Oxford philosopher thinks Matrix is possible

[graflok]

"... there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation,” says Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

article link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000)

[william_mac]

"... there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation,” says Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

article link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000)

....goddamn it! Fuck, I don't even want to read that shit. I'm going to go... try to be human or something. Goddamnit! Don't show me those things. ::grumble grumble::



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[montag]

....goddamn it! Fuck, I don't even want to read that shit. I'm going to go... try to be human or something. Goddamnit! Don't show me those things. ::grumble grumble::



-William
www.William-Mac.com
http://www.simulation-argument.com/ :D

[john white]

"... there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation,” says Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

article link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000)

Great find graflock

[cheeb]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613823551788824190&9=horizon&total=16270&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindev=z

Matrix proof,
From scientists!!!

44 minutes+,
Its a bit long to get to conclusion!!!

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ladies & Gentlemen!:

Put me down in the, 'This is Bullshit', column. I would give odds at something like, 0.00000000000001 maybe %.

Examine the 'Entirety' of all Materiel and Programs in 'play' on this planet alone, ignore for the moment the rest of the Universe. The overall complexity is mind boggling. From the Molten Core of the Earth, to the Bio-Chemistry of the Human Eye, astonishing complexity and infinite 'variables'

By now, my position of ' Design by Creative Intelligence', by a Super-Being named Yahweh and His Plan for Humans is no 'secret. In the thread I have presented Yahwehs Plan to 'cultivate' Humanbeings from our current Anthropomorphic state to Supra-Anthropomorphic state.

I honestly feel, this is 'Man exalting Man', the 'Clay' on the potters wheel, telling the potter 'this is what I think'.

Colour me skepticle X infinity!: Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[Anders Lindman]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

DJ Ted Stevens Techno Remix: "A Series of Tubes" - YouTube

[montag]

By now, my position of ' Design by Creative Intelligence', by a Super-Being named Yahweh and His Plan for Humans is no 'secret. In the thread I have presented Yahwehs Plan to 'cultivate' Humanbeings from our current Anthropomorphic state to Supra-Anthropomorphic state.

I honestly feel, this is 'Man exalting Man', the 'Clay' on the potters wheel, telling the potter 'this is what I think'.
Maybe your God Yahweh is a computer programmer?

[montag]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
Consciousness could interact with the simulation just like in the move The Matrix, it doesn't need to be simulated.. Our bodies could just work as an interface to enter the simulation while our Consciousness could exist elsewhere..

[cheeb]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

Oh yes it can:

http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2005/06/cube_of_creatio.html

Now this becomes a pantomime,

Oh no it doesn't!!!

[cheeb]

Maybe your God Yahweh is a computer programmer?

Yeah!
One with a wicked sense of humour>
He programmed don't eat me apples,
War,
Poverty,
Famine,
Etc...................
Into the mainframe,
God is bored,
and is playing a shoot me up!!!!

:eek:

[Anders Lindman]

Consciousness could interact with the simulation just like in the move The Matrix, it doesn't need to be simulated.. Our bodies could just work as an interface to enter the simulation while our Consciousness could exist elsewhere..

But our bodies are always "simulations"/"virtual". There is no such thing as solid physical matter. The person who would enter a Matrix is already in the same Matrix from the beginning. :D

[Anders Lindman]

Oh yes it can:

http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2005/06/cube_of_creatio.html

Now this becomes a pantomime,

Oh no it doesn't!!!

You can create a simulation of billions of universes. But that would still not be able to create consciousness. Consciousness is already the Unmoved Mover. It is not the "physical" universe that creates consciousness. It is consciousness that blasts physical reality into being as a holographic projection, moment by moment.

From the article: "I am skeptical that any computer will ever be able to simulate, let alone embody, the actual experience of consciousness. Since our universe and everything material, is in my opinion, emergent from consciousness, not vice-versa, it is not possible to cause consciousness to emerge from physical things: I don't think you can build a machine that will become conscious."

[harris999]

If i understand this right. (i probably dont but hey..)

Computers are limited, there will always be a specific amount of processing that they can do, even tho it could go to astronomical amounts, it would still be limited. But the universe is suposed to be infinite, so doesnt that make it impossible to be living in a simulation?

And if the universe isnt infinite, and it must be, then what happens at the edge of the universe? do you just bump into a wall or something? and if thats the case, whats on the other side of the wall? So you see, the universe must be infinite. Which makes a computer simulation impossible.

[cheeb]

You can create a simulation of billions of universes. But that would still not be able to create consciousness. Consciousness is already the Unmoved Mover. It is not the "physical" universe that creates consciousness. It is consciousness that blasts physical reality into being as a holographic projection, moment by moment.

