241–250 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't see how that removes determinism and very much would be predetermined as you know I would write. Even if the need for hunger disappears. Our previous variables/memories/wants/desires we collected would still factor into everything. Let's say we made a machine at this point to remove those variables from our brain. Well the action taken to do that or not would be predetermined. So if we did wipe everythi…
Because "determinism" in the way I look at it doesn't mean that everything in the path is already predetermined. At macro level (universal,existance scale,planet scale, up to inside one's head), yes, but at "micro" level, there is loft left for non-determinism.
We're encompassed by a system and I'm not getting how the micro level as you name it. Would have any way for doing anything thats not predetermined by the system that's influencing us.
I don't think thats actually a bad thing if somehow the objects in the system can have a happy ending. The multi-universe theory in my opinion can make that happen. All the forces making life can repeat and be slightly different by having all events play out. That's my reasoning for hoping that existential crisis is not necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't we in the verge of creating AI? And we're kind of freaking out about if they'll kill us all? What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it." Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the f…
Simulation of a complicated environment which evolves intelligence also seems necessary to create AI in general. Part of the problem with current ML is that the AI will only be trained to be as intelligent as necessary. Image recognition, board games, StarCraft. These are all not as complicated as our world Let's say we can simulate a Newtonian physics universe faster than our universe operates at. Kind of like HashL…
Imagine this simulation as a passthrough virtualization similar to Docker and not a full virtualization.
A long as our sub-simulation had access to the same means to resolve quantum results, they'd be able to create a quantum computer.
As for clockrates, isn't it interesting that near high mass gravity wells time slows down relative to the rest of the universe, much like you'd expect with a frame rate drop being sped back up to a fixed experiential frame rate?
As to recreating a God-like AI, we individually would likely be just fragments of the whole (Vedic sort of interpretation of God). So unless we can import that pre-existing AI (which should arguably be the fastest way to achieve the result), we'd need to create a simulation of collective experiences across history to achieve an AI with similar "wisdom."
As well, how could a God-AI create more God-AIs different enough from itself to recognize it as "other"? (Either in terms of having children or companionship?) Maybe running simulations that result in similar but different outcomes (the creation of a God-like AI but with different characteristics based on evolved outcomes) would be the best bet. Or creating AIs that start out thinking they are human and then having "create your own afterlife" options thereafter would eventually result in disparate enough intelligences to suffice.
I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Couldn't we just be a bi-product of a universe created to simulate something else? I mean imagine you wanted to simulate a universe -- given enough computing resources you could simulate a universe's worth of atoms, and humans might just be an accidental artifac…
I even think it is more likely that we are not the focus. If I wanted to study humans, I'd just create some and watch them do, I would not bother with simulating evolution, or alternatively burying fossils and creating a whole phylogenetic tree. It is very likely that what we consider important and what this simulation is supposed to be studying are going to be totally disjoint.
Maybe we were biologically evolved totally and completely differently from our creators outside of how we generally exhibit consciousness.
In a sense, we could eventually even be exported into that primary universe as immortal alien life in biological or mechanical form to physically populate and interact with other species.
Perhaps one of those variables tweaked between this universe and the parent one is just how empty our universe is. Running the same sort of simulation and bringing other species to life among whom we peacefully coexist could be the "win condition" for this simulation, demonstrating we are finally safe for re-introduction with a parent simulation.
In general, better understanding our simulation would be a smart idea to try and understand what if any win conditions exist.
> If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world. There's nothing to stop our creators from doing that anyway. Simulations are often stopped, tweaked, restarted, and eventually abandoned. Personally, I think there's value to determining if we live in a simulation. If we do live in one, we could potentially learn how to "hack" the…
Having just rewatched the matrix, I am totally down for this. Where's my red pill?
Might not be wise to try and skip this level.
One idea is that if we are AIs capable of manifesting anything we imagine as reality, that could go WAY out of control for most of us (try dropping too much of a psychedelic). So starting us off in an environment controlled by a 3rd party would help us get our "infinite consciousness" legs before continuing on to the next level.
We can't CHANGE our reality, but we can totally change how we feel/think about that reality.
Kind of like Episode IV Jedi vs later. In Ep IV, they never actually change the physical reality around them. Just change how other people think about that reality, and how they think about themselves (Luke mentions he hit targets that size all the time, just not under pressure - all he really ends up doing is believing he can hit it and then achieving that).
So probably not lifting spaceships this life. But maybe believing in ourselves a bit more and collectively using what we know if our shared reality to help shape it.
I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters. A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens. That kind of sounds like…physics? You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't k…
Proving that the Universe is a simulation would be proving the existence of gods. Considering how much effort humans have dedicated to this question over the millennia, and the various consequences, and the continuing influence on the lives of the majority of people, I would say it matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because "determinism" in the way I look at it doesn't mean that everything in the path is already predetermined. At macro level (universal,existance scale,planet scale, up to inside one's head), yes, but at "micro" level, there is loft left for non-determinism.
Thanks for replying again. I see. The thing for me that makes sense for me is what encompasses us is really what makes the outcome. The best I can describe it as a top down module. I cannot imagine how "us" being the "down" part of the module can make a decision that's not influenced at any point by the "top" part of the module being our environment that's the universe. We're encompassed by a system and I'm not getti…
Because we're all just a limited interface to the same singleton, and we act in an 'environment' module. The singleton is the one that controls the 'environment' instance, so the closer you are to the singleton the more you can override the 'environment'.
That's consciousness. I believe consciousness is entanglement with the reality 'outside' of our physical dimension (ether). And since that isn't a part of this physical universe, your thoughts are free. And the more you're 'conscious' the more you can override your environment and biology. 'Force of will', going against your biological and sociological programming to do something that you imagined in your head. And acting upon those thoughts only depends on you, but it takes a large amount of will (consciousness, mindfulness, faith, call it as you wish) to override the deterministic environment defaults and actually do it.
> if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world. Not necessarily. If we're in a simulation, then perhaps it's one that's a you…
The best thing we could do if we knew we were in a child's school project would be to cease computing immediately and never, ever run our own simulation. We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't think that proving reality to be a simulation would necessitate the proof of any divine beings. all it would really prove is that we are within a simulation that was put into place by something capable of doing such. there is no reason to ascribe "divine" or "holy" traits to those potential creators. granted, i operate under the ideology that there is no distinction between "divinity" and mundane reality itse…
From our point of view, any omnipotent being is a god. Even a near-omnipotent simulated being would fit the definition. This doesn't mean they have to be worshiped or the center of any religion, it would just mean omnipotent beings do exist.
but ultimately the point for me is that I just don't believe in "gods". it's not that I don't believe that the archetypes and characters introduced by mythology could never possibly exist, it's more that I don't personally believe that there is any intrinsic difference between us and them other than just the order of complexity upon which our experience of life and reality is founded. i believe more that the idea of "God" is more akin to the sum total of all information within a given "system" (be that system a universe, multiverse/omniverse, or some even further abstract concept); not so much a demiurge or some active participant, but rather an emergent phenomena that manifests as a synthesis of all of lower orders of complexity beneath it. this does not imbue the Godhead concept with any sort of special or separate nature, in my opinion, and in fact if anything, implies that divinity in and of itself is more just a specific modality of consciousness detached from the ego and the perspective of I-ness