a) the point was that nature is running simulations through DNA instructions.
In what way do the series of operations that DNA takes part in constitute a simulation?
In what way do you propose to fashion simulations, if not by a method of duplication.
c) we can simulate realistic behavior in a computer game. But how do you simulate a physical object to any degree of molecular detail?
Bostrom argues that it doesn’t have to be to any degree of molecular detail.
But things behave in accordance with their molecular structure. Making 2 sticks walk across a screen does in no way simulate a person walking.
e) how does one make a simulation interact with reality?
The simulated individuals reside in a simulated world, they do not interact with our world.
A self contained virtual reality simulating what? Can you simulate sentience or gravity? Does a simulated object have mass? How does it acquire its mass if not from actual physical properties? How does an object acquire physical properties if not from its moleculat and atomic structure.
IMO, any simulation of reality (as we know it) could only be of a metaphysical nature, not subject to physical law.
f) Would you classify AI as a simulation of human intelligence?
Does that AI have the characteristics of a human intelligence? If not then no.
Then what does it simulate?
b) I submit that it is impossible to simulate the life experienes of a real person. Any other simulation is story telling (the events and characters are fictitional and are not based on actual events.
Bostrom isn’t saying that simulations of real (as in you and me) people would be run. If you mean, in a more general way, that it is impossible to simulate a conscious individual then this is mere assertion about what you think consciousness is, it doesn’t stand as a valid argument against the idea of substrate independence.
Yep, substrate. The devil lies in the details. Without details (atomic/molecular structure) which govern how a virtual world would evolve, how can we call it simulation of persons or civilizations. We don’t even know what consciousness and how causality functions, but without these details you cannot simulate a reality, even if it is virtual. Even a virtual reality must function in accordance with natural universal laws. If not it is merely a superficial approximation of a simulated artificial reality, unable to sustain itself without an external programmer or energy source. It could never function independently.
Sorry, but IMO we cannot play god and create a functioning reality independent of reality.
We can use simulations only in a very restricted way. In Cern they are simulating what happens when particles collide at near SOL speed. Just look at the apparatus and energy used to produce a few results, which we don’t even fully understand.
High energy particle physics experiments like those run at CERN do not simulate collisions, they perform them. Unless you mean what the phenomenologists do. As to whether the results are fully understood, as far as I am aware, rather disappointingly, they’ve yet to see anything beyond what is expected by the Standard Model.
There you have it.
Any simulation on a larger scale would take too much energy to even begin to create a simulated environment or person.
Qualify this please, I don’t see how the energy of the collisions at the LHC have anything to do with simulations.
The energies required to create a single simulated event (particle collision) is extremely large in our reality, but is of no significance compared to the available energies in the Universe. It is simply impossible to mine energy from a simulation. At least not if we are ignoring details like gravity, potential energy, chemical interaction which provide the energy for reality (simulated or not) to express itself in a coherent way.
Question: In a simulation where does the energy come from?
As I said before we do simulate civilizations at a given moment in time, but for a spontaneous self directed simulation how do you simulate motive and desire which are the driving forces of human interaction with each other and nature.
We run no simulations of civilizations. As to how to simulate emotional states, well that’s an open question is it not? The SA asks that we presume that it is possible to do so, you can contest this, but without certain knowledge of how emotional states arise I don’t see how such an argument can be meaningful.
Seems we run simulations of many things and events all the time. The problem is that we can ONLY pinpoint a specific moment in time as a static representation without a “life” of its own.
Otis - 07 October 2011 04:25 PM
By his own words, Bostrom is not talking about exact ancestor simulations, under that limitation the SA would be meaningless. The SA considers classes of individuals where each class/civilization satisfies some set of ill defined characteristics that makes them ‘human-like’, regardless of whether they are simulated individuals or not.
All I see is a mindless zombie sitting in a cafe, forever drinking coffee from a cup which never empties. A simulation of a person drinking coffee.
But I should like to hear a (possible) way, how the cup will physically empty, how this person digests that coffee and how the caffeine raises his bloodpressure, causing him to have a heart attack. Just an off-the-cuff simple example of the obstacles in a simulated reality.
One thing is clear. We do not live in a simulated reality, because our reality can be reduced to Planck scale. No simulation could ever attain such detail. At best a simulation of reality would be superficial and artificial. But Reality is not superficial, nor artificial, it is Physical.