From the article: "I am skeptical that any computer will ever be able to simulate, let alone embody, the actual experience of consciousness. Since our universe and everything material, is in my opinion, emergent from consciousness, not vice-versa, it is not possible to cause consciousness to emerge from physical things: I don't think you can build a machine that will become conscious."

Thats why I put it up:
"I am skeptical"
"In my opinion"
" I don't think"
Subjective viewpoint...

"I don't think"
being the money shot,

Taken completeley out of context,
for my benefit!!!
:eek:

[Anders Lindman]

Thats why I put it up:
"I am skeptical"
"In my opinion"
" I don't think"
Subjective viewpoint...

"I don't think"
being the money shot,

Taken completeley out of context,
for my benefit!!!
:eek:

Agreed. The article is not scientific. Maybe science someday will be able to explain consciousness. That would be cool.

[Anders Lindman]

If i understand this right. (i probably dont but hey..)

Computers are limited, there will always be a specific amount of processing that they can do, even tho it could go to astronomical amounts, it would still be limited. But the universe is suposed to be infinite, so doesnt that make it impossible to be living in a simulation?

And if the universe isnt infinite, and it must be, then what happens at the edge of the universe? do you just bump into a wall or something? and if thats the case, whats on the other side of the wall? So you see, the universe must be infinite. Which makes a computer simulation impossible.

The universe is an infinite computer program. Not only that, this program expands all the time. That's what we call 'evolution'. The computer program expands in discrete steps. n0, n1, n2 ... Each new step is the program needed for the universe to experience itself. That's what we call 'creation' and even 'free will'. The future is never determined beforehand. The future is always created moment by moment. The past step is finite in relation to the next step which is infinite. The next step in turn becomes finite in relation the step after that which is infinite.

The computer program is itself the computer. It's not like an ordinary program which needs an external computer to run on.

The Matrix movies are a result of this program. Even reediting of the Matrix movies is the program in action:

Candy - YouTube

[montag]

If i understand this right. (i probably dont but hey..)

Computers are limited, there will always be a specific amount of processing that they can do, even tho it could go to astronomical amounts, it would still be limited.
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

The computer only has to simulate our experience which is finite, infinity is only a concept..

[cheeb]

Agreed. The article is not scientific. Maybe science someday will be able to explain consciousness. That would be cool.

That seems to be the brick wall'
That science runs into,

At the moment,anyhow.
:):):)

[smariot]

What makes you think 3D reality isn't just floating on the surface of a hypersphere, and that if you travel far enough in search of the edge of the universe, you won't simply end up back where you started?

You could conceivably simulate a smaller 4D hyper sphere, and still keep have the illusion of infinite 3D space. It wouldn't be, but it would look like it to anyone sitting in the middle of it.

Also, there are plenty of ways to cheat in a simulation. We don't have to simulate light, we can work in reverse and shoot photons away from anything capable of detecting light, and then teleport them back to where they came from should they hit anything so that it can detect it. If the object is really far away, we can use a low resolution model, nobody is going to notice that those bright lights in the sky aren't just a textured sphere surrounding them, and not actual balls of burning hydrogen, or that the mountain over there is smooth and hollow, not rough and full of dirt. If someone decides to look really closely with a microscope, then we'll make up a picture of some atoms for them, based on whatever the thing they're looking at is supposed to be made out of. You see that tree over there? It looks like every other tree, so we'll have them all reuse the same data. If somebody does something to the tree to make it unique, like carving their name into it, we'll copy the data and then have them edit the copy. And even then, we'll only keep track of what was actually changed, the rest of the tree is still just like every other tree. And so on and so forth.

[Anders Lindman]

We don't have to simulate light, we can work in reverse and shoot photons away from anything capable of detecting light, and then teleport them back to where they came from should they hit anything so that it can detect it.

That's a pretty cool idea. In fact, I remember that a philosopher (don't remember who) said that it was the eyes that shone the whole field of vision into being. So that all light came from the eyes, never into the eyes. :D

That could actually make sense if we take consciousness as the center of the universe, and the material world as a holographic projection. Just as David Icke has described it.

Here are two video clips about consciousness as the center of the universe:

Pointing At Your No-Face - YouTube

Time & the Timeless - YouTube

[smariot]

You might even be able to use the speed of light as evidence of a computer simulation. Without it, for calculating the motion of a particle, we'd have to compare every particle with every other particle, because they all have mass and they're all pulling slightly on every other particle in the universe. Which means that the amount of work a simulation has to do grows exponentially with the size of the thing being simulated. It would take so long, the universe would probably die a heat death before you managed to finish the first iteration.

But thanks to the speed of light, there is a limit to how much something on one side of the universe can affect something on the other. For example, our sun could be run in an entirely separate simulation, all on its own, and not have to consider the rest of the universe for the most part. Because it takes about 5 minutes for the suns light to reach us, we could be simulated separate from the Sun. The data from the sun simulation is buffered and replayed into the Earth simulation 5 minutes afterwards, and the people in the Earth simulation are none the wiser. And thanks to the speed of light giving us this buffer to work with, we don't need to directly worry about how each atom in the sun might be affecting each atom back on Earth, since the effect doesn't show up until 5 minutes in the future. We can partition the universe into little pieces, simulate them each separately, and have all the simulations share their results with their neighbors every so often, depending on how big they are. The simulations only need to talk to their neighbors, not with the whole rest of the universe, as the next time they share their buffers, the neighbor that was shared with will in turn share with its neighbors, allowing the information to travel within the simulation at the speed of light.

This of course requires an ungodly amount of memory, in addition to keeping track of the present moment, each simulation also has to remember what has happened at its boundaries since it last talked to its neighbors, but at least it's slightly more computationally feasible than simulating the entire thing in one go.

[Anders Lindman]

...
This of course requires an ungodly amount of memory, in addition to keeping track of the present moment, each simulation also has to remember what has happened at its boundaries since it last talked to its neighbors, but at least it's slightly more computationally feasible than simulating the entire thing in one go.

Fascinating idea. However, if we think of infinite computing power, then it would algorithmically and complex-wise be much simpler to simulate the whole universe, an infinite number of universes in fact, tick by tick. One tick could for example be the Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

If the computer program and the computer are the same "thing", then no 'physical' computer is needed.

[smariot]

If you had infinite computing power, you wouldn't need to use memory storing the positions of all the particles, you could just recalculate them all as needed.

But if you do it that way, has the past happened many times before, once for each time a particle's position needed to be known, or did the past simply never exist?

Its kind of quantum mechanicsish, since the world literally wouldn't exist until someone decided they wanted to see it, and after they do, it's gone again.

OMG, I've got it! They're running an ancestor simulation in reverse, starting from their present time. That's where all this quantum weirdness comes from. I knew time reversal symmetry was good for something!

[smariot]

Since I'd hate to have people actually fear that they're not real, I'll go ahead and point out some flaws with what I've written so far.


You could conceivably simulate a smaller 4D hyper sphere, and still keep have the illusion of infinite 3D space. It wouldn't be, but it would look like it to anyone sitting in the middle of it.

This probably isn't true, if it were, discrepancies would start appearing in geometry. In the same way that if you draw a triangle using perfectly straight lines on the surface of a sphere, the sum if the angles won't be 180 degrees, it will be more, and the error would get larger. For example, take the equator of a sphere, draw a point on it, draw another point a quarter of the way around, and then draw two lines perpendicular to the equator so that they intersect at the pole, you end up with a triangle with angles totalling 270 degrees. That's not supposed to happen. Since this doesn't happen in reality, space is either flat, other than from the bends in it from the gravity of stars and planets, and does indeed go on forever, or it's really freaking huge, so huge we can't even notice that space is bent. But then, we're sitting in a gravity well right now and nobody seem to notice that, so, bleh.

Hey, I wonder if space could have a negative curvature. Would that create antigravity and be the force behind all this dark energy nobody can seem to find, fueling the expansion of the universe? Who knows.


We don't have to simulate light, we can work in reverse and shoot photons away from anything capable of detecting light, and then teleport them back to where they came from should they hit anything so that it can detect it.

This is actually the basis of software raytracing, used in a lot of 3D computer graphics software. But it has the catch that it can't properly simulate radiosity. In a world simulated like this, you couldn't, for example, use a magnifying glass to fry ants on a sidewalk. What kind of world would that be?

You might even be able to use the speed of light as evidence of a computer simulation.

I've decided that this idea of mine only works if only things traveling at the speed of light pass over the barrier between the simulations. Like light and radiation. And particles that have nothing to stop them only part way through. Heaven forbid that a man should decide to step half way through the edge and decide to walk back. This is kind of like in the Star Gate TV show. Matter should really only pass through the event horizon in a single direction. All those people that decided to stick their hands in and pull them back out, well, it wouldn't have been pretty. Maybe the problem could be fixed by having each simulation continue to simulate outside of its bounds, and not stop simulating the object until the entire thing goes out of bounds. That would at least keep people from killing themselves, but create some other subtle oopsies, like, what happens if some silly civilization decides to build something larger than the boundaries of the simulation? Hopefully it becomes so massive that the entire thing collapses in on itself and becomes a black hole, then the problem takes care of itself.

If you had infinite computing power, you wouldn't need to use memory storing the positions of all the particles, you could just recalculate them all as needed.

