Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

frc.ri.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#41

Post by AnimalMuppet »

XorNot wrote: post #35
simonh wrote: post #31

My main problem with the simulated world argument is complexity. Take the Billiard Ball example[0]. This means to accurately simulate the universe you can't really get away with approximations. Under close enough scrutiny discrepancies in the simulation are discernible, and we can scrutinize it at the subatomic level. But to simulate the observable universe, how big would your computer need to be? How slowly would th…

We already run simulators of our universe with vastly lower resolution then reality, and they do tell us useful things about it.

Sure, but that isn't simonh's point. Those simulations aren't very good. There's nobody living in those simulations that thinks that they're alive, let alone that is capable of creating a working computer out of the material in that simulation.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#42

Post by goatlover »

sa_su_ke_75 wrote: post #38
goatlover wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the argument for living in a simulation is parasitic on being outside of a simulation. We say that we could be inside a simulation because we notice that the physical world seems to support the possibility of incredibly detailed simulations which could be indistinguishable from what we experience now. But if we're in a simulation, none of that reasoning applies. In that case, the argument is undermined.

the dream is a simulation? we create also an "avatar" of us that is completely different from us like memory and personality. But when we wakeup we understand that was a dream, and also we can wakeup inside the dream (lucid dreaming)

But the philosophical worry that we could be in a dream our entire waking lives is based on the fact that we wake up from dreams, and can therefore distinguish being awake from being in a dream.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#43

Post by sa_su_ke_75 »

XorNot wrote: post #35
simonh wrote: post #31

My main problem with the simulated world argument is complexity. Take the Billiard Ball example[0]. This means to accurately simulate the universe you can't really get away with approximations. Under close enough scrutiny discrepancies in the simulation are discernible, and we can scrutinize it at the subatomic level. But to simulate the observable universe, how big would your computer need to be? How slowly would th…

We already run simulators of our universe with vastly lower resolution then reality, and they do tell us useful things about it.

and we create the simulations with the rules of the "real world" that we know. So we can study also the interactions of the rules that we know. But not what we don't know of out universe.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#44

Post by goatlover »

naasking wrote: post #9
have_faith wrote: post #2

Morpheus from The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of provi…

> Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation. Simulations are just as real. Why wouldn't they be? What makes "natural laws enforced by reality" really any more "real" than "natural laws enforced by a simulation"?

Are simulations just as real? Or are they only culturally real? A simulation of the weather only makes sense when you have humans around to interpret the output from displays. Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. It's not even really that. It's a lot of electrons moving about. A bunch of electrons aren't a simplification of the weather. It's only because human culture has computing devices that simulations make any sort of sense.

Physical systems aren't about anything, and don't represent anything on their own. It's the entire problem of intentionality.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#45

Post by sa_su_ke_75 »

goatlover wrote: post #42
sa_su_ke_75 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the dream is a simulation? we create also an "avatar" of us that is completely different from us like memory and personality. But when we wakeup we understand that was a dream, and also we can wakeup inside the dream (lucid dreaming)

But the philosophical worry that we could be in a dream our entire waking lives is based on the fact that we wake up from dreams, and can therefore distinguish being awake from being in a dream.

Plotino in the Enneadi say that our life is a teatral rappresentations, and we (we as "souls") are actors that interpreting a role in the show of live. And we are worry for our role more that for our soul. the role is the mask and the soul is our reality.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#46

Post by [deleted] »

simonh wrote: post #31

My main problem with the simulated world argument is complexity. Take the Billiard Ball example[0]. This means to accurately simulate the universe you can't really get away with approximations. Under close enough scrutiny discrepancies in the simulation are discernible, and we can scrutinize it at the subatomic level. But to simulate the observable universe, how big would your computer need to be? How slowly would th…

[deleted]

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#47

Post by eternalban »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #40
eternalban wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me a sufficiently precise simulation would necessarily capture meaning. That is the very bone of contention here. > If meaning is critical to decision making. I don't believe it is in the general case. Our current crop of Go winning machines seem to indicate otherwise.

Within the context of Go, what meaning does the Go playing machine lack?

Within the context of Go, what meaning does the Go playing machine require?

(Entire point here was to refute -- in the general case -- the notion that "meaning is critical to decision making".)

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#48

Post by unfunco »

goatlover wrote: post #44
naasking wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't feel like there's ultimately any way out of this line of reasoning. What would it take to prove to you that you are indeed not in a simulation of some kind? as the only methods of providing proof are also parts of the simulation. Simulations are just as real. Why wouldn't they be? What makes "natural laws enforced by reality" really any more "real" than "natural laws enforced by a simulation"?

Are simulations just as real? Or are they only culturally real? A simulation of the weather only makes sense when you have humans around to interpret the output from displays. Inside the machine, it's just a lot of 1s and 0s. It's not even really that. It's a lot of electrons moving about. A bunch of electrons aren't a simplification of the weather. It's only because human culture has computing devices that simulatio…

> It's a lot of electrons moving about

The actual weather is also a lot of electrons moving about.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#49

Post by goatlover »

XorNot wrote: post #35
simonh wrote: post #31

My main problem with the simulated world argument is complexity. Take the Billiard Ball example[0]. This means to accurately simulate the universe you can't really get away with approximations. Under close enough scrutiny discrepancies in the simulation are discernible, and we can scrutinize it at the subatomic level. But to simulate the observable universe, how big would your computer need to be? How slowly would th…

We already run simulators of our universe with vastly lower resolution then reality, and they do tell us useful things about it.

We also make maps of the Earth. They tell us useful things, like how to get from point A to point B. But nobody mistakes a map of the subways in New York for riding a subway.

Re: Simulation, Consciousness, Existence (1998)

#50

Post by goatlover »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #40
eternalban wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me a sufficiently precise simulation would necessarily capture meaning. That is the very bone of contention here. > If meaning is critical to decision making. I don't believe it is in the general case. Our current crop of Go winning machines seem to indicate otherwise.

Within the context of Go, what meaning does the Go playing machine lack?

All of it. It has no idea that it's playing a board game, or even what a board game is.

That it's even playing Go is a human interpretation of what the machine is doing. Granted, we gave it that interpretation in the form of software instructions. But to the machine, it makes no difference.

Post reply on HN