The Debate - The Simulation Argument. -------------------------------------- Usenet discusssion: NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures Subject: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Started April 15th. 2007 by me. Comments by author Greg Egan and others. THE SIMULATION ARGUMENT IN SCIENCE FICTION - AND BEYOND XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: SimonLaub.mail@gmail.com Date: 15 Apr 2007 10:10:56 -0700 Local time: Sunday. 15 Apr. 2007 19:10 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures Subject: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once in a while comes along a book with breathtaking speculation. Certainly, Marcus Chowns "Dispatches from the frontline of science" fits the description. As Brian May (Queen guitarist) says: "Marcus Chown rocks". After you have read the Marcus Chown book you certainly begin to wonder where the border between science and science fiction really is. I especially enjoy Chowns simulation speculations. Nick Bostroms simulation argument is covered over some chapters in the book (See http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/simulationarg.htm). To me this is pure Greg Egan stuff/speculations coming true -some 50 year before I had expected it. Sure, it is kind of difficult to tell whether we are living in a simulation or not - but these simulations seems to creep up on us from all sides in The Marcus Chown book - E.g. take the brilliant/ outrageous approach of the Frank Tipler resurrection scheme - at the end of time - on some infinite "end of time computer" - (see http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/neverendingdays.htm) Greg Egans simulation stuff has arrived and is now spreading - eventually we will all be convinced that we are really living in a simulation .. -Simon http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lol/1165/index.html XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Erik Max Francis Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:31:39 -0700 Local: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 02:31 NewsGroup: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond SimonLaub.m...@gmail.com wrote: > Once in a while comes along a book with breathtaking speculation. > Certainly, Marcus Chowns "Dispatches from the frontline of science" > fits the description. As Brian May (Queen guitarist) says: "Marcus > Chown rocks". > After you have read the Marcus chown book you certainly begin to > wonder where the borderline between science and science fiction really > is. I especially enjoy Chowns simulation speculations. > Nick Bostroms simulation argument is covered over some chapters in the > book > (See http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/simulationarg.htm). To > me this is pure Greg Egan stuff/speculations coming true -some 50 year > before I had expected it. > Sure, it is kind of difficult to tell whether we are living in a > simulation or not - but these simulations seems to creep up on us from > all sides in The Marcus Chown book - E.g. take the brilliant/ > outrageous approach of the Frank Tipler resurrection scheme - at the > end of time - on some infinite "end of time computer) - > (see http://home18.inet.tele.dk/silanian/Post/neverendingdays.htm) > Greg Egans simulation stuff has arrived and is now spreading - > eventually we will all be convinced that we are really living in a > simulation .. I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of merit. If you're living in a properly-designed simulation, then you'd never know it. So what you're hoping to look for is flaws in the simulation, but you have no idea what those flaws might be, or how they might manifest themselves -- or, moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might have discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to look for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that whatever universe the simulation is running in has laws even remotely similar to ours. It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy of real scientific study as speculation about whether God is real: Any "proof" you find is subject to interpretation and questionable at best. -- Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis The slaying of multitudes should be mourned with sorrow. / A victory should be celebrated with the funeral rite. -- Laotse, ca. 6th C. BC XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures From: "Greg Egan" Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:29:20 -0700 Local Time: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 04:29 Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 16, 8:31 am, Erik Max Francis wrote: [snip] > I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of merit. If > you're living in a properly-designed simulation, then you'd never know > it. So what you're hoping to look for is flaws in the simulation, but > you have no idea what those flaws might be, or how they might manifest > themselves -- or, moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might > have discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to look > for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that whatever universe > the simulation is running in has laws even remotely similar to ours. > It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy of real > scientific study as speculation about whether God is real: Any "proof" > you find is subject to interpretation and questionable at best. I agree with Erik on this 100%. I think Bostrom's arguments are logically flawed, but also (and I know this is subjective) immensely pessimistic. As I argued in another recent thread, evolution is not the kind of thing nice people inflict on anyone, and I don't believe "our" descendants would be so stupid and sadistic as to inflict what nature did to their ancestors upon a new set of beings, all over again. It becomes *slightly* more plausible if we assume that the simulators bear no relation to "us", so they're less likely to hold us in their affections, but it's still a repugnant prospect. At least Tipler wanted the simulation to be Heaven; Bostrom's vision implies that the number of deliberate simulations that include something like Auschwitz is vastly greater than the number of times this kind of thing has happened in nature XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Fra: "Michael S. Schiffer" Dato: 16 Apr 2007 03:40:55 GMT Lokalt: Ma. 16 Apr. 2007 05:40 Nyhedsgrupper: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, comp.society.futures Emne: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond "Greg Egan" wrote in news:1176690559.982598.27260@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 16, 8:31 am, Erik Max Francis wrote: > [snip] >> I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of >> merit. If you're living in a properly-designed simulation, >> then you'd never know it. So what you're hoping to look for is >> flaws in the simulation, but you have no idea what those flaws >> might be, or how they might manifest themselves -- or, >> moreover, whether or not some peculiarity you might have >> discovered is indeed a flaw at all. Even ideas about where to >> look for flaws is suspect, since you've no guarantee that >> whatever universe the simulation is running in has laws even >> remotely similar to ours. >> It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy >> of real scientific study as speculation about whether God is >> real: Any "proof" you find is subject to interpretation and >> questionable at best. > I agree with Erik on this 100%. I think Bostrom's arguments are > logically flawed, but also (and I know this is subjective) > immensely pessimistic. As I argued in another recent thread, > evolution is not the kind of thing nice people inflict on > anyone, and I don't believe "our" descendants would be so stupid > and sadistic as to inflict what nature did to their ancestors > upon a new set of beings, all over again. >... I don't find the hypothesis convincing (and agree it seems nonfalsifiable), and am treating it as a thought experiment. However, even stipulating that all those views reach consensus, consensus isn't the same as universal. Slavery is outlawed in (AFAIK) every country by now, but there are still some slaves in the world. Murder is outlawed everywhere, but there are still murders. Depending on how resource-intensive such a simulation is by the standards of the civilization in question, and how many individuals it holds, it seems possible that some might slip through the cracks even if they're viewed the way the modern West views cannibalism. If one in a billion individuals racks up as many simulated Earths as a modern serial killer does bodies in his basement before getting caught... Mike XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Greg Egan: On Apr 16, 11:40 am, "Michael S. Schiffer" wrote: [snip] > I don't find the hypothesis convincing (and agree it seems > nonfalsifiable), and am treating it as a thought experiment. > However, even stipulating that all those views reach consensus, > consensus isn't the same as universal. Slavery is outlawed in > (AFAIK) every country by now, but there are still some slaves in > the world. Murder is outlawed everywhere, but there are still > murders. Depending on how resource-intensive such a simulation is > by the standards of the civilization in question, and how many > individuals it holds, it seems possible that some might slip > through the cracks even if they're viewed the way the modern West > views cannibalism. If one in a billion individuals racks up as > many simulated Earths as a modern serial killer does bodies in his > basement before getting caught... I wouldn't dispute for a moment that there are *possible* scenarios where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying "Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like the Drake equation, there are enough free parameters in a serious treatment of this issue to make the numbers go any way you like. I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping into the argument. Simulated worlds feature in current SF and futurology for obvious cultural reasons surrounding current technology. I don't doubt that our descendants will probably always be doing *some* things that come under the general banner of "realistic-ish VR", but I suspect most will be voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching off a TV. This particular current obsession might well end up as obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep. It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly. Unless you're either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other ways to get the job done XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Damien Sullivan: Greg Egan" wrote: >where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs >me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying >"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations >are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to >be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is someone really going to bother? Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many planetary simulators in general. -xx- Damien X-) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Eivind Kjorstad: Damien Sullivan wrote: > Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us > within our universe. It's silly anyway, way into philosophy lala-land. IF you buy the argument that we're almost certainly simulated, then by the very same argument, you could argue that almost certianly, *you* are simulated, and all the rest doesn't exist, not even in the simulation. Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating an entire universe. Eivind Kjørstad XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Michael Grosberg: On Apr 16, 8:16 am, "Greg Egan" wrote: > I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping into the > argument. Simulated worlds feature in current SF and futurology for > obvious cultural reasons surrounding current technology. I don't > doubt that our descendants will probably always be doing *some* things > that come under the general banner of "realistic-ish VR", but I > suspect most will be voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching > off a TV. This particular current obsession might well end up as > obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep. That's a very good point. It reminds me of the fear of being burried alive, which was a surprisingly common concern in the 19th century. It spawned countless horror stories (Poe made quite a career out of it) and even some patents for devices that were meant to allow the not- quite-dead-yet to alert people to their situation from inside the coffin. I guess being trapped in a VR is our modern day equivalent. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DJensen writes: > "Greg Egan" wrote: > >where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs > >me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying > >"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations > >are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to > >be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like > Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us > within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer > could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is > someone really going to bother? > Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate > different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own > history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many > planetary simulators in general. DJensen: The simulated world/universe can be a fun thought experiment, but it's more 'useful' for coming up with unfalsifiable variations on the nature of the simulation. I don't think it's really worth investigating too deeply: I'm real and plugged in; I'm the only fully simulated person; humans (or a subset) are plugged in or fully simulated; only what we/I currently experience is being simulated; the whole world is fully simulated, but it ends one kilometre up and the rest is approximated... It's solipsism in high definition video with surround sound. And what's to be gained even if you could prove any of it? At some point, somewhere in the simulation's ground rules, there will be arbitrary values or a random number generator of some kind, throwing out any hope you might have for determining the nature of Real Reality or the Simulators. (In _The Algebraist_ [and perhaps other Culture books, I don't know] it's speculated that once a certain percentage of all intelligent organisms believe the universe is simulated, the simulation will end.) -- DJensen XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Erik Max Francis Organisation: Alcyone Systems Date: 16. april 2007 11:22 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond "Erik Max Francis" wrote in message news:... > Eivind Kjorstad wrote: > > > Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than > > simulating > > an entire universe. > There's Occam's razor dropping. More like Occam's guillotine, really. -- Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis Chastity the most unnatural of the sexual perversions. -- Aldous Huxley XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Michael Ash: In rec.arts.sf.science Erik Max Francis wrote: > Eivind Kjorstad wrote: > >> Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating >> an entire universe. > > There's Occam's razor dropping. More like Occam's guillotine, really. A single mind is simpler than the entire universe, and reality is simpler than simulation. Solipsism, here we come! -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Sea Wasp Damien Sullivan wrote: > "Greg Egan" wrote: > > >>where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs >>me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying >>"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations >>are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to >>be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like > > > Especially given the computational resources needed to simulate us > within our universe. Okay, so maybe a Jupiter-mass quantum computer > could simulate the Earth and what we observe of the universe, but is > someone really going to bother? > > Well, in the long term, maybe -- I could see wanting to simulate > different planets. But that doesn't mean they'd be replaying our own > history over and over again, or casually, or even having vastly many > planetary simulators in general. If the *actual* resources available to the civilization in question are a few dozen orders of magnitude greater than what *we* think is the universe, then your premise is flawed -- it's like, say, Ken Masters from Street Fighter arguing that there's no way he's part of a video game, because the entire universe he sees would require entire megabytes of data resources to simulate. If the equivalent of the simulator's PCs have the necessary resources, then it's not a problem. ObSFVideoGame (Spoiler): Spoiler ------------> Ahoy! In the video game "Star Ocean 3: To the End of Time", it turns out the main characters are ALL just AI characters in a video game run for entertainment by an exceedingly advanced civilization which is, nonetheless, basically run by human beings. The main characters are like their creators because their creators, obviously, would like to play games with characters that ARE like them. Just as I play human beings in my own RPGs, and assume human or humanlike characters throughout the world. -- Sea Wasp Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From James A. Donald On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:50:26 -0400, Sea Wasp wrote: > If the *actual* resources available to the > civilization in question are a few dozen orders of > magnitude greater than