While you wouldn't need to store their positions, you would still need a ton of stack space for the purpose of the calculation. At least enough for all the positions of a single atom from the beginning of the universe to now. Let me get my calculator. . . if I haven't screwed up too badly, that would be around 2*10^55 gigabytes of memory required. That's a 2 followed by 55 zeros. That doesn't seem too bad, actually. Probably means I've screwed up :) But the nice thing about that method is the memory required only increases linearly with time simulated, and it's probably nothing at all to someone that can build an infinitely fast computer. The simulation can be as large as you want, too. It would probably still need to be a finite size though, a computer that can do an infinite number of things, can't necessarily do that infinite number of things an infinite number of times. Some infinities are bigger than others, and infinity squared is a pretty big infinity.

[Anders Lindman]

This is actually the basis of software raytracing, used in a lot of 3D computer graphics software. But it has the catch that it can't properly simulate radiosity. In a world simulated like this, you couldn't, for example, use a magnifying glass to fry ants on a sidewalk. What kind of world would that be?


The philosopher I mentioned said that all light went from the eyes and outward, and not the other way around, including all the light from the sun and a magnifying glass for example. When we look at the stars in the sky, then it is the eyes that project them. Even if we were to move very close to the sun, say a few miles above the surface, then it would still be the eyes that generated all the photons! That's what I call powerful vision. :D

[Anders Lindman]

If you had infinite computing power, you wouldn't need to use memory storing the positions of all the particles, you could just recalculate them all as needed.


If each frame in the simulation takes Planck time, then we would have roughly 8×10^60 frames of simulation since the Big Bang. Each new frame simulated contains all the past frames, like Russian dolls; a smaller inside a smaller and so forth. So the simulation becomes more complex all the time. At the beginning only simple particles existed, then atoms, then molecules, then cells, then multicellular organisms, then hunter-gather societies, agriculture, the industrial revolution and at the moment the simulation has reached the information age. In that sense there is a memory, and that memory we experience as the past. Even if it takes only Planck time to zap into being the entire universe including all the past history since Big Bang, we experience time as much more than just a single tick of Planck time.

[tinmenace]

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Einstein

Seems the Oxford philosopher isn't alone.. :D

[auron]

Whilst i was playing the online game "there", i was thinking to myself "This is what we are experiencing now!"

The same thing, except the graphics are a million times better. :D

[tinmenace]

Whilst i was playing the online game "there", i was thinking to myself "This is what we are experiencing now!"

The same thing, except the graphics are a million times better. :D

Yeah, and you have hovercraft!

[hagbard_celine]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

I'm not so sure. Consciousness is in all things, so I don't see why a computer program suficiently complex would not be conscious.

Of course this would mean we wouldn't be able to treat them as computers any more! It would begin a whole new legal discipline of electronic ethics; Robot Rights!:D There's a book by Isaac Asimov about a robot that begins to have feelings. it was made into the film "Bicentennial Man".

I agree with Bostrom, but differ with him in statistics. I am 100% certain we are living in a simulation of some sort!

[Anders Lindman]

I'm not so sure. Consciousness is in all things, so I don't see why a computer program suficiently complex would not be conscious.


Maybe some sort of continuous program could become conscious, but an ordinary traditional computer program is totally deterministic and is executed step by step, and there is no 'glue' that can hold the different separate operations together to form a consciousness.

[hagbard_celine]

Maybe some sort of continuous program could become conscious, but an ordinary traditional computer program is totally deterministic and is executed step by step, and there is no 'glue' that can hold the different separate operations together to form a consciousness.

Oddly enough the Dalai Lama was asked if he thought artificial intelligence was possible and he stunned his visitors by saying that he not only thinks it's possible; the says it already exists! He treats his office desktop as a person. He takes the idea seriously that a simple PC has a certain level of consciousness.

So be kind to your PC!:D

[Anders Lindman]

Oddly enough the Dalai Lama was asked if he thought artificial intelligence was possible and he stunned his visitors by saying that he not only thinks it's possible; the says it already exists! He treats his office desktop as a person. He takes the idea seriously that a simple PC has a certain level of consciousness.

So be kind to your PC!:D

Another thing I find interesting (and a little scary) is that an ordinary computer program if sophisticated enough could be made to behave just as a human being, but there would be no consciousness, just a machine! That's a bit spooky. :D

[deca]

There is so much work in this area brain computer interfaces,also if our eyes,ears and other senses convert things to electrical impulse so our brains can compute it, how do you know your brain not in a lab getting electrical impulse`s from a computer program anyway.

