to end up with a couple thousand of human analysis is ridiculous.
United States. Jun 11 2016 18:10. Posts 2039
