4 of 8
4
Simulation Argument
Posted: 04 October 2011 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2010-12-03
dougsmith - 04 October 2011 04:24 AM
GdB - 03 October 2011 11:28 PM
dougsmith - 03 October 2011 06:57 AM

Or to say this another way, being empirically the same isn’t being completely the same. We can distinguish theories on other grounds than empirical ones.

Sigh… As usual you are right.  blank stare

But Wittgenstein is right!

Well, I don’t think so. Deutsch is playing some crafty word games.

First, let’s just establish that nobody is a willing solipsist. Solipsism is where theories go when they are irrevocably broken; nobody inhabits that space, they only toy with it in order to make a point. Or if their theory forces them there (as I think Hume’s does if it’s taken very seriously) they will deny it to the last breath.

Second, the difference between solipsism and realism is one of metaphysical dependence and temporal priority. The realist has it that the world is both temporally and metaphysically prior to the/your mind. Indeed, your mind is either made up of physical stuff, or it supervenes upon physical stuff. There was physical stuff around long before your mind.

The solipsist must deny all this: it’s rather that the (apparently) physical stuff depends upon your mind for its existence, and that there was no (apparently) physical stuff before your mind existed.

Just a note, I think you are conflating two different types of solipsism between your two points.  Hume’s theory leads to epistemological solipsism, the idea that direct experience is the only thing one can be certain of existing.  Metaphysical solipsism, on the other hand, goes beyond that and makes the stronger claim that only direct experience exists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2011 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Mingy Jongo - 04 October 2011 01:29 PM

Just a note, I think you are conflating two different types of solipsism between your two points.  Hume’s theory leads to epistemological solipsism, the idea that direct experience is the only thing one can be certain of existing.  Metaphysical solipsism, on the other hand, goes beyond that and makes the stronger claim that only direct experience exists.

Actually, no; my point is that on Hume’s theory there is no more to metaphysics than experience. I don’t think Hume can make sense of an external object that cannot be experienced. (At least if you take seriously what he says in the Treatise about ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 05:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Interesting question:
Why should some one build an anescestor sim?
You wouldnt gain knowledge through it, like we would not gain knowledge about the pyramids if we build a sim of old egypt.
It could only be good for entertainment, but would this be ethicaly correct?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

That’s a good point. Is it even possible to build an ancestor sim? Presumably the ancestor sim would have to have the same laws of physics as the “real” universe for it to be useful (if it had different laws, wouldn’t it diverge rather quickly from the expected behavior?). But simulating our universe within our universe, even using the most efficient computer possible, would still require a computer that’s many times larger than the universe, or otherwise we would have a simulation that runs (much much much) slower than real-time. Or we would only be able to simulate a portion of the universe, which may work fine until the simulated ancestors start looking at the edges of the universe and start deviating from their expected behavior.

Also, how do you deal with the randomness of quantum mechanics? You would have a butterfly effect at all times.

I suppose we could still be an artificial life simulation from a parent universe, though, so the argument still stands (although could you really assign a probability to it?).

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

In a sense is that not what paleontologists do? They reconstruct (sim) the scene and the environment as it would most likely appear at that time. Of course it will always be an educated guess.

A perfect universal sim from macro to Planck scale could be constructed from fractals (memory allowing).

[ Edited: 05 October 2011 03:47 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
domokato - 05 October 2011 10:16 AM

That’s a good point. Is it even possible to build an ancestor sim? Presumably the ancestor sim would have to have the same laws of physics as the “real” universe for it to be useful (if it had different laws, wouldn’t it diverge rather quickly from the expected behavior?). But simulating our universe within our universe, even using the most efficient computer possible, would still require a computer that’s many times larger than the universe, or otherwise we would have a simulation that runs (much much much) slower than real-time. Or we would only be able to simulate a portion of the universe, which may work fine until the simulated ancestors start looking at the edges of the universe and start deviating from their expected behavior.

Also, how do you deal with the randomness of quantum mechanics? You would have a butterfly effect at all times.

Questions
a) Is quantum random or is it our inability to make precise predictions?
b) Would any randomness at quantum have a “butterfly” effect or is it absorbed in the greater flow of spacetime. Would the behavior of a single H2O molecule have any effect on the flow of the river or would the disturbance remain local?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Write4U - 05 October 2011 03:46 PM

Questions
a) Is quantum random or is it our inability to make precise predictions?

According to wikipedia, it is either random or the apparent randomness is caused by non-local interaction (i.e. information travelling faster than light, which is a no no).[1]

b) Would any randomness at quantum have a “butterfly” effect or is it absorbed in the greater flow of spacetime. Would the behavior of a single H2O molecule have any effect on the flow of the river or would the disturbance remain local?

Well, wouldn’t this disturbance be everywhere, in every atom, in every second?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23
Write4U - 05 October 2011 03:35 PM

In a sense is that not what paleontologists do? They reconstruct (sim) the scene and the environment as it would most likely appear at that time. Of course it will always be an educated guess.

A perfect universal sim from macro to Planck scale could be constructed from fractals (memory allowing).

You mean it is all the same, just “instances” of the same thing, like electrons, protons etc.?
But this would consume memory too, it only saves you work.


Another Question: What could be said about such sims and the Bekenstein bound?

[ Edited: 05 October 2011 04:43 PM by Alexander80 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Alexander80 - 05 October 2011 04:36 PM
Write4U - 05 October 2011 03:35 PM

In a sense is that not what paleontologists do? They reconstruct (sim) the scene and the environment as it would most likely appear at that time. Of course it will always be an educated guess.

A perfect universal sim from macro to Planck scale could be constructed from fractals (memory allowing).