This makes a lot of sense to me
Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you have read up on DARPA they want to build a real life Matrix

[synergy777]

Cosmic computer -- new philosophy to explain the universe
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/01/MN108224.DTL

The Cosmic Computer by H. Beam Piper
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20727

CosmicComputer.Com
"The human brain is the hardware of the cosmic computer which,
through proper programming, can compute anything." - Maharishi

http://cicorp.com/cosmic/

[thetonic]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

Artificial intelligence would spawn its own form of consciousness(awareness) whether it fits your definition of consciousness or not!

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ladies & Gentlemen:

The last few posts piqued my memory. For those with Apple OSX Unix, there is provided in the Terminal Utility, a Psychoanalyst(I kid you not), which one may query.

One day I was breaking it 'Balls' and informing 'it', that I was its Master and 'It' was my slave and it threatened to delete my hard drive. I have not 'messed' with it since.

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[smariot]

I think assuming that machines can't be conscious because their brains are made of transistors is as fallacious as assuming that animals can't be conscious because their brains are made of neurons.

[cheeb]

I think assuming that machines can't be conscious because their brains are made of transistors is as fallacious as assuming that animals can't be conscious because their brains are made of neurons.

But even a worms brain,
Would be made up of neurons,
Would they be conscious,
self aware and sentient,
Conscientioness,
Tough cookie?
Does it involve empathy and compassion,
Or is it just a witness,
Of the world???

[Anders Lindman]

Cosmic computer -- new philosophy to explain the universe
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/01/MN108224.DTL


It was something like that I meant by the whole universe being a 'simulation' including everything. From the article:

"There is nothing as 'concrete' in the world as a (computer) bit -- it's more concrete than a photon or electron," Fredkin states. "It's not a 'simulation' of reality; it's not something that 'pretends' to be reality. It is reality."

[graflok]

I wisecrack therefore I am. :cool:

[tinmenace]

...therefor you are brilliant!


:D

[Anders Lindman]

Artificial intelligence would spawn its own form of consciousness(awareness) whether it fits your definition of consciousness or not!

I think the entire universe is a computer program. It's ALL 'virtual' reality, or as David Icke says: a holographic projection. So in that sense, yes, AI could spawn an entirely new form of life.

[alexph777]

Thanks for this article! I agree about the "after-life" program as another way to feed us that we're free when one is trying to think beyond the program. The "after-life" software is another form of control. And as David puts it - does the infinite need to dye to met its self or pray to itself?

This article may be of interest to you:-

http://www.probablefuture.com/matrix.htm

[synergy777]

i take the eastern view, of maya/lesser realities/lower dimension. its reality, its very real, to not be fooled the by its illusion, hence not real, it doesn't matter etc. its just frequency range, we exist within a frequency range of a larger frequency spectrum. like the visual spectrum is a small range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

say a building has 10 floors, and we live in the first three floors.

[alexph777]

amnesia is the issue

[synergy777]

13th floor. dark city, fifth element, stargate

[earthseed]

Perhaps the true existence those programming this VR is quite easy. Whereas the program's existence is very difficult and in the end you can't hold it for very long. Anyway it would be nice of them to say hey we've played games for long enough let's go take a nap. :rolleyes:

[synergy777]

i think vr aspect is that this is a lesser reality, after we leave this reality, we go to another higher one. we call it maya, impermanence.

i think we choose to come here, but forget our choice/power, when we are here. hence we start to operate within the confines of mainstream thought/indocrination.

[grimmvizard]

Since I'd hate to have people actually fear that they're not real, I'll go ahead and point out some flaws with what I've written so far.



This probably isn't true, if it were, discrepancies would start appearing in geometry. In the same way that if you draw a triangle using perfectly straight lines on the surface of a sphere, the sum if the angles won't be 180 degrees, it will be more, and the error would get larger. For example, take the equator of a sphere, draw a point on it, draw another point a quarter of the way around, and then draw two lines perpendicular to the equator so that they intersect at the pole, you end up with a triangle with angles totalling 270 degrees. That's not supposed to happen. Since this doesn't happen in reality, space is either flat, other than from the bends in it from the gravity of stars and planets, and does indeed go on forever, or it's really freaking huge, so huge we can't even notice that space is bent. But then, we're sitting in a gravity well right now and nobody seem to notice that, so, bleh.

Hey, I wonder if space could have a negative curvature. Would that create antigravity and be the force behind all this dark energy nobody can seem to find, fueling the expansion of the universe? Who knows.



This is actually the basis of software raytracing, used in a lot of 3D computer graphics software. But it has the catch that it can't properly simulate radiosity. In a world simulated like this, you couldn't, for example, use a magnifying glass to fry ants on a sidewalk. What kind of world would that be?