what *we* think is the > universe, then your premise is flawed Indeed, simulations are almost always run smaller than the original - a chinese garden simulates a wilderness, World of Warcraft simulates a universe in which you can walk from one end of the universe to the other in a few hours. Even if the main point of the simulation is to tell us something about the real world, you usually want to isolate a single point of interest concerning the real world. If we were producing a simulation of the real world, occupied by AI NPCs, the main town would likely have half a dozen shops, and an inn in which you will likely meet every significant character sooner or later, and you could circumnavigate the planet in an afternoon stroll. If we wanted to simulate ancient greece, the three hundred Spartans would become the seven spartans, and they would constitute a good third of the entire Spartan army, and Sparta something like a third of the population of Greece, and Greece would have the great majority of all fully simulated or fully scripted NPCs, and a sizable fraction of all PCs. It would be a thirty minute run from Sparta to Athens. The battle of Thermopylae would pit seven spartans and two dozen Greek bit players against four or five hundred persian bit players, with one fully realized Xerxes, and a couple of fully realized minions of Xerxes. A single farm would be the size of a modern suburban house, and would be capable of supporting several townsmen. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Mart Atwood: Eivind Kjorstad writes: > > Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating > an entire universe. ObSF: "A Colder War" XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Gene Ward Smith On Apr 15, 10:16 pm, "Greg Egan" wrote: > It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly. It's also not known to be possible, a fact people keep forgetting about such questions XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From : James Killian: Eivind Kjorstad wrote:: > Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating > an entire universe. Some of the stories in Lem's _Star Diaries_ use this idea. In one, an inventor runs a set of simulated minds. In another (_Dr. Diagoras_), there's a simulated mind (a clone of the guy from the first story, IIRC) running in a talking clock. -- mailto:jjk@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish, http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake] http://del.icio.us/jjk XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald Date: 16. april 2007 22:27 NewsGroups:: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond "Greg Egan" wrote: > I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping > into the argument. Simulated worlds feature in > current SF and futurology for obvious cultural reasons > surrounding current technology. I don't doubt that > our descendants will probably always be doing *some* > things that come under the general banner of > "realistic-ish VR", but I suspect most will be > voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching off > a TV. This particular current obsession might well > end up as obscure a notion as having a human slave to > be your chimney sweep. It's not just that it's evil, > in the long run it's also rather silly. Unless you're > either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other > ways to get the job done. I am pretty sure our descendants will be doing simulated worlds for entertainment and research. The simulation is more interesting, to the extent that the NPCs approximate consciousness. But it probably is an excessive waste of resources to simulate an entire civilization of several billion souls - I would expect a few important NPCs to get a full personality that reflects their particular simulated history, a rather larger number of NPCs to get a scripted personality - they are one of several standard personalities, and they are conscious only when the story line impinges on them, and the rest to be simulated by a large scale model that simulates economic forces and the like, averages over large numbers of people, rather than individual people, instantiated as zombies and scripted personalities when a PC or a more fully simulated NPC impinges on them. The world, appears in detail when a significant character approaches, and fades away into formula, stereotype, and nothingness, when he departs. The more fully simulated NPCs are programmed to overlook the more obviously discrepancies, the discrepancies that the programmers though of, and the script driven and zombie NPCs are incapable of noticing any discrepancies. And when our descendants do such simulations, simulations simulating people having a really bad time are likely to be more interesting - they will want simulations of evil people where the evil people have a real prospect of getting away with it and defeating the heroes, because in real life, (the real life of those doing the simulation) there is genuine difficulty in detecting evil, and genuine danger from evil. A simulation of Tipler's heaven is likely to be boring, and therefore unlikely to be run. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald Date: 16. april 2007 22:37 Damien Sullivan wrote: > Especially given the computational resources needed to > simulate us within our universe. Okay, so maybe a > Jupiter-mass quantum computer could simulate the Earth > and what we observe of the universe, but is someone > really going to bother? It is likely our descendants will gain control of a significant portion of the matter and energy in at least the local group of galaxies. So every moderately wealthy individual might have his own personal dyson sphere, in which case running a full simulation of humans on earth from prehistoric times to the present probably costs him as much as a session of World of Warcraft costs me. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Gene War Smith On Apr 16, 1:37 pm, James A. Donald wrote: > It is likely our descendants will gain control of a > significant portion of the matter and energy in at least > the local group of galaxies. Is there a line we can draw between Baysian probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is "likely XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald > > It is likely our descendants will gain control of a > > significant portion of the matter and energy in at > > least the local group of galaxies. "Gene Ward Smith" wrote: > Is there a line we can draw between Baysian > probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm > wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is > "likely". It is physically possible, and there does not appear to be anyone to stop us - unless of course, we are in a simulation and the simulation stops a short distance above our heads. Of course we will have to remake our biological nature, but we are already getting started on that. Because of the large distances between the starts, we will have to have either immortality or FTL - but immortality seems pretty much inevitable. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: David DeLaney OraganizatioN: Formerly U. Tenn. Knoxville/Physics Dept.; presently extremely dis Date: 17. april 2007 09:42 NewsGroup: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond James A. Donald wrote: >"Gene Ward Smith" >> Is there a line we can draw between Baysian >> probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm >> wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is >> "likely". > >It is physically possible, and there does not appear to >be anyone to stop us Disagree strongly. We are perfectly capable of stopping ourselves. (Alas.) (The assumption that we don't stop ourselves turns it into 'will physics stop us?', and since at present there don't seem to be invisible walls, if we assume we don't screw it up on our own, we'll probably get Out There, if slowly.) Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable > It is physically possible [to seize the nearby galaxies], and there does not appear to > > be anyone to stop us David DeLaney wrote: > Disagree strongly. We are perfectly capable of stopping ourselves. (Alas.) As long as we remain stuck on earth, we are quite likely to stop ourselves. If, however, some of us can get off earth and make a living out there, we are then pretty much unstoppable. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald On 16 Apr 2007 01:49:07 -0700, "DJensen" wrote: > The simulated world/universe can be a fun thought experiment, but it's > more 'useful' for coming up with unfalsifiable variations on the > nature of the simulation. I don't think it's really worth > investigating too deeply: I'm real and plugged in; I'm the only fully > simulated person; humans (or a subset) are plugged in or fully > simulated; only what we/I currently experience is being simulated; the > whole world is fully simulated, but it ends one kilometre up and the > rest is approximated... It's solipsism in high definition video with > surround sound. And what's to be gained even if you could prove any of > it? At some point, somewhere in the simulation's ground rules, there > will be arbitrary values or a random number generator of some kind, > throwing out any hope you might have for determining the nature of > Real Reality or the Simulators. If you discover flaws in the simulation, you can do magic , though this would probably result in you getting reset by a GM. If you recognize the story line, you could get to talk to one of the PCs, and he might break character and tell you about the real world, or more likely you might drop in on an out of character conversation between PCs. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Damien Sullivan Organization: Murray's Mud Minions Date: 17. april 2007 01:16 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Eivind Kjorstad wrote: >IF you buy the argument that we're almost certainly simulated, then by >the very same argument, you could argue that almost certianly, *you* are >simulated, and all the rest doesn't exist, not even in the simulation. > >Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating >an entire universe. Except that you have to provide perceptions to the simulated mind. If the simulated mind is to perceive other minds responding in appropriate ways to its actions, simulating the other minds may well be the simplest way of calculating the responses. The argument might be extensible to the environment, though less strongly so; at some point presumably heuristic filling in of detail becomes cheaper than full emulation. But, going the other direction, at some point the process you're trying to cheat on runs into Halting Problem territory, and you need to emulate. -xx- Damien X-) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: dwight.thieme@gmail.com Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 17. april 2007 03:46 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, phoe...@ofb.net (Damien Sullivan) wrote: > Eivind Kjorstad wrote: > >IF you buy the argument that we're almost certainly simulated, then by > >the very same argument, you could argue that almost certianly, *you* are > >simulated, and all the rest doesn't exist, not even in the simulation. > > >Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating > >an entire universe. > > Except that you have to provide perceptions to the simulated mind. If > the simulated mind is to perceive other minds responding in appropriate > ways to its actions, simulating the other minds may well be the simplest > way of calculating the responses. > > The argument might be extensible to the environment, though less > strongly so; at some point presumably heuristic filling in of detail > becomes cheaper than full emulation. But, going the other direction, at > some point the process you're trying to cheat on runs into Halting > Problem territory, and you need to emulate. Could be turtles all the way up both ways. An infinite universe is home to a computer with infinite storage capacity running a a simulation of an infinite universe in which there exists a computer . . . So, no problems with the detail work. If you don't like the ethics of the situation, consider an alternate scenario: everyone is here because they want to be, and they know full well what lies in store for them, good, bad, and indifferent. Gee, this is fun XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Eivind Kjorstad . Oraganization: NetPower AS Date: 17. april 2007 09:18 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Damien Sullivan wrote: > Eivind Kjorstad wrote: >> IF you buy the argument that we're almost certainly simulated, then by >> the very same argument, you could argue that almost certianly, *you* are >> simulated, and all the rest doesn't exist, not even in the simulation. >> >> Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating >> an entire universe. > > Except that you have to provide perceptions to the simulated mind. If > the simulated mind is to perceive other minds responding in appropriate > ways to its actions, simulating the other minds may well be the simplest > way of calculating the responses. Perhaps. But still. Simulating those parts of the universe which I interact with in sufficient detail that *I* won't notice parts missing must be much simpler than simulating *all* parts of the universe in the same detail as my mind. It does seem as if noone bothered simulating the Higgs, despite the fact that the standard model doesn't really make any sense without it. ;-) Eivind Kjørstad XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Simon Laub Date: 17. april 2007 18:52 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond "Greg Egan" wrote: >>Erik Max Francis wrote: >> I've never found these types of conjectures very worthy of merit. If >> you're living in a properly-designed simulation, then you'd never know >> it. >> It strikes me as completely unfalsifiable and about as worthy of real >> scientific study as speculation about whether God is real: Any "proof" >> you find is subject to interpretation and questionable at best. >I agree with Erik on this 100%. I think Bostrom's arguments are >logically flawed, but also (and I know this is subjective) immensely >pessimistic. As I argued in another recent thread, evolution is not >the kind of thing nice people inflict on anyone, and I don't believe >"our" descendants would be so stupid and sadistic as to inflict what >nature did to their ancestors upon a new set of beings, all over >again. It becomes *slightly* more plausible if we assume that the >simulators bear no relation to "us", so they're less likely to hold us >in their affections, but it's still a repugnant prospect. At least >Tipler wanted the simulation to be Heaven; Bostrom's vision implies >that the number of deliberate simulations that include something like >Auschwitz is vastly greater than the number of times this kind of >thing has happened in nature True, Evolution is potentially a bitch. But, well - lets assume that we want to test a theory on the early universe? And what is more natural than running a simulation. Surely, we will run such a simulation on a quantum computer in the near future. In quantum computations we are told you can't look at the processing while it is going on - this will cause decoherence, and effectively kill the computation. - So, we will have to wait for the end result ... So, until you have your end result (whatever you are looking for) - you won't know what is going on. We are also told that the qubits in our computer are logical equivalent to the particles they simulate. In the quantum world there is total breakdown between simulated and real. What then if some intermediate part of the simulation actually has livings things - including murder and horrors? We wouldn't know - because we can't look. And if we looked we might not understand that we were indeed looking at such horrible things? Our focus is that "end result of the quantum simulation" a billions years later. I don't think you have to look very far for someone wanting some sort of end result and being perfectly willing to let someone else pay the price. Empathy for unknown stuff in your simulation ? Come on? :-) Michael S. Schiffer wrote: > I don't find the hypothesis convincing (and agree it seems > nonfalsifiable), and am treating it as a thought experiment. Surely, the universe is computing away. All the little virtual particles pop up from the void and are given as input to physical laws - whichs computes a new state. The universe is one giant quantum computer. So there is computation all over the place. To call it a simulation is then a matter of words? You really only need a mapping from the protons and electrons in our universe to what they represent outside. And then someone out there in 5 + dimensional brane world to understand the mapping? Obviously the simulation will always look real to the ones in it, unless you have signs popping up in midair saying "YOU ARE IN A SIMULATION". Greg Egan wrote: >I wouldn't dispute for a moment that there are *possible* scenarios >where the numbers would stack up in favour of simulation. What bugs >me is when people try to push the argument to the point of saying >"Either you declare that humanity and all other advanced civilisations >are short-lived, or you must accept that we're vastly more likely to >be a simulation than the real thing". Bollocks to that. Rather like >the Drake equation, there are enough free parameters in a serious >treatment of this issue to make the numbers go any way you like. Can we really imagine that a civilisation could make a thing (a bomb, a simulation - whatever) - and then not let it go off, so to speak? Saw one CERN guy recently explaining that their collider was really safe - He couldn't see the dangers in that thing producing mini black holes, or turning all Earth into some new and unknown phase of matter. And he surely was pressing ahead with the experiment eager to get that Higgs particle .. risks, small and insignificant... Ok, maybe he was right, maybe the CERN risks are small - but in general I think things imagined becomes real even when great risks are involved. >I also think there's a strong cultural bias creeping into the >argument. Simulated worlds feature in current SF and futurology for >obvious cultural reasons surrounding current technology. I don't >doubt that our descendants will probably always be doing *some* things >that come under the general banner of "realistic-ish VR", but I >suspect most will be voluntary and as easy to step out of as switching >off a TV. :-) The better the simulations - the more connections between you and the simulated world - the more difficult it is to step out of? The harder it is for you to understand that you can actually step out of it? >This particular current obsession might well end up as >obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep. >It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly. >Unless you're either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other ways >to get the job done I see it more as - it is only now that we are beginning to understand simulations and what they really are. In the 1800hundreds Boltzmann and his friends thought gases were exiciting. We now have the S=Log W thing (or whatever it was) - on to new stuff :-) --- "DJensen" wrote in message > The simulated world/universe can be a fun thought experiment, but it's > more 'useful' for coming up with unfalsifiable variations on the > nature of the simulation. ... It's solipsism in high definition video with > surround sound. And what's to be gained even if you could prove any of > it? Finding the stop button?. Remember the Clark story, where you just have to mention all the possible names of some particular god ... The the stars stop shining - the simulation stops .. and .... Surely you want to knows the rules of the place you live in? Eivind Kjørstad wrote: >Surely, simulating a single human mind is much simpler than simulating >an entire universe Isn't that quantum physics for you? You don't know, before you make a measurement. So yes, you have one conscious thing in there - and whenever this conscious thing wants, sees, does something - things have to "collapse" into a coherent world this conscious thing can be in. Perhaps whats needs to be collapsed is such a tremendous task that you could just as well simulate the whole thing in the first place ... --------------------- Simon Simon Laub http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lol/1165/recentposts/mypostindex.html XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Greg Egan Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 18. april 2007 01:03 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.future Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 18, 12:52 am, "Simon Laub" wrote: [snip] > True, Evolution is potentially a bitch. > But, well - lets assume that we want to test a theory on the early > universe? And what is more natural than running a simulation. When we "simulate" the early universe, or other physical processes, there is always a trade-off between detail, computing resources, and the most import factor: how smart we are at computing important results without simulating boring and expensive details. (Nobody simulates an ideal gas by modelling every individual molecule separately.) When a science makes *real* progress, it is not about buying a bigger computer and doing more brute-force computing, it is about getting smarter at calculating more results by making use of insights into the nature of the problem. And even in messy fields involving mass human behaviour, simulating the players down to the level where they'd be conscious would always be vast overkill. We can glean enough about human behaviour from observations and historical records to abstract out useful higher- level rules; this is a non-trivial project, but anyone who imagines that simulating a billion people at *consciousness level* would be easier is mistaken by many orders of magnitude. > Surely, we will run such a simulation on a quantum computer in the near > future. > > In quantum computations we are told you can't look at the processing while > it is going on - this will cause decoherence, and effectively > kill the computation. - So, we will have to wait for the end result ... > > So, until you have your end result (whatever you are > looking for) - you won't know what is going on. > We are also told that the qubits in our computer are logical > equivalent to the particles they simulate. In the quantum world > there is total breakdown between simulated and real. > > What then if some intermediate part of the simulation actually > has livings things - including murder and horrors? > We wouldn't know - because we can't look. And > if we looked we might not understand that we were indeed > looking at such horrible things? > Our focus is that "end result of the quantum simulation" a billions years > later. Quantum computers are likely to give significant speedups over classical computers in only a narrow range of specialised problems, like factoring. (It has been rigorously proved that for a completely general, "unstructured" computing task, they will *not* give an exponential speedup.) The advantages of monitoring intermediate results and diverting resources to a different project if a particular program is going nowhere interesting would far outweigh any advantage of letting a quantum computer remain in a superposition. Quantum computers might turn out to be useful for simulating the exact behaviour of medium-scale quantum systems, but remember, if you want to simulate the quantum-level behaviour of a portion of the universe, your quantum computer is going to have to be bigger (with realistic technology, many, many orders of magnitude bigger) than the portion of the universe you're simulating. > Surely, the universe is computing away. All the little > virtual particles pop up from the void and are given as input > to physical laws - whichs computes a new state. The universe > is one giant quantum computer. > So there is computation all over the place. To call > it a simulation is then a matter of words? You can describe anything you like as being a computation. What this thread is arguing about is whether there is a conscious being who has deliberately arranged for this computation to take place. It might well be that future civilisations gain the ability to create pocket universes of various kinds, and to choose the laws of physics in them to some degree (e.g. Gregory Benford's _Cosm_). That is a different scenario, though, to having computer-level control over what happens in a simulation. > Can we really imagine that a civilisation could make a thing > (a bomb, a simulation - whatever) - and then not let it go off, so to speak? Numerous commentators believed that a nuclear holocaust was inevitable before the end of the 20th century. Not every foolish thing that is physically possible has to happen. > >This particular current obsession might well end up as > >obscure a notion as having a human slave to be your chimney sweep. > >It's not just that it's evil, in the long run it's also rather silly. > >Unless you're either very dumb or very nasty, you can find other ways > >to get the job done > > I see it more as - it is only now that we are beginning to understand > simulations and what they really are. In the 1800hundreds > Boltzmann and his friends thought gases were exiciting. > We now have the S=Log W thing (or whatever it was) - > on to new stuff :-) Yes, and we will figure out smarter ways to get interesting answers for most of the things we presently waste time simulating, or contemplate simulating, and then "on to new stuff". Everyone's excited about this Christmas's toys (both real and imagined), but there will be something else to obsess about long before we have the technology to do the kind of dumb, boring things that people are currently declaring to be "inevitable". XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy Date: 18. april 2007 02:55 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Greg Egan writes: > results without simulating boring and expensive details. (Nobody > simulates an ideal gas by modelling every individual molecule > separately.) I have. Mainly as an exercise in writing a physics model, but still... -- Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure me@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all. http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Simon Laub Date: 18. april 2007 14:21 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Greg Egan" wrote in message news:1176851031.262750.178900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >When a science makes *real* progress, it is not about > buying a bigger computer and doing more brute-force computing, it is > about getting smarter at calculating more results by making use of > insights into the nature of the problem. To me it seems that Science used to be - going back and forth between theory and experiment (real world) - but for various reasons simulations are coming in as ersatz for the real world. I.e. a significant part of the computing power of the best computers in the world goes into simulating nuclear bombs - as it is political incorrect to actual explode these things (now one can make do with one real explosion every 10 years to make sure the damn things ignites .. but the real weapons development is through simulations) - and you would want to simulate as close to the actual thing as possible ? > And even in messy fields involving mass human behaviour, simulating > the players down to the level where they'd be conscious would always > be vast overkill. We can glean enough about human behaviour from > observations and historical records to abstract out useful higher- > level rules; this is a non-trivial project, but anyone who imagines > that simulating a billion people at *consciousness level* would be > easier is mistaken by many orders of magnitude. Oh, this is way into Master Asimovs Psychohistory. And his prime radiant .. :-) Of course we should use Occams razor as much as possible. If stuff is of no consequence for what we want to do - away it goes, we don't want to simulate that. But sometimes the models are to simple for what we want to achieve - take communism or other political systems that had certain (to) simple models of what humans are - then they fail. What is too simple? Are parts of the human brain not really necessary for our simulation purposes? - If the simulation is about how society works, perhaps the actual thing is as algebraic compessed as it can be - you really need to simulate everything. Even though game theory -and what have you- might provide a lot of input.. If evolution is a bitch - then certainly complexity is also one (writing in 2007). And btw. how do we really imagine to make the first supercomputers? Wouldn't they be build as pretty extensive models of what we have and how people think? The super coming from the possibility of speeding the thought processes up (making it faster, not smarter) - and then connecting them to a society. Where you would interface the society. Then we are already on the road to running simulations of a lot of brains. > Quantum computers might turn out to be useful for simulating the exact > behaviour of medium-scale quantum systems, but remember, if you want > to simulate the quantum-level behaviour of a portion of the universe, > your quantum computer is going to have to be bigger (with realistic > technology, many, many orders of magnitude bigger) than the portion of > the universe you're simulating. Which seems quite challenging for now ... But if we are serious about a Jupitor sized quantum computer .... I am game for almost anything then. > You can describe anything you like as being a computation. What this > thread is arguing about is whether there is a conscious being who has > deliberately arranged for this computation to take place. I am afraid I think there is intelligence implied in computation? Somehow even the most mindless computations can end up being complex and intelligent. If we can't answer how these mindless computations got started - maybe, we might be able to answer where they will end - Giving us a why and how, Tipler style. But ok thats normally way outside Science, that doesn't like to talk about purpose and direction (for good reasons). However, you run a million simulations of this thing and they all end up in the same corner ... maybe this leads you to conclude something? Maybe you can't draw any conclusions - the simulations end up all over the place - thats a sort of conclusion as well. Maybe these vastly overkill simulations are necessary to get the insights you need to process and predict in a smarter way. To get to that new theory that would make the very extensive and complex simluations unnesessary. -Simon XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Gerry Quinn Organization: Bindweed Entertainment Software Date: 18. april 2007 15:31 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond In article <1176851031.262750.178900@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gregegan@netspace.net.au says... > On Apr 18, 12:52 am, "Simon Laub" wrote: > [snip] > > True, Evolution is potentially a bitch. > > But, well - lets assume that we want to test a theory on the early > > universe? And what is more natural than running a simulation. > > When we "simulate" the early universe, or other physical processes, > there is always a trade-off between detail, computing resources, and > the most import factor: how smart we are at computing important > results without simulating boring and expensive details. (Nobody > simulates an ideal gas by modelling every individual molecule > separately.) When a science makes *real* progress, it is not about > buying a bigger computer and doing more brute-force computing, it is > about getting smarter at calculating more results by making use of > insights into the nature of the problem. Indeed - look at the current denate on global warming, which is largely due to the fact that simulating the climate is extremely difficult and unreliable. - Gerry Quinn XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Greg Egan Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 19. april 2007 00:58 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 18, 8:21 pm, "Simon Laub" wrote: > I am afraid I think there is intelligence implied in computation? > Somehow even the most mindless computations can end up being > complex and intelligent. If we can't answer how these > mindless computations got started - maybe, we might be able to answer > where they will end - Giving us a why and how, Tipler style. But ok thats > normally way > outside Science, that doesn't like to talk about purpose and > direction (for good reasons). > However, you run a million simulations of this thing and they all > end up in the same corner ... maybe this leads you to conclude something? If we need the amount of detail you claim we need, then we're not going to be able to run a million simulations of humanity that get all the way to Tipler's Omega Point (or any other "corner") until long after we've arrived there ourselves. And if the consequences of human behaviour are *truly* incompressible -- if we can't abstract out *any* of the physical or cognitive details -- then reality is already the fastest way to compute them. Of course the real universe could be nothing like the one we're in, and we could be an idle experiment by beings that are nothing like us ... but once you start heading in that direction, you might as well just shrug and turn the whole thing into pure religion, and stop pretend that there's any scientific argument going on. Is it possible that the universe has a creator? Of course it is. Can we tell? No. Bostrom attempted to elevate this out of mere theology by talking about "ancestor simulations", and claiming that our descendants would probably do this in great numbers. The trouble is, this picture is full of holes, and when you point them out, people start taking refuge in various alternatives -- maybe it's aliens, not our descendants, maybe the real universe makes computing easier than we think, etc. -- until we're back to 100% theology, and back to the largely undisputed fact that it's *conceivable* that the universe was created. > Maybe you can't draw any conclusions - the simulations end up all > over the place - thats a sort of conclusion as well. > Maybe these vastly overkill simulations are necessary to get the insights > you need to process and predict in a smarter way. To get to that > new theory that would make the very extensive and complex simluations > unnesessary. If you string together enough "Maybes" you can contrive a scenario that starts to tip the balance. I already conceded in an earlier post that it's possible to imagine situations where the kind of simulations Bostrom posits might outnumber real versions of the same experiences. But that is a long, long way from positions that attempt to paint this scenario as close to inevitable. It's not. We're a long way from being able to assess these probabilities reliably (ironically even less so if we're not in the real universe), but all the arguments that try to stack the deck in favour of our living in a simulation are extremely flimsy, and largely driven by current cultural fashions. We've been here before, with other fashions. Descartes spent some time wondering if everything he perceived was just the Devil trying to deceive him, but his decision not to bother taking the notion seriously was the right one. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: dwight.thieme@gmail.com Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 19. april 2007 02:19 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 18, 5:58 pm, Greg Egan wrote: > On Apr 18, 8:21 pm, "Simon Laub" wrote: > > > I am afraid I think there is intelligence implied in computation? > > Somehow even the most mindless computations can end up being > > complex and intelligent. If we can't answer how these > > mindless computations got started - maybe, we might be able to answer > > where they will end - Giving us a why and how, Tipler style. But ok thats > > normally way > > outside Science, that doesn't like to talk about purpose and > > direction (for good reasons). > > However, you run a million simulations of this thing and they all > > end up in the same corner ... maybe this leads you to conclude something? > > If we need the amount of detail you claim we need, then we're not > going to be able to run a million simulations of humanity that get all > the way to Tipler's Omega Point (or any other "corner") until long > after we've arrived there ourselves. And if the consequences of human > behaviour are *truly* incompressible -- if we can't abstract out *any* > of the physical or cognitive details -- then reality is already the > fastest way to compute them. > > Of course the real universe could be nothing like the one we're in, > and we could be an idle experiment by beings that are nothing like > us ... but once you start heading in that direction, you might as well > just shrug and turn the whole thing into pure religion, and stop > pretend that there's any scientific argument going on. Is it possible > that the universe has a creator? Of course it is. Can we tell? No. > Bostrom attempted to elevate this out of mere theology by talking > about "ancestor simulations", and claiming that our descendants would > probably do this in great numbers. The trouble is, this picture is > full of holes, and when you point them out, people start taking refuge > in various alternatives -- maybe it's aliens, not our descendants, > maybe the real universe makes computing easier than we think, etc. -- > until we're back to 100% theology, and back to the largely undisputed > fact that it's *conceivable* that the universe was created. > > > Maybe you can't draw any conclusions - the simulations end up all > > over the place - thats a sort of conclusion as well. > > Maybe these vastly overkill simulations are necessary to get the insights > > you need to process and predict in a smarter way. To get to that > > new theory that would make the very extensive and complex simluations > > unnesessary. > > If you string together enough "Maybes" you can contrive a scenario > that starts to tip the balance. I already conceded in an earlier post > that it's possible to imagine situations where the kind of simulations > Bostrom posits might outnumber real versions of the same experiences. > But that is a long, long way from positions that attempt to paint this > scenario as close to inevitable. It's not. We're a long way from > being able to assess these probabilities reliably (ironically even > less so if we're not in the real universe), but all the arguments that > try to stack the deck in favour of our living in a simulation are > extremely flimsy, and largely driven by current cultural fashions. > > We've been here before, with other fashions. Descartes spent some > time wondering if everything he perceived was just the Devil trying to > deceive him, but his decision not to bother taking the notion > seriously was the right one. Well, I think that's the major point here, not whether the idea is plausible, conceivable, verifiable or not, true or not. Accept for the sake of argument that we are living in a simulation (or creation or whatever metaphorical construct that floats your boat). How does that change your day to day life? I know plenty of people who are devout Christians; I have no doubt that they sincerely believe every major tenent and minor article of their faith. How do their lives, their behaviours differ from mine? I can't peep into their interior monologues, but, outwardly, they don't appear much different from me, and certainly their behaviour isn't. So I don't think this speculation on simulations really would go anywhere either . . . even, as I said, if it is verifiably true. About the only question of interest is why these sets of rules inside the simulation rather than another set. But that line of inquiry is almost immediately neutered because they are, after all, arbitrary. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 19. april 2007 11:35 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Greg Egan: > If we need the amount of detail you claim we need, > then we're not going to be able to run a million > simulations of humanity that get all the way to > Tipler's Omega Point (or any other "corner") until > long after we've arrived there ourselves. And if the > consequences of human behaviour are *truly* > incompressible -- if we can't abstract out *any* of > the physical or cognitive details -- then reality is > already the fastest way to compute them. These days, when we simulate gas flow around a object to estimate drag, we don't model it as a fluid, but as molecules. Of course we don't simulate *every* molecule, but we simulate enough molecules, and assume the rest of the atoms do much the same sort of thing. In the end, it turned out that when the flow got complex and messy, brute force modeling it as molecules just turned out to work better than any amount of cleverness. Of course we are clever in representing a lot of molecules by a few molecules but it still back to molecules. If you want to simulate society, with the kind of resources an affluent guy in the future will possess (and affluent guys in the future will quite likely possess several jupiter size computers, which they will mainly use for word processing and video games), you will simulate it that way - simulate the important people, plus enough ordinary people and you will not run it all the way to Tipler's Omega point, but to some important event - typically to where the bad guys either decisively lose, or decisively win. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Hallvard B Furuseth Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Date: 19. april 2007 12:07 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond James A. Donald writes: > James A. Donald >> > It is likely our descendants will gain control of a >> > significant portion of the matter and energy in at >> > least the local group of galaxies. > > "Gene Ward Smith" >> Is there a line we can draw between Baysian >> probability and random assertion of opinion here? I'm >> wondering what evidence, if any, suggests this is >> "likely". > It is physically possible, and there does not appear to > be anyone to stop us - unless of course, we are in a > simulation and the simulation stops a short distance > above our heads. We might for example stop ourselves due to the economy of continuous space travel, terraforming etc. > Of course we will have to remake our > biological nature, but we are already getting started on > that. Because of the large distances between the > starts, we will have to have either immortality or FTL - > but immortality seems pretty much inevitable. If you were immortal, would you volunteer for as long a voyage as that? Just how boring a voyage would you put up with - or, how big would the space ship need to be? I'm also curious about how large portion of the matter on Earth - or even of just the biosphere - you consider us to be in control of today. Also how - and why - will we control a significant portion of the matter in the Sun? -- Regards, Hallvard XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: James A. Donald Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 19. april 2007 12:57 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond James A. Donald > > Of course we will have to remake our > > biological nature, but we are already getting started on > > that. Because of the large distances between the > > starts, we will have to have either immortality or FTL - > > but immortality seems pretty much inevitable. Hallvard B Furuseth > If you were immortal, would you volunteer for as long a > voyage as that? Like a shot. > Just how boring a voyage would you put up > with - or, how big would the space ship need to be? Coffin size would be fine. Reflect that with helium three fusion, we can reasonably do three to ten percent of the speed of light, so a trip to an interesting star system is only going to be a millenium or so - no sweat for an immortal. > I'm also curious about how large portion of the matter on > Earth - or even of just the biosphere - you consider us to > be in control of today. I would say that the average human controls about ten or twenty tons or so. To control most of the matter of the earth we have to settle space and take the earth apart to build space habitats. > Also how - and why - will we > control a significant portion of the matter in the Sun? As to how: Convert most of the planets into a near solar dyson sphere. Use it to manipulate solar magnetic fields, to lift off solar matter. Capture it, cool it, separate out the heavier atoms. Convert into the equivalent of people. As to why: I have several personal projects that require several solar masses, and I expect that many of the other 10^30 people I expect to be around by then will have similar projects. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Hallvard B Furuseth Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Date: 19. april 2007 12:12 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Sea Wasp writes: > If the *actual* resources available to the civilization in > question are a few dozen orders of magnitude greater than what *we* > think is the universe, then your premise is flawed -- it's like, say, > Ken Masters from Street Fighter arguing that there's no way he's part of > a video game, because the entire universe he sees would require entire > megabytes of data resources to simulate. If the equivalent of the > simulator's PCs have the necessary resources, then it's not a problem. You can take it further than that. How do you know that any particular aspect or resource in this universe - and the limitations associated with it - exist in the simulator universe? Maybe e.g. distance and mass are inventions to make the simulated universe interesting. -- Regards, Hallvard XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Eivind Kjorstad . Oraganization: NetPower AS Date: 19. april 2007 14:36 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Hallvard B Furuseth skreiv: > If you were immortal, would you volunteer for as long a > voyage as that? Just how boring a voyage would you put up > with - or, how big would the space ship need to be? Long life would change your perception of time. It does already. When you're 2-year old, an *hour* is forever. A *week* is a period of time so long you can't grasp it. When you're 6, a summer-holiday is forever. A *year* is hard to grasp, a *decade* is impossible. By the time you're 30, a year doesn't seem like all that much time, you routinely make and execute plans that will take several years, sometimes decades, to execute. I'm thinking, by the time you're a millenium old, a mere century won't really seem to you as such a large chunk of time. Eivind Kjørstad XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: David DeLaney . Oraganization: Formerly U. Tenn. Knoxville/Physics Dept.; presently extremely dis Date: 19. april 2007 16:56 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Eivind Kjorstad wrote: >Long life would change your perception of time. It does already. > >When you're 2-year old, an *hour* is forever. A *week* is a period of >time so long you can't grasp it. > >When you're 6, a summer-holiday is forever. A *year* is hard to grasp, a >*decade* is impossible. > >By the time you're 30, a year doesn't seem like all that much time, you >routinely make and execute plans that will take several years, sometimes >decades, to execute. > >I'm thinking, by the time you're a millenium old, a mere century won't >really seem to you as such a large chunk of time. E.E.Doc Smith did this already: "Subjective time is measured by the number of learning events experienced.". Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Damien Sullivan . Oraganization: Murray's Mud Minions Date: 19. april 2007 20:28 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> Of course we will have to remake our >> biological nature, but we are already getting started on >> that. Because of the large distances between the >> starts, we will have to have either immortality or FTL - >> but immortality seems pretty much inevitable. > >If you were immortal, would you volunteer for as long a >voyage as that? Just how boring a voyage would you put up >with - or, how big would the space ship need to be? Full control of the material basis of life and consciousness probably gives not just immortality but suspension capability, whether some baroque cryonics for Homo sapiens or an innate hibernation ability in an engineered sapient or the ability of an infomorph (AI or upload) to simply stop running. Alternatively, the laying down of long-term memories can be blocked until something interesting happens. Given these options, the interstellar voyage can take as little subjective time as you want, down to feeling like you jumped from Sol to Sirius, with 10,000 years passing in a flash. Would most people go for this? Probably not. Would some? Probably. And then there are people who commit suicide; this could be a less final version of getting the hell away from it all. Other people might be primarily interested not in other stars but in deep time, and want to cheat. Suspending yourself near civilization is asking to be molested, though; might be safer to take a jaunt out into space and come back. -xx- Damien X-) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Keith F. Lynch Date: 20. april 2007 05:28 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond James A. Donald wrote: > If you want to simulate society, with the kind of resources an > affluent guy in the future will possess (and affluent guys in the > future will quite likely possess several jupiter size computers, > which they will mainly use for word processing and video games), you > will simulate it that way - simulate the important people, plus > enough ordinary people and you will not run it all the way to > Tipler's Omega point, but to some important event - typically to > where the bad guys either decisively lose, or decisively win. Well, it's a good thing that Al Qaeda came along shortly after the USSR went away. We were nearly shut down, because of low ratings. Interesting theology. Instead of our purpose being to do good works or to worship the appropriate deity, our purpose is to *be entertaining*. The saints in this new religion are those who do the most unexpected, interesting, and shocking things, whether good or bad. Cure cancer? Great! Develop a new disease even worse than cancer? Even better! -- Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: Eivind Kjorstad Organization: NetPower AS Date: 20. april 2007 10:08 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond David DeLaney skreiv: > Eivind Kjorstad wrote: >> Long life would change your perception of time. It does already. >> When you're 2-year old, an *hour* is forever. A *week* is a period of >> time so long you can't grasp it. (...) >> I'm thinking, by the time you're a millenium old, a mere century won't >> really seem to you as such a large chunk of time. > E.E.Doc Smith did this already: "Subjective time is measured by the number of > learning events experienced.". I don't think that's it. By this token, a period in which no (or few) learning events are experienced would subjectively feel short. In actual practice though, periods of time when you are bored tend to feel *longer* than periods of time when you're actively engaged with something. The opposite also doesn't work; A kid learns experiences *more* learning in a day than an old person, nevertheless the kid considers the day *long* and the old person thinks a day ain't a large period of time at all. Eivind Kjørstad XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From: nuny@bid.nes Organization: http://groups.google.com Date: 20. april 2007 10:53 NewsGroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,comp.society.futures Subject: Re: The simulation argument in science fiction - and beyond On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" wrote: > James A. Donald wrote: > > > If you want to simulate society, with the kind of resources an > > affluent guy in the future will possess (and affluent guys in the > > future will quite likely possess several jupiter size computers, > > which they will mainly use for word processing and video games), you > > will simulate it that way - simulate the important people, plus > > enough ordinary people and you will not run it all the way to > > Tipler's Omega point, but to some important event - typically to > > where the bad guys either decisively lose, or decisively win. > > Well, it's a good thing that Al Qaeda came along shortly after the > USSR went away. We were nearly shut down, because of low ratings. > > Interesting theology. Instead of our purpose being to do good > works or to worship the appropriate deity, our purpose is to *be > entertaining*. The saints in this new religion are those who do > the most unexpected, interesting, and shocking things, whether > good or bad. Cure cancer? Great! Develop a new disease even > worse than cancer? Even better! So our audience has a short attention span and a taste for violence (the bloodier the better), improbable sequences of events, and explosions. Why does that sound familiar... Never mind. We definitely need to get off the planet and start acting out some space opera- think of the ratings! Somebody set up a casting call for Bergenholm! Mark L. Fergerson XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX