Disappearing Santa Hat

[Matthew Ellard]

Elon Musk's "simulation theory"

Let's look what Elon Musk actually said.......
https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11...-in-simulation


"His (Elon Musk's )argument — one presumably honed in the soothing waters of many a jaccuzi — goes that the incredibly fast advancement of video game technology indicates we'll be capable of creating a fully lifelike simulation of existence in a short span of time. In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences."

"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions."

OK. Slight problems
1) You can't simulate gravity or inertia and neither are only sensory inputs.
When my simulated spaceship goes from zero to half lightspeed in two seconds, my body doesn't go splat......

[arthwollipot]

Musk was merely paraphrasing Bostrom's work of 13 years previously.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

When my simulated spaceship goes from zero to half lightspeed in two seconds, my body doesn't go splat......

The simulation's body does.

Or, if not, the simulation has different laws of physics than our world does.

[DebunkThisPls]

I know that Elon Musk didn't create the idea, I think it was Nick Bostrom, I hope I spelled that right. He basically says that once computing power gets to the point to where we can simulate an exact model of our universe, it's more likely that we are in a simulation than not.

[Thermal]

This is a lot of work to say Brain-in-aVat 2.0.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thermal

This is a lot of work to say Brain-in-aVat 2.0.

Not quite the same thing, though.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Musk was merely paraphrasing Bostrom's work of 13 years previously.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The simulation's body does. Or, if not, the simulation has different laws of physics than our world does.

Hang on. Are you saying no real humans are part of the simulation?

In that case we are jumping back to Rene Descartes "Am I a butterfly thinking I'm a human?" from about 400 years ago.

Once we claim everything in the simulation isn't real and isn't bound by any laws, then it isn't a simulation of anything, is it? It's free form anything goes.

[Matthew Ellard]

This is getting silly now.

If Debunkthisplease isn't real, but just a software script in a software game and he isn't really asking us anything, as we are just other scripted software characters, then it doesn't matter if there were Christmas hats or not in the past. It's just fictional characters following a narrative.

I think that was what Rene Descartes' point was. It's complete nonsense.

Let's ask Debunkthisplease" Do you consider yourself real or just a character in a scripted fictional narrative?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Hang on. Are you saying no real humans are part of the simulation?

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

In that case we are jumping back to Rene Descartes "Am I a butterfly thinking I'm a human?" from about 400 years ago.

Once we claim everything in the simulation isn't real and isn't bound by any laws, then it isn't a simulation of anything, is it? It's free form anything goes.

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life. Simulated people could have their own simulated lives, and never have actually existed in the real world. But the simulation is still of an Earth-like planet with Earth-like simulated people. If I am a simulation, it is not required that I have an exact analogue in the real world.

But again we're moving away from the real point of the simulation hypothesis when we speculate too much about the entities that are actually running the simulation. To the hypothesis, it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Not quite the same thing, though.

Right, hence 2.0. I never agreed that Bostrum's outnumbering simulation would follow. Why would you simulate at that scale, even if you could?

Creating a simulated universe does not create the sentient beings to live in it. That would go back to the Matrix-type connection to existing people.Too much work.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Right, hence 2.0. I never agreed that Bostrum's outnumbering simulation would follow. Why would you simulate at that scale, even if you could?

As I pointed out earlier, we do all sorts of things just to see if they are possible.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Creating a simulated universe does not create the sentient beings to live in it. That would go back to the Matrix-type connection to existing people.Too much work.

You could simulate a universe with people in it, or you could simulate a universe without people in it. It would depend on what you want to achieve with your simulation.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

As I pointed out earlier, we do all sorts of things just to see if they are possible.

You could simulate a universe with people in it, or you could simulate a universe without people in it. It would depend on what you want to achieve with your simulation.

As soon as you are simulating people, assuming you mean sentient ones, you have become God. Simulation is kind of in the rear view mirror.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thermal

As soon as you are simulating people, assuming you mean sentient ones, you have become God. Simulation is kind of in the rear view mirror.

Well, that is kind of implied by the simulation hypothesis. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or religion.

But again, speculating on the origin of the simulation and the identity of the simulators is kind of not the point of the hypothesis.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Well, that is kind of implied by the simulation hypothesis. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or religion.

But again, speculating on the origin of the simulation and the identity of the simulators is kind of not the point of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis, in broad brush, is that we/they would be able to create a simulation indistinguishable from reality, and therefore would make one who's occupants would vastly outnumber the 'real' one, making it highly likely that we are in fact in one. That's what the clickbait title builds to, in any event. And I don't think a word of it follows.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The hypothesis, in broad brush, is that we/they would be able to create a simulation indistinguishable from reality, and therefore would make one who's occupants would vastly outnumber the 'real' one, making it highly likely that we are in fact in one. That's what the clickbait title builds to, in any event. And I don't think a word of it follows.

Notice that Bostrom is a philosopher, not a scientist. It's the job of philosophers to think up scenarios like this. If we have a way of scientifically disproving it, then it will become an interesting historical note.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

Hang on. The humans in Elon Musk's Simulation theory article are real. Elon Musk is merely talking about virtual reality on real humans.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life.

Non real world software creatures individually following non real world software logic isn't a simulation of anything real is it? It is simply what it is.

Remember Conway's Game of Life from the 60's.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

If they are created software characters, in a software environment, with any rules the programmer makes, they aren't conscious. They are simply stimulus response programs.

[Thermal]

If you are playing Go in that attachment, you suck at it.

[Matthew Ellard]

I was cooking dinner and remembered that there is a movie where the humans are simulated in a simulated environment. (Even better it is by an Australian director.)

In Dark City the simulated humans are programmed never to remember that it is always night time. They can't have free thoughts because they are programmed.

That suggests to me that in a programmed simulation with programmed simulated humans I can simply program them to never think it's a simulation
Therefore the program is not simulating anything ...but is it's own thing.

Phew......and I wrote that while straight

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If you are playing Go in that attachment, you suck at it.

How rude. I'm going to delete your character program if you keep that up. You do know the next level in your current simulation game is jelly wrestling on the planet of nymphos.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

Hang on. The humans in Elon Musk's Simulation theory article are real. Elon Musk is merely talking about virtual reality on real humans.

I don't care what Elon Musk is talking about. As I said before, Musk is at best paraphrasing the original hypothesis. At worst he is bastardising it into saying things that Bostrom didn't intend.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life.

Non real world software creatures individually following non real world software logic isn't a simulation of anything real is it? It is simply what it is.

It is a simulation of a world, or a universe, either with or without simulated conscious beings. But again, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the simulation is sufficiently powerful to convince the simulated conscious beings - us - that it is real.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Remember Conway's Game of Life from the 60's.

70s. Yes, I do. It too is a simulation, to an extent.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1] It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Your definition of "simulation" is too narrow.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

If they are created software characters, in a software environment, with any rules the programmer makes, they aren't conscious. They are simply stimulus response programs.

By "they" I am referring to the creators of the simulation, not the simulated beings.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't care what Elon Musk is talking about.

OK. Elon Musk was talking about real humans in virtual reality. We are now talking about created software humans in a created software environment.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What matters is that the simulation is sufficiently powerful to convince the simulated conscious beings - us - that it is real.

Easy. The programmer writes a program line "You will always believe this simulation is real" for the software humans. End of story.

You can't pretend fictional created software humans are the same as random genetically evolving real humans. The software writer can write anything he wants.

That was the tragedy in the film "A.I." where the robot boy "had to find his mother" over thousands of years because he was programmed that way.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

OK. Elon Musk was talking about real humans in virtual reality. We are now talking about created software humans in a created software environment.

That's what I was always talking about, because I have been talking about the Simulation Hypothesis. Virtual reality is not the Simulation Hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Easy. The programmer writes a program line "You will always believe this simulation is real" for the software humans. End of story.

You can't pretend fictional created software humans are the same as random genetically evolving real humans. The software writer can write anything he wants.

...Including an entire hyper-detailed universe that contains random genetically evolving simulated humans. Remember, the premise of the hypothesis is that the computing power already exists. It is assumed that the simulation is so complex and powerful that it is indistinguishable from what we perceive to be what we call "real".

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

That was the tragedy in the film "A.I." where the robot boy "had to find his mother" over thousands of years because he was programmed that way.

Haven't seen it. But I once wrote a fantasy story in which a hero was repeatedly resurrected by a cult of necromancers so that he could continue doing their evil bidding, until one day an adventurer killed him, raised his corpse as a zombie, and ordered the zombie to avoid all contact with other beings and bury itself as deep as possible in a snowdrift.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

...Including an entire hyper-detailed universe that contains random genetically evolving simulated humans. Remember, the premise of the hypothesis is that the computing power already exists. It is assumed that the simulation is so complex and powerful that it is indistinguishable from what we perceive to be what we call "real".

But "we" real humans aren't in the software. A fake human software character written by someone is in the software and you can't have genetically evolving humans if it is software. This means I can write any command line I want for the software humans including "You will never perceive that you are just software".

Isn't this just a circular position, in that the software can't be distinguished from real, but there is no "real" to compare it to, and secondly the software can write any innate behaviour into the software humans it wants, including "you will never perceive it is software"

Weird Concepts from the Arts
"A.I." is a good movie. Stanley Kubrick started it, then died and Spielberg finished it. It is about torturing robots including programming that can never be satisfied.

As for breaking the simulation, Kurt Vonnegut, has a character going insane in Breakfast of Champions, who thinks he is the only real human and everyone else is a simulation robot. Bruce Willis and Nick Nolte costarred in a film version of the book.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

But "we" real humans aren't in the software. A fake human software character written by someone is in the software and you can't have genetically evolving humans if it is software. This means I can write any command line I want for the software humans including "You will never perceive that you are just software".

You're missing the point. The premise of the Simulation Hypothesis is that we "real" humans are the simulations. It's right there in the title of Bostrom's paper - Are you living in a computer simulation. YOU - not a simulation of you, but YOU.

Anything else you may be rambling on about is not the Simulation Hypothesis.

[Nakani]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You're missing the point. The premise of the Simulation Hypothesis is that we "real" humans are the simulations. It's right there in the title of Bostrom's paper - Are you living in a computer simulation. YOU - not a simulation of you, but YOU.

An advanced future race came to earth and found an uninhabited wasteland. They scan for evidence of past life and the artifacts of civilization. With the data collected they create a simulation.

Sound right?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Nakani

An advanced future race came to earth and found an uninhabited wasteland. They scan for evidence of past life and the artifacts of civilization. With the data collected they create a simulation.

Sound right?

The original conception is that a far future human civilisation simulates its own past. I posted the relevant quote from the paper upthread.

[Nakani]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The original conception is that a far future human civilisation simulates its own past. I posted the relevant quote from the paper upthread.

Also a possibility, I like the idea of future humans watching me better than those creepy aliens.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Anything else you may be rambling on about is not the Simulation Hypothesis.

The OP was the one discussing Elon Musk's claim concerning simulation theory. That's why I quoted Elon Musk in his article.

That Elon Musk put real humans in his claim is not my problem.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You're missing the point. The premise of the Simulation Hypothesis is that we "real" humans are the simulations.

Simulations of what? A constructed software package is not simulating anything. It is it's own thing.

I can see that Paul Davies then agrees with what I said earlier. Unless the simulation restricts perceptions (itself a give away), the constructed software humans will reach a technology which will indicate mathematically that the environment they are in is only a simulation and not real. That's why the simulation would have to be the size of the universe and will always suffer from controlled quantum events which won't make sense, mathematically.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

The OP was the one discussing Elon Musk's claim concerning simulation theory. That's why I quoted Elon Musk in his article.

That Elon Musk put real humans in his claim is not my problem.

I put Musk into his context as an unreliable reporter of the actual Simulation Hypothesis and what it says and implies.

Honestly, this is nothing new. The Simulation Hypothesis says one thing, and one thing only - that if an advanced future civilisation wanted to simulate its past, and had sufficient computing power to do so, then we must expect to be among the simulations. All sorts of people come out of the woodwork to claim that the Simulation Hypothesis says a whole pile of things that it doesn't, including Musk. There is a good deal of work in the area that is derived from the Simulation Hypothesis, but Musk isn't doing any of it.

The OP was concerned that the so-called "glitches in the Matrix" that they thought they were experiencing might have been evidence that they were a simulation. The good news is that they aren't.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Simulations of what? A constructed software package is not simulating anything. It is it's own thing.

I can see that Paul Davies then agrees with what I said earlier. Unless the simulation restricts perceptions (itself a give away), the constructed software humans will reach a technology which will indicate mathematically that the environment they are in is only a simulation and not real. That's why the simulation would have to be the size of the universe and will always suffer from controlled quantum events which won't make sense, mathematically.

*looks up from jelly wrestling with nymphos*

Black type? Glitch.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Simulations of what? A constructed software package is not simulating anything. It is it's own thing.

Simulations of actual sentient beings, of course.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

I can see that Paul Davies then agrees with what I said earlier. Unless the simulation restricts perceptions (itself a give away), the constructed software humans will reach a technology which will indicate mathematically that the environment they are in is only a simulation and not real. That's why the simulation would have to be the size of the universe and will always suffer from controlled quantum events which won't make sense, mathematically.

Yes, well, no-one said that it was an airtight scientific prediction. It is, at best, a thought experiment. Do we know for certain that in principle our mathematics would be capable of detecting that we are in a simulation? What if the Simulators, being ultra-powerful beings that build and operate computers capable of simulating an entire universe, predicted that we would be able to do that and programmed safeguards into the simulation that closed all those loopholes? That's probably how the simulation became so complex and detailed.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Simulations of actual sentient beings, of course.

I feel as though we have to go back to establish what a sentient being is, and that's where, I admit, I have weaker understanding. Roger Penrose had this argument in the Emperor's New Mind, that a human consciousness could be set out as thousands of lines of code that get prioritised through experience, innate controls and random reasons. I don't know if that is the same as a P-Zombie. However if it is true, then why can't a simulation programmer simply write that program and add a line "you can't ever see this is a simulation"?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yes, well, no-one said that it was an airtight scientific prediction. It is, at best, a thought experiment.

That's OK.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Do we know for certain that in principle our mathematics would be capable of detecting that we are in a simulation?

No, but the programmer has to establish rules, now, that won't be broken in future simulated discoveries. That suggests eventually holes should appear. I believe that is Paul Davies' counter argument.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What if the Simulators, being ultra-powerful beings that build and operate computers capable of simulating an entire universe, predicted that we would be able to do that and programmed safeguards into the simulation that closed all those loopholes? .

Well if its a simulation the programmer can change the code any time they want to hide problems. That's why my consciousness runs on Windows 10 and its updates. (cough cough)

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

I feel as though we have to go back to establish what a sentient being is, and that's where, I admit, I have weaker understanding. Roger Penrose had this argument in the Emperor's New Mind, that a human consciousness could be set out as thousands of lines of code that get prioritised through experience, innate controls and random reasons. I don't know if that is the same as a P-Zombie. However if it is true, then why can't a simulation programmer simply write that program and add a line "you can't ever see this is a simulation"?

For the purpose of the Simulation Hypothesis, the definition of a sentient being is very simple: you. You are the subject of the thought experiment. Yes, you personally - your real self.

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

No, but the programmer has to establish rules, now, that won't be broken in future simulated discoveries. That suggests eventually holes should appear. I believe that is Paul Davies' counter argument.

Well if its a simulation the programmer can change the code any time they want to hide problems. That's why my consciousness runs on Windows 10 and its updates. (cough cough)

I believe that was the whole idea behind the original "glitch in the Matrix" scene in the (fictional) movie The Matrix. The glitch occurred when the machines had to change the code to account for an anomaly in the simulation.

But again, the premise of the Simulation Hypothesis is that the simulation is indistinguishable from what we call "reality". No glitches. The only way we could know we were simulations is through reason.

[arthwollipot]

Obligatory:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dissimulation

[Mike!]

After 6 pages is there any clue who nicked the hat?

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Mike!

After 6 pages is there any clue who nicked the hat?

It was Miss Scarlet, in the living room, with the rope.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mike!

After 6 pages is there any clue who nicked the hat?

We had all the clues we needed from the prior threads. After 1 page there was no doubt about "who nicked" the hat.

[Thermal]

This thread is starting to remind me of Miracle on 34th Street