• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Argument from possible simulation

excreationist said:
Let's say the focus is our Sun. It has 1057 atoms. If you approximated it and used Machine Learning to help with the accuracy, you could create a plausible simulation of it with a fraction of the atoms... e.g. 1015 atoms.... plus in a simulation you could instantly change any aspect of the simulated Sun....
Click to expand...

OK. Now can you validate whether at -15 simulation will produce usable (real) as would be the -57 real thing? How would you do so? I think all you really get is a nice 'what if' game. Testing SW as I recall is a very labor intensive and time viewing monster. For instance, I understand analysis of experiments using the Hadron Collider requires trillions of 'experiments' because one need at least probabilities in the fraction of billions to one likelihoods to produce a positive result.

Scaling up isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I understand we have a time and space problem being beings that last fewer than 100 years in a world that is billions of light years in extent. Still, are you comfortable with what models suggest? I was extended as a freshman to get good results from a cannon and ball experiment when I estimated to four decimals using an 80 inch equivalent Picket slide rule. Computer back then filled rooms to provide just a few thousand words of processing power.
 
fromderinside said:
excreationist said:
Let's say the focus is our Sun. It has 1057 atoms. If you approximated it and used Machine Learning to help with the accuracy, you could create a plausible simulation of it with a fraction of the atoms... e.g. 1015 atoms.... plus in a simulation you could instantly change any aspect of the simulated Sun....
Click to expand...

OK. Now can you validate whether at -15 simulation will produce usable (real) as would be the -57 real thing?
Click to expand...
Let's say the Sun was a distant star.... I'd say that a sufficiently trained machine learning simulation would be basically indistinguishable from an emulation involving 1057 atoms.... It would involve a relatively small amount of photons (and whatever else the star emits).

If it involved our Sun it would involve a lot more emitted photons, etc, since it is a lot closer.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-second-when-looking-at-the-blue-sky-on-a-sun
How many photons enter our eyes per second when looking at the blue sky on a sunny day?​
3×1014 photons per eye per second​

I'd say that our everyday experience of the Sun wouldn't make much difference whether those photons were simulated completely faithfully or were approximated...

If the Sun were observed with a more accurate technique the "level of detail" would also increase.

How would you do so? I think all you really get is a nice 'what if' game. Testing SW as I recall is a very labor intensive and time viewing monster.
Click to expand...
The testing part seems similar to "Generative Adversarial Networks".... where the one part of the system tries to fool the other... (roughly) like this face generation system: (AI can also generate 3D video versions)

800px-Woman_1.jpg

For instance, I understand analysis of experiments using the Hadron Collider requires trillions of 'experiments' because one need at least probabilities in the fraction of billions to one likelihoods to produce a positive result.
Click to expand...
Well more simulation resources could be devoted to this experiment so that the results are more accurate.....

Scaling up isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I understand we have a time and space problem being beings that last fewer than 100 years in a world that is billions of light years in extent. Still, are you comfortable with what models suggest? I was extended as a freshman to get good results from a cannon and ball experiment when I estimated to four decimals using an 80 inch equivalent Picket slide rule. Computer back then filled rooms to provide just a few thousand words of processing power.
Click to expand...
I think simulations will use more and more machine learning though rather than traditional math.... (like Flight Simulator 2020)
 
excreationist said:
I believe in a kind of God...

More persuasive argument:
1. It's possible we're in a simulation
2. The simulation needs a creator
3. The creator could be called 'God'
Therefore there could be a God.

My personal reasoning:
1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
2. The simulation needs a creator
3. The creator could be called 'God'
Therefore it is likely there is a God.
Click to expand...

My apologies if this has already been covered — I skimmed over a few pages of the thread, but by no means read it all in depth — but in both #3s above, I have to take issue with the phrase "could be". This equally means this creator might simply be some advanced alien being. Quoting sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Such magical powers might appear to be god-like to the lesser civilization.

That said, I don't see much problem with your argument, except that it's not really very useful. Point #1 from your first list also leaves the possibility that we're not in a simulation. I'll have to check out Musk's reasoning to see if I find his argument compelling enough to suggest it's likely we're in a simulation. Some atheists such as myself take a humble approach, realizing we not only do not, but can not know everything about the universe and thus are open to the possibility of the existence of a god. Having seen no compelling arguments or evidence for such a being's existence though, we cannot believe in any. Ergo, I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I also have to remain agnostic at this time, to the idea we're in a simulation.
 
Shake said:
excreationist said:
I believe in a kind of God...

More persuasive argument:
1. It's possible we're in a simulation
2. The simulation needs a creator
3. The creator could be called 'God'
Therefore there could be a God.

My personal reasoning:
1. It is likely we're in a simulation (according to Elon Musk's reasoning)
2. The simulation needs a creator
3. The creator could be called 'God'
Therefore it is likely there is a God.
Click to expand...