I've decided that this idea of mine only works if only things traveling at the speed of light pass over the barrier between the simulations. Like light and radiation. And particles that have nothing to stop them only part way through. Heaven forbid that a man should decide to step half way through the edge and decide to walk back. This is kind of like in the Star Gate TV show. Matter should really only pass through the event horizon in a single direction. All those people that decided to stick their hands in and pull them back out, well, it wouldn't have been pretty. Maybe the problem could be fixed by having each simulation continue to simulate outside of its bounds, and not stop simulating the object until the entire thing goes out of bounds. That would at least keep people from killing themselves, but create some other subtle oopsies, like, what happens if some silly civilization decides to build something larger than the boundaries of the simulation? Hopefully it becomes so massive that the entire thing collapses in on itself and becomes a black hole, then the problem takes care of itself.



While you wouldn't need to store their positions, you would still need a ton of stack space for the purpose of the calculation. At least enough for all the positions of a single atom from the beginning of the universe to now. Let me get my calculator. . . if I haven't screwed up too badly, that would be around 2*10^55 gigabytes of memory required. That's a 2 followed by 55 zeros. That doesn't seem too bad, actually. Probably means I've screwed up :) But the nice thing about that method is the memory required only increases linearly with time simulated, and it's probably nothing at all to someone that can build an infinitely fast computer. The simulation can be as large as you want, too. It would probably still need to be a finite size though, a computer that can do an infinite number of things, can't necessarily do that infinite number of things an infinite number of times. Some infinities are bigger than others, and infinity squared is a pretty big infinity.

if we're simulations, wouldn't that just leave us to figure out how their world works ?

:P

[anonymousoneuk]

Sorry folks. Consciousness cannot be simulated. No matter how complex the program/simulation, consciousness cannot be artificially created.

Consciousness is not a big truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

Agreed. Posthumanists are clutching at straws trying to find the key to immortality, it's all they are about, it's a souless philosophy.

Bless :)

[grimmvizard]

"... there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation,” says Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

article link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000)

sound a bit naive ;

ok if someone has gone to the trouble of simulating us, would mean, anyways, there's no such thing as solid matter, so they're living in a matrix as well,

alike the one david icke says... THEN they would somehow have to put a soul into a computer, or something -- you just can't create consciousness with a computer programm.

as much of a load that would be off our shoulders, it's highly unlikeley


EDIT: and the simulations of the simulations -- the second simulation would be for the first one to perceive, it would simply be imagry.

personally it's sounds really stupid.

[zero1]

I sent Nick Bostrom a mail explaining the Gnostic truths about the simulation and how it works a long time ago. He never replied, and I am dismayed to find he still only puts the probability @ 20%, which is absurdly low even if you were only using common sense and intellect. I personally am totally certain about the issue.

Anyway, this excellent thread raises a few issues: I could explain the whole lot in very simple terms, but I'd not be believed, and probably called names like arrogant, naive and pretentious...

The truth of this matter was figured out a long time ago by many men. The principle doctrine brought out of this truth was Gnosticism.

You have heard it said, "there is nothing new under the Sun", and "the mind is always in the Past". These truisms stand in all eras of "time" we experience within the simulation. The only truly remarkable thing about it is not that the illusory nature of it is so well hidden, it's that it is so damn obvious that your mind will frequently refuse to acknowlege the surreality of it.

Remember Morpheus in the Matrix, he says mankind gave birth to A.I. and explained it as a "singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of Machines". This means the A.I. represented the achievement of technological singularity: in Gnosticism, this singular consciousness is the Demiurge.

The Matrix wasn't allegorical fiction: it was the Truth, with artistic license and a few dramatic embellishments.

[grimmvizard]

I sent Nick Bostrom a mail explaining the Gnostic truths about the simulation and how it works a long time ago. He never replied, and I am dismayed to find he still only puts the probability @ 20%, which is absurdly low even if you were only using common sense and intellect. I personally am totally certain about the issue.

Anyway, this excellent thread raises a few issues: I could explain the whole lot in very simple terms, but I'd not be believed, and probably called names like arrogant, naive and pretentious...

The truth of this matter was figured out a long time ago by many men. The principle doctrine brought out of this truth was Gnosticism.

You have heard it said, "there is nothing new under the Sun", and "the mind is always in the Past". These truisms stand in all eras of "time" we experience within the simulation. The only truly remarkable thing about it is not that the illusory nature of it is so well hidden, it's that it is so damn obvious that your mind will frequently refuse to acknowlege the surreality of it.

Remember Morpheus in the Matrix, he says mankind gave birth to A.I. and explained it as a "singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of Machines". This means the A.I. represented the achievement of technological singularity: in Gnosticism, this singular consciousness is the Demiurge.

The Matrix wasn't allegorical fiction: it was the Truth, with artistic license and a few dramatic embellishments.

so now we come from some diety

[zero1]

so now we come from some diety

Talk about a skewed way of viewing it...

The Demiurge is an allegory for the supreme Artificial Intelligence that created the matrix, it is not a god, though it has immense power and considers itself to be God.

The devil is in the detail. If you understand the setup in detail, it becomes apparent what this-that and the other are, what their function is. Not otherwise.

[grimmvizard]

Talk about a skewed way of viewing it...

The Demiurge is an allegory for the supreme Artificial Intelligence that created the matrix, it is not a god, though it has immense power and considers itself to be God.

The devil is in the detail. If you understand the setup in detail, it becomes apparent what this-that and the other are, what their function is. Not otherwise.


so man created machine, then machine created us, -- where does this machine exist ?

[zero1]

so man created machine, then machine created us, -- where does this machine exist ?

In this world, everwhere.

As for where it is literally, the answer to that would stretch the credulity of this discussion.

It is not hard to intuit, though. :)

[grimmvizard]

In this world, everwhere.

As for where it is literally, the answer to that would stretch the credulity of this discussion.

It is not hard to intuit, though. :)

Ok, so these people were creating their own matrix with their minds,
matter doesn't exist, so this machine is an illusion, so you're saying somehow these machines somehow grasped consciousness , through electrons and wires,

etc.. when electrons are illusions as well.

I was almost believing this ( i like to keep an open mind )

but it's really ridiculous, if you believe this, I weep for you.

just what the hell are you doing on DI, nothing should concern you since you're not real, since you're not real, whatever you encounter should not matter because you the one that perceives it again, are not real.

so basically, you should take a 9 to your head and save yourself the trouble of breathing in your next breath.

EDIT: I recomend this http://www.hermes-press.com/number_frequency.htm

[zero1]

Ok, so these people were creating their own matrix with their minds,
matter doesn't exist, so this machine is an illusion, so you're saying somehow these machines somehow grasped consciousness , through electrons and wires,

etc.. when electrons are illusions as well.

I was almost believing this ( i like to keep an open mind )

but it's really ridiculous, if you believe this, I weep for you.

just what the hell are you doing on DI, nothing should concern you since you're not real, since you're not real, whatever you encounter should not matter because you the one that perceives it again, are not real.

so basically, you should take a 9 to your head and save yourself the trouble of breathing in your next breath.

The simulated reality argument is complex. Obviously, too complex to discuss here...

I don't know. Ever since you came on this forum, you've been bugging me and calling me names. It would be disturbing if it weren't so...irrelevant.

I don't need you to weep for me, and what I believe is true. That you don't understand it is no reflection on me, but rather on you.

Peace,
Z1

[grimmvizard]

The simulated reality argument is complex. Obviously, too complex to discuss here...

I don't know. Ever since you came on this forum, you've been bugging me and calling me names. It would be disturbing if it weren't so...irrelevant.

I don't need you to weep for me, and what I believe is true. That you don't understand it is no reflection on me, but rather on you.

Peace,
Z1

Don't be a bitch.

your belief is as valid as believing in the tooth fairy.

come up with some concrete proof,

or anything that hasn't already been explained through how this dream world we believe to be real works.

it's a fascinating idea, i'll give you that,

So let me tell you ,, you should start pondering ideas of how the "physical world" this machine is in works, come on you little philosophist , run along

that's the next feat, now that you say you've figured out everything.

we're all counting on you

[grimmvizard]

Ok.

So you say you're not real.
simulation, not even a soul.

you believe it, so you should abide by it.
you don't matter and your insignificant,

I believe in the dream world we believe to be real,
in which we are the universe, mine has love at the core of its purpose.


So my question is, why are you still breathing and humiliating yourself,( come on don't back down now, i was havin fun )
nothing should matter to you since there isn't any purpose of you.

so you're awareness should be annoying to you, therefore you should end it./

hence taking a 9 to your head

[zero1]

Don't be a bitch.

your belief is as valid as believing in the tooth fairy.

come up with some concrete proof,

or anything that hasn't already been explained through how this dream world we believe to be real works.

it's a fascinating idea, i'll give you that,

So let me tell you ,, you should start pondering ideas of how the "physical world" this machine is in works, come on you little philosophist , run along

that's the next feat, now that you say you've figured out everything.

we're all counting on you

No one is counting on me, really; and your contempt is distasteful and unwarranted. I have done you no harm. I also owe you nothing, not least explanations.

I leave you to whatever belief makes you happy.

Goodbye.

[grimmvizard]

No one is counting on me, really; and your contempt is distasteful and unwarranted. I have done you no harm. I also owe you nothing, not least explanations.

I leave you to whatever belief makes you happy.

Goodbye.

Explain it to me mister.

you're idea lacks a goal.


don't quit now. i'm open to all ideas,

it's just sad that you fail to back up your claims with... ANything


I am Truly asking you to explain it to me.

with an open mind.

[grimmvizard]

No one is counting on me, really; and your contempt is distasteful and unwarranted. I have done you no harm. I also owe you nothing, not least explanations.

I leave you to whatever belief makes you happy.

Goodbye.

"Happy", your belief should not believe in happiness.

you're just a bunch of kilobytes aren't ya ?

[grimmvizard]

this is getting ridiculous..

the people who created this machine, were conscious ,

you can't create consciousness , I don't care what kind of computer it is.

computers do what we tell them,

as for the Ancester simulation, that would require time travel .

time doesn't exist anywhere

so where exactly is the past, it's in the memory of that which perceived it.

so if we're an ancester simulation, this machine would actually have to tap into the Real Actual universe.

I've seen one of your posts, you're stressing over some code and shit

we -- make the code.

[grimmvizard]

And this.

No matter what.

we're all ultimately part of the universe.

whether it is an "electron" flowing through a wire in your "machine"

no one can deny that.


I admire your will to figure out the fabric of existence.


as much intelligence you have, is that much wisdom that you lack.

the answer the the most complicated question isn't complicated at all -



;) And also , sorry for coming off as rude.

[zero1]

;) And also , sorry for coming off as rude.

That's OK, your last three posts actually made a lot of sense.

Here is my theory in its (main) parts, though slightly devoid of some details:

Hypothesis (http://http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23576)

It's in the Matrix/Nature of Reality forum. Sorry if the link doesn't work, it's a problem I can't seem to get rid of @ the moment...

[limelady]

Zero1's link is not quite right.

Here it is again: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23576

[farros]

philosophy is for those to weak to meditate.

[talkingchimp]

Ladies & Gentlemen!:

Put me down in the, 'This is Bullshit', column. I would give odds at something like, 0.00000000000001 maybe %.

Examine the 'Entirety' of all Materiel and Programs in 'play' on this planet alone, ignore for the moment the rest of the Universe. The overall complexity is mind boggling. From the Molten Core of the Earth, to the Bio-Chemistry of the Human Eye, astonishing complexity and infinite 'variables'

By now, my position of ' Design by Creative Intelligence', by a Super-Being named Yahweh and His Plan for Humans is no 'secret. In the thread I have presented Yahwehs Plan to 'cultivate' Humanbeings from our current Anthropomorphic state to Supra-Anthropomorphic state.

I honestly feel, this is 'Man exalting Man', the 'Clay' on the potters wheel, telling the potter 'this is what I think'.

Colour me skepticle X infinity!: Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

biggest load of bullshit ive read so far.

[zero1]

philosophy is for those to weak to meditate.

I understand why you say that, it's a valid POV for someone who distains circular logic and unproductive and excessive mentation, but I do both. :)

Philosophy & Meditation = Strong! :cool:

[zero1]

Zero1's link is not quite right.

Here it is again: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23576

Thank you, LimeLady! :) :cool:

[kblood]

There is the theory that all of creation spawned from one conciousness, and we are all fractals of this conciousness in different ways. Which could explain why we are all, and everything is connected.

So since every conciousness is part of this greater conciousness, then for us to fractalise conciousness should also be possible. By fractalise I mean making a new kind of conciousness, simulating as much as possible how our own conciousness works.

I have already made several posts about AI and that it is not impossible. The trick is that AI able to be self aware or have its own conciousness, needs to evolve itself. It isnt something you just write 666666 lines of code for and then its just there and done. It would have to write its own code, and our current technology lvl still cant make that fast enough. Our official level of technology anyway, it seems most our technological breakthroughs are hidden, especially since some of the major breakthroughs probably has too much of an impact on our world today.

[farros]

I understand why you say that, it's a valid POV for someone who distains circular logic and unproductive and excessive mentation, but I do both. :)

Philosophy & Meditation = Strong! :cool:

I get you, but the concepts which philosophy tries to understand cant be grasped by the intellect, which the act of philosophising stems from. Only in a higher state of consciousness can we comprehend the wider reality. Its the fact that most 'truth seeking philosophers' wont even look at or consider yoga/meditation or even psychadelics as a means to get answers to the questions they have..

[zero1]

I get you, but the concepts which philosophy tries to understand cant be grasped by the intellect, which the act of philosophising stems from. Only in a higher state of consciousness can we comprehend the wider reality. Its the fact that most 'truth seeking philosophers' wont even look at or consider yoga/meditation or even psychadelics as a means to get answers to the questions they have..

I hear you. Agree. Intellect must be balanced by Intuition, experience of changing mindstates, even entheogens if necessary. Ultimately, I believe it's about reaching that place beyond nothing and everything. :)