You mean it is all the same, just “instances” of the same thing, like electrons, protons etc.?
But this would consume memory too, it only saves you work.

I was referring to this:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/research/research.html


Another Question: What could be said about such sims and the Bekenstein bound?

This is way beyond me, but does this address spacetime geometry?
Seems that Bekenstein is addressing limitations in amount and propagation of information. I have always thought that manifestation in reality itself is restricted by the time it takes for the quantum. IMO. reality cannot physically manifest itself at FTL (event horizon).

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Write4U - 05 October 2011 05:50 PM
Alexander80 - 05 October 2011 04:36 PM
Write4U - 05 October 2011 03:35 PM

In a sense is that not what paleontologists do? They reconstruct (sim) the scene and the environment as it would most likely appear at that time. Of course it will always be an educated guess.

A perfect universal sim from macro to Planck scale could be constructed from fractals (memory allowing).

You mean it is all the same, just “instances” of the same thing, like electrons, protons etc.?
But this would consume memory too, it only saves you work.

I was referring to this:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~loll/Web/research/research.html

I searched for “fractal” and found nothing. I don’t think fractals would help. The universe doesn’t seem to be inherently fractal. Rather, fractals seem to be an emergent property of the universe.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
domokato - 05 October 2011 04:29 PM
Write4U - 05 October 2011 03:46 PM

Questions
a) Is quantum random or is it our inability to make precise predictions?

According to wikipedia, it is either random or the apparent randomness is caused by non-local interaction (i.e. information travelling faster than light, which is a no no).[1]

b) Would any randomness at quantum have a “butterfly” effect or is it absorbed in the greater flow of spacetime. Would the behavior of a single H2O molecule have any effect on the flow of the river or would the disturbance remain local?

Well, wouldn’t this disturbance be everywhere, in every atom, in every second?

Random functions in all atoms everywhere? 
But it is called “uncertainty” not “randomness”.  Uncertainty pertains to our ability to predict, but that does not mean the process is random. When we are at our event horizon of SOL (reality), observation become imprecise for that very reason. At the Planck scale reality itself is in flux and perhaps it is impossible to perform both measurements of place and speed at the same time. Similar to the dual slit experiment (either particle or wave, but not both at the same time).

[ Edited: 05 October 2011 06:02 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2011 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2011-10-02

This discussion seems very quantum woo all of a sudden, I’m not sure why anyone thinks that Renate Loll’s speculative work in causal dynamical triangulations says anything about the Simulation Argument. Regarding the Bekenstein bound, it is of interest and is discussed briefly in Seth Lloyd’s paper on the limits of computation which is referenced as supporting material by Bostrom in the argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2011 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Write4U - 05 October 2011 05:59 PM

Uncertainty pertains to our ability to predict, but that does not mean the process is random.

But we must be able to predict it in order to simulate it. Is this prediction possible? Maybe Otis knows.

This discussion seems very quantum woo all of a sudden

I’m pretty sure we’re all laymen here, unless you have some expertise?  grin  Thanks for the paper, I’ll read it.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2011 05:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Otis - 05 October 2011 06:17 PM

This discussion seems very quantum woo all of a sudden, I’m not sure why anyone thinks that Renate Loll’s speculative work in causal dynamical triangulations says anything about the Simulation Argument. Regarding the Bekenstein bound, it is of interest and is discussed briefly in Seth Lloyd’s paper on the limits of computation which is referenced as supporting material by Bostrom in the argument.

Otis, at this level it is all woo. If we live in a simulated reality who is the simulator?  Sounds very much like the ID argument.
IMO we live in a structured universe, where physical events and results happen in accordance with strict mathematical and natural laws, i.e. inevitability. Aside perhaps from entropy what reason would there be for these abstractions to change in nature?

As to fractals, what more efficient way to simulate than self simulate?  Fractals can be used to simulate anything down to the Planck scale. It is a fundamental universal geometric property. There is law here. In fact if I wanted to simulate the universe I’d use fractals , just like nature.
IMO, gravity is another fundamental property of all physical things and the order (laws) this brings from chaos.

I like to try and reduce problems to their simplest form, IMO .  Structure is much less complicated than chaos. It was inevitable that structure would be formed based on the properties (restrictions) of spacetime. Spacetime is not Nothing and vice versa Nothing is not Spacetime. Spacetime is inevitably interwoven with physical reality and each is causal to the other. Our reality was created (caused) by the BB and if you wanted to create a simulation of the universe, you’d have to create a BB, but I doubt that such chaos could be simulated on a cosmic scale, which breaks the line of causality.
However, after this instant of chaos, natural laws governing the interaction of the physical in spacetime restricted the chaotic expansion and began to bring order and a lot of self simulation at all levels and logically explainable by what we know today from the evidence. Repetitive self simulation seems to be a fundamental property of the universe, as close and far as we can see, it is efficient (Ockham). In that respect we do live in a simulation, each instant in time is an ever so slightly change in the self simulation.

There is simply no reason to believe that we could be living in a simulation. Though I like the idea of a possible metaphysical “holography”. How that compares to simulation I have no idea.

[ Edited: 06 October 2011 05:39 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2011 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

“Regarding the Bekenstein bound, it is of interest and is discussed briefly in Seth Lloyd’s paper on the limits of computation which is referenced as supporting material by Bostrom in the argument.”

Supporting?
Doesnt it show the opposite?


But what could be said about the continuity of the consciousness of such simulated beings?
Dont they lose continuity if they are moved around on the RAM for example, they wouldnt have their own substrate, would change the substrate very often and would experience Death very often, right?
And wouldnt a sim produce much more Information for every particle than there is in reality, no matter if copied or in form of instances of the original?
Wouldnt this produce too much Data for a realtime sim?

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 8
4