My apologies if this has already been covered — I skimmed over a few pages of the thread, but by no means read it all in depth — but in both #3s above, I have to take issue with the phrase "could be". This equally means this creator might simply be some advanced alien being. Quoting sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Such magical powers might appear to be god-like to the lesser civilization.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the alien created the simulation? I think that quote refers to a being who only uses the physics of the world to do limited magic tricks. But a being who created the simulation could do just about anything including having a certain degree of omnipotence and omniscience...
That said, I don't see much problem with your argument, except that it's not really very useful.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting how video games are becoming more and more realistic leading to the predicted situation that a world like ours could be a simulation. And the short cuts used in video games can explain why the 1057 atoms in our Sun (and similar stars) don't need to be explicitly simulated....
Point #1 from your first list also leaves the possibility that we're not in a simulation.....
Click to expand...
Yes even Elon Musk believes in the possibility ("one in billions") that we aren't in a simulation.
 
excreationist said:
About "base reality".... there could be many nested levels of simulations but I think ultimately there is a mechanistic physical universe.

Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis is a possibility though I'm not a fan.

Donald Hoffman believes "consciousness is the primary reality and the physical world emerges from that".

Or base reality could start with a God....

I think all of those possibilities are compatible with the idea that we might be in a simulation....
Click to expand...

 
"This is Icelandic reporter Alf Peershon standing here at the entrance of Noah's Arc in Buckerse KY next to Area 51 NM Studio from the mockup of 'Moon Landing' with Lt. Bettermun Bettermun standing by his projector."

Sir, you claim to be the the man responsible for the latest UFFFOE report. Can you verify this video."

"Yes. I projected it from Pussy Flats in at test of the USSF's new feer system."

"So there you have it audience, confirmation the video is of an actual sky projection from GAWD Central."

"Gawd Damn!! Support your Space Force. Kill Pence!"
 
none said:
excreationist said:
About "base reality".... there could be many nested levels of simulations but I think ultimately there is a mechanistic physical universe.

Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis is a possibility though I'm not a fan.

Donald Hoffman believes "consciousness is the primary reality and the physical world emerges from that".

Or base reality could start with a God....

I think all of those possibilities are compatible with the idea that we might be in a simulation....
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

At seven seconds you can see the triangle images repeating on the left (same orientation), indicating to me we are probably in a simulation.
 
Sorry for being absent recently.

excreationist said:
What do you think of my argument that either we are aware or we are a philosophical zombie? Either we experience the sensation of qualia or we don't. Even if the qualia is wrong we would still have the sensation of awareness..... the point of this is that we can know something about our simulation... (that we are aware) (or at least I am aware, I can't prove your awareness)
Click to expand...
I think that if we assume we are not in a simulation that one's awareness (yours for you and mine for me) is undeniable, but that any other apparently aware being could be a so-called philosophical zombie. I think you'll agree with this.

What I think you might not agree with is what I've stated before, which is that if we assume we could be in a simulation, then all bets are off. Our ideas of awareness, existence, logic, etc., may be completely wrong. As I've also said before, I can't even begin to imagine what this would mean, but if everything is potentially a delusion, then even our sensation of awareness is vulnerable to doubt. I can't fathom a way in which I could feel aware but not truly be aware, but if there is some unknowable outside world, why not? Surely, my lack of imagination does not limit what could be true in an external world. Maybe logical concepts like identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle don't hold true in the outer world. Something could be and not be at the same time. Maybe the very concept of "being" doesn't have a correlate in the outer world.

Because I axiomatically reject the possibility of being in a simulation, I don't have to wonder much about what it would mean for awareness to be a delusion. Only by positing the possibility of being in a simulation (as you have done) do you open the door to doubting absolutely everything.

excreationist said:
Maybe it is flawed but so would other existence of God arguments be yet the other arguments still exist. I still think there would be a creator of the simulation - "a person or thing that brings something into existence". Or do you think a simulation can bring itself into existence? Though then it could be said that the simulation is its own creator....
Click to expand...
See above. When we accept the premise that all could be doubted, then all (from soup to nuts) can be doubted.

Here's a reversal of the question you asked that might help you see what I'm getting at:

What is impossible in an unknown and unknowable outside world?
 
connick said:
I think that if we assume we are not in a simulation that one's awareness (yours for you and mine for me) is undeniable, but that any other apparently aware being could be a so-called philosophical zombie. I think you'll agree with this.
Click to expand...
How do you know you/I would be definitely aware if this isn't a simulation? I think the answer is that we have the sensation of awareness and qualia. If we hallucinate then the contents of the awareness is a delusion but I'd still say it involves the sensation of awareness.

.....if everything is potentially a delusion, then even our sensation of awareness is vulnerable to doubt. I can't fathom a way in which I could feel aware but not truly be aware, but if there is some unknowable outside world, why not? ..... Because I axiomatically reject the possibility of being in a simulation, I don't have to wonder much about what it would mean for awareness to be a delusion. Only by positing the possibility of being in a simulation (as you have done) do you open the door to doubting absolutely everything.
Click to expand...
How can you be sure our possible non-simulation universe doesn't also involve unknowable elements (like the invisible pink unicorn) that also somehow make the sensation of awareness not real?

BTW do you think the following things would have the sensation of awareness?
- Boltzmann brain
- a brain in a vat
- a dreaming human
 
skepticalbip said:
And another question could be what does the word awareness even mean if it is posited that everything we think we are aware of doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...
Could you also answer this?

Do you think the following things would have the sensation of awareness?
- Boltzmann brain
- a brain in a vat
- a dreaming human
 
excreationist said:
skepticalbip said:
And another question could be what does the word awareness even mean if it is posited that everything we think we are aware of doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...
Could you also answer this?

Do you think the following things would have the sensation of awareness?
- Boltzmann brain
- a brain in a vat
- a dreaming human
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly answer that unless you could first explicitly define what you mean by 'awareness'. We seem to have different understandings of the word. Using the same word does not mean we are communicating if we mean different things by using that word.
 
skepticalbip said:
excreationist said:
skepticalbip said:
And another question could be what does the word awareness even mean if it is posited that everything we think we are aware of doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...
Could you also answer this?

Do you think the following things would have the sensation of awareness?
- Boltzmann brain
- a brain in a vat
- a dreaming human
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly answer that unless you could first explicitly define what you mean by 'awareness'. We seem to have different understandings of the word. Using the same word does not mean we are communicating if we mean different things by using that word.
Click to expand...
I said the sensation of awareness aka "qualia". It is the sensation of "redness" even if it is a dream where the experience isn't "real".
 
excreationist said:
skepticalbip said:
I couldn't possibly answer that unless you could first explicitly define what you mean by 'awareness'. We seem to have different understandings of the word. Using the same word does not mean we are communicating if we mean different things by using that word.
Click to expand...
I said the sensation of awareness aka "qualia". It is the sensation of "redness" even if it is a dream where the experience isn't "real".
Click to expand...
And when I use the word 'awareness' I mean sensing and understanding surroundings and events.

The basis for your 'qualia' of 'redness' is from your awareness of the external world where you became aware of 'red'. Without having experienced 'red' in that external world and remembered it, where would the concept have come from?
 
skepticalbip said:
excreationist said:
skepticalbip said:
I couldn't possibly answer that unless you could first explicitly define what you mean by 'awareness'. We seem to have different understandings of the word. Using the same word does not mean we are communicating if we mean different things by using that word.
Click to expand...
I said the sensation of awareness aka "qualia". It is the sensation of "redness" even if it is a dream where the experience isn't "real".
Click to expand...
And when I use the word 'awareness' I mean sensing and understanding surroundings and events.
Click to expand...
So according to that definition does a dreaming person have "awareness"? If not then that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sensation of awareness - which means they don't necessarily involve the external objective world that they give you the impression of...
The basis for your 'qualia' of 'redness' is from your awareness of the external world where you became aware of 'red'. Without having experienced 'red' in that external world and remembered it, where would the concept have come from?
Click to expand...
What about this thought experiment... let's say a person's experiences have been controlled so that they've never experienced the color "green" before - so they had never seen any green plants, etc. Let's say that they closed their eyes and the neurons connected to their rods were activated (so they'd see brightness) and the neurons connected to their green cones were activated. If necessary the neurons connected to their red and blue cones were inhibited.
So their rods and cones weren't detecting anything but the neurons they were connected to were activated so that they had the experience of seeing strong bright green...
This is similar to the brain in a vat concept.
I'd say this experience of green wasn't based on any former memories of sensing the green in the outside world.
 
excreationist said:
skepticalbip said:
And when I use the word 'awareness' I mean sensing and understanding surroundings and events.
Click to expand...
So according to that definition does a dreaming person have "awareness"? If not then that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sensation of awareness - which means they don't necessarily involve the external objective world that they give you the impression of...
The basis for your 'qualia' of 'redness' is from your awareness of the external world where you became aware of 'red'. Without having experienced 'red' in that external world and remembered it, where would the concept have come from?
Click to expand...
What about this thought experiment... let's say a person's experiences have been controlled so that they've never experienced the color "green" before - so they had never seen any green plants, etc. Let's say that they closed their eyes and the neurons connected to their rods were activated (so they'd see brightness) and the neurons connected to their green cones were activated. If necessary the neurons connected to their red and blue cones were inhibited.
So their rods and cones weren't detecting anything but the neurons they were connected to were activated so that they had the experience of seeing strong bright green...
This is similar to the brain in a vat concept.
I'd say this experience of green wasn't based on any former memories of sensing the green in the outside world.
Click to expand...
that person would never get laid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom