connick
Junior Member
Sorry, instead of writing "axioms that forestall subsequent reasoning" I should have written "axioms that do not forestall subsequent reasoning" or something along those lines.
"Must"!? I completely disagree with that though I don't have a counter-argument that would convince you that you are wrong.Yes, but it's also possible that there is a ton of demand or even that simulations in the outside world must misrepresent arithmetic (assuming there is something equivalent).excreationist said:Yes it is possible that there is a small amount of demand....[for deceiving everyone about addition]
I was saying that I don't think the 10^57 atoms in the Sun are constantly simulated but are instead approximated. Intervening on an atomic level when people are counting circles, etc, would make things more CPU intensive.As you have alluded to before, maybe it is impossible or at the least impractical to simulate everything in minute detail. Maybe if we reach the observational boundaries of the simulation we find that numbers are truncated or rounded or there is just a big gray wall with a sign that says "out of memory".
You keep on asserting that. I disagree but am unable to convince you that your belief is flawed.It's all purely speculation because, again, we can't know anything about the outside world.
Yes according to you, even having no simulation creator, no limit to resources, no causality, time, etc?The fact that we can't know means that anything could be possible, even things that might make no sense to us.
Again I have a problem with this but am unable to convince you.I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where inconsistencies in a simulation might cause strange behavior like what you describe above. I likewise imagine that, in a world where math was "broken", the beings there might not bother to engage in economics and finance.excreationist said:So you could have five objects - count them and it counts up to four. Then get half of them and count them - four. Then take those away and count the remainder - four. So 4 - 4 = 4....
It would cause a problem with economics and finance... Say there were 5 coins... when you count them you get 4. Then you give "4" (one) to one person, another "4" (one) to another, etc, until you suddenly have zero (I assume zero doesn't count to four).
I thought you said that we can't know anything about the simulation that we are in.... (i.e. simulations like our own)Well, at the outset we were talking about "a" simulation, not a specific subset of simulations that only meet certain criteria.excreationist said:I'm talking about simulations that are like the world we find ourselves in...
When a person is counting circles do you think it would involve computer functions just like that? I think neural networks are involved as a key part of how the simulation works.It shouldn't be surprising that I am insisting that arithmetic need not be consistent in a simulation. It's readily provable because we can make simulations where math is broken in exactly the ways I have already described. We can do it right now.
Here is a function that adds two numbers together:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return num1 + num2;
}
Here is a "broken" version where the result is always four:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return 4;
}
Here is another "broken" version where the result is a random integer:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return rand();
}
You could use any of these functions in a simulation.
When counting circles in a very detailed simulation (that can go down to the atomic level) addition naturally works. (counting the parts and the total) Note that people learn (or invent) the names of the numbers - they aren't programmed it by an outside programmer using functions like you mentioned.....I hope that my examples above and before will convince you of the fact that the way math works in a simulation can be purely arbitrary.
"Must"!? I completely disagree with that though I don't have a counter-argument that would convince you that you are wrong.
I was saying that I don't think the 10^57 atoms in the Sun are constantly simulated but are instead approximated. Intervening on an atomic level when people are counting circles, etc, would make things more CPU intensive.As you have alluded to before, maybe it is impossible or at the least impractical to simulate everything in minute detail. Maybe if we reach the observational boundaries of the simulation we find that numbers are truncated or rounded or there is just a big gray wall with a sign that says "out of memory".
You keep on asserting that. I disagree but am unable to convince you that your belief is flawed.It's all purely speculation because, again, we can't know anything about the outside world.
Yes according to you, even having no simulation creator, no limit to resources, no causality, time, etc?The fact that we can't know means that anything could be possible, even things that might make no sense to us.
Again I have a problem with this but am unable to convince you.I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where inconsistencies in a simulation might cause strange behavior like what you describe above. I likewise imagine that, in a world where math was "broken", the beings there might not bother to engage in economics and finance.excreationist said:So you could have five objects - count them and it counts up to four. Then get half of them and count them - four. Then take those away and count the remainder - four. So 4 - 4 = 4....
It would cause a problem with economics and finance... Say there were 5 coins... when you count them you get 4. Then you give "4" (one) to one person, another "4" (one) to another, etc, until you suddenly have zero (I assume zero doesn't count to four).
I thought you said that we can't know anything about the simulation that we are in.... (i.e. simulations like our own)Well, at the outset we were talking about "a" simulation, not a specific subset of simulations that only meet certain criteria.excreationist said:I'm talking about simulations that are like the world we find ourselves in...
When a person is counting circles do you think it would involve computer functions just like that? I think neural networks are involved as a key part of how the simulation works.It shouldn't be surprising that I am insisting that arithmetic need not be consistent in a simulation. It's readily provable because we can make simulations where math is broken in exactly the ways I have already described. We can do it right now.
Here is a function that adds two numbers together:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return num1 + num2;
}
Here is a "broken" version where the result is always four:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return 4;
}
Here is another "broken" version where the result is a random integer:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return rand();
}
You could use any of these functions in a simulation.
When counting circles in a very detailed simulation (that can go down to the atomic level) addition naturally works. (counting the parts and the total) Note that people learn (or invent) the names of the numbers - they aren't programmed it by an outside programmer using functions like you mentioned.....I hope that my examples above and before will convince you of the fact that the way math works in a simulation can be purely arbitrary.
To make it involve incorrect addition you've got to intelligently intervene a lot - by making the physical circle drawings or the perception of them change... that kind of deception would involve decoding the thought processes in everyone's brains and tweaking things across many neurons, etc.
For context, I stated:excreationist said:"Must"!? I completely disagree with that though I don't have a counter-argument that would convince you that you are wrong.
I'll start by asking, if you disagree, could you try and articulate why? Even if you can't come up with a response that definitively refutes what I've said, if you could even tell me why you feel or suspect this is wrong, it will help me understand your thinking process and your position on the subject.connick said:it's also possible that there is a ton of demand or even that simulations in the outside world must misrepresent arithmetic
With regard to the first sentence here, please see above. Regarding the second sentence, I understand why you might think that, but it is not necessarily true.excreationist said:I was saying that I don't think the 10^57 atoms in the Sun are constantly simulated but are instead approximated. Intervening on an atomic level when people are counting circles, etc., would make things more CPU intensive.
Again, if you could even give me an inkling of why you feel this way, it would go a long way towards resolving our differences in opinion.excreationist said:You keep on asserting [that we can't know anything about the outside world]. I disagree but am unable to convince you that your belief is flawed.
That's right. Why would a world outside of a simulation have to be anything at all like how it appears on the inside? If we can't know anything about it then anything is possible, really. All we would know is what we learned from inside the simulation but, in the same way Pac-man might be perplexed by the absence of points for fruit in the outer world, we might be similarly confused if our outer world didn't have any of the aforementioned entities or attributes.excreationist said:Yes according to you, even having no simulation creator, no limit to resources, no causality, time, etc.?
Spell out your problem with it and we can discuss it.excreationist said:Again I have a problem with this but am unable to convince you.
That's right. You went from talking about "a" simulation to "simulations that are like the world we find ourselves in". Those are two distinct ideas because the former could have any properties whatsoever, but the latter confines us to a subset which meet certain criteria. Of course, those criteria have been arbitrarily selected by you without any justification other than that the broader argument has been met with disagreement.excreationist said:I thought you said that we can't know anything about the simulation that we are in.... (i.e. simulations like our own]
No, I don't think it would necessarily be like that. I was just providing examples to demonstrate that a simulation could be constructed in a way such that mathematics don't work in the way we are familiar with.excreationist said:When a person is counting circles do you think it would involve computer functions just like that? I think neural networks are involved as a key part of how the simulation works.
But that's exactly what you are proposing. Your premise is that we could be in a simulation, which implies that everything, including arithmetic, is not natural, but simulated. Moreover, if we were to assume it was created (as opposed to forming out of nothing or some other exotic origin) then the way arithmetic works is indeed "programmed" by the creator. They would have decided how math works in the simulation. Their decision about how it works could match the way things work in their "real" world or it could be something totally different as suits their whims.excreationist said:When counting circles in a very detailed simulation (that can go down to the atomic level) addition naturally works. (counting the parts and the total) Note that people learn (or invent) the names of the numbers - they aren't programmed it by an outside programmer using functions like you mentioned.
As I showed before, this need not be the case. There are ways to circumvent having to tweak lots of little things. Just gloss over the act of counting and substitute a post hoc memory of the act. If you're familiar with Last Thursdayism you'll get the gist. A simulated past and an implanted memory about a past that never occurred would be indistinguishable from the perspective of the subject.excreationist said:To make it involve incorrect addition you've got to intelligently intervene a lot - by making the physical circle drawings or the perception of them change... that kind of deception would involve decoding the thought processes in everyone's brains and tweaking things across many neurons, etc.
Again, they're just examples that provide incontrovertible proof that simulations can be constructed 1) such that mathematical operations yield results that are inconsistent with math as we know it and 2) that the math within a simulation need not be consistent.excreationist said:About those addition functions:
They don't seem to explain why it is easier for humans to calculate 1000 + 1000 than 757 + 954....
Quite possibly. However, my point here was just that you can create a simulation with broken math, not that any such world behaves in a tenable way.Jarhyn said:Not to mention that it would literally break the universe. If a universe does not allow grouping things to create a grouping, specifically, of those things; or fungible exchange, many, literally nothing in that universe would make any sense. It would near-instantly fill with rand(), and then become whatever the final result of the final rand() recursion produced. That whole universe is a non-starter, quite literally.
[again, more fairly good words]
I already said I doubt that it is likely that a simulation (or the outside world) would misrepresent arithmetic - so I also disagree that it MUST misrepresent arithmetic.I'll start by asking, if you disagree, could you try and articulate why? Even if you can't come up with a response that definitively refutes what I've said, if you could even tell me why you feel or suspect this is wrong, it will help me understand your thinking process and your position on the subject.connick said:it's also possible that there is a ton of demand or even that simulations in the outside world must misrepresent arithmetic
If you are making everyone in the world think that any addition results in 4 then there is a lot of pausing.... but you don't see why I think that is a problem. Also note that each brain has a 100 billion neurons and perhaps many thousands of neurons would need to be tweaked at a time.....As a counterexample, consider that if we are in a simulation, any portion of it could be "filled in" rather than computed. That is to say, in any of our counting examples, you could just pause the simulation, execute a counting function and then backfill the memory of whoever or whatever was doing the counting...
I think asserting that there could be no causality or no simulation creator is going overboard but I can't convince you that any problem exists. And me saying that no-one that I know agrees with you would be a fallacious argument.That's right. Why would a world outside of a simulation have to be anything at all like how it appears on the inside?excreationist said:You keep on asserting [that we can't know anything about the outside world]. I disagree but am unable to convince you that your belief is flawed.
...according to you, even having no simulation creator, no limit to resources, no causality, time, etc.?
Even if it is practical to deceive everyone and make them think everything adds up to 4 it doesn't mean that there is demand for it. Though of course you disagree.....If the entire history of our universe could be simulated in a nanosecond in the outside world then it would be trivial to meddle with vastly less complex things like a few billion human brains on one measly little planet among a septillion others.
"incontrovertible proof"? That sounds like a case of complete confidence in your views:Again, they're just examples that provide incontrovertible proof that simulations can be constructed 1) such that mathematical operations yield results that are inconsistent with math as we know it and 2) that the math within a simulation need not be consistent.excreationist said:About those addition functions:
They don't seem to explain why it is easier for humans to calculate 1000 + 1000 than 757 + 954....
I think it is just a case of large-scale physics working differently to small-scale physics. (we are used to large-scale physics)....So, after making my post, I realized in point of fact that our universe actually employs some absolutely insane mechanics at a basic level.
One particle, when near other particles, may randomly become some yet different particle purely on the basis that sometimes this transmutation just .. happens....
Because there is suffering in the world? If most of the world involves philosophical zombies then suffering isn't universal.....When looking at the universe, I can't help but wonder that such a being must necessarily be a rather shitty individual.
You're right that some of what appears to take place in this universe is pretty out there. It seems like the smaller or farther away things get, the more unintuitive things become.Jarhyn said:So, after making my post, I realized in point of fact that our universe actually employs some absolutely insane mechanics at a basic level.
One particle, when near other particles, may randomly become some yet different particle purely on the basis that sometimes this transmutation just .. happens.
It is, in fact, not too dissimilar from your example as I think about it.
If we are to assume we are in a simulation, things can still be known, within that context. Namely about two things: the simulation of course has some behavior owing to it's mechanics; and that the "higher" universe is one that is capable of generating such simulation of this shape. Or in other words, "if there is a creator god, that creator god must be consistent with being a being that would create this thing, specifically."
Or, in other words, I can say things about the skill, intent, and design of the designer. When looking at the universe, I can't help but wonder that such a being must necessarily be a rather shitty individual.
You've said that you disagree, but you have not explained why you disagree. I've explained several time why questions of likelihood about the outside world are unanswerable. Do you agree that in order to assess the likelihood of something you need to know some basic facts? For instance, in order to know how likely it is that a simulation misrepresents mathematics, wouldn't you need to know about how mathematics are represented in simulations like the one under consideration?excreationist said:I already said I doubt that it is likely that a simulation (or the outside world) would misrepresent arithmetic - so I also disagree that it MUST misrepresent arithmetic.
I think that it pushes the limits of comprehension for me to suggest that even causality might be a deception and that a simulation could be creatorless (even in the broadest sense of the word "creator"). I gave these points considerable thought because my intuition wants very hard to disagree with them. However, with some detached scrutiny, I've arrived at the conclusion that the seemingly unintelligible nature of these possibilities doesn't disallow them.excreationist said:I think asserting that there could be no causality or no simulation creator is going overboard but I can't convince you that any problem exists.
It would be. Just as me saying that no-one that I know agrees with you. So what? We won't determine which position (if either) is correct by a popular vote.excreationist said:And me saying that no-one that I know agrees with you would be a fallacious argument.
And I've given the reason why I take the position I do, but I'm still seeking the reasons why you think any guesses can be made regarding what is in demand in an outside world. I don't think we can know if there is no demand or great demand for anything in the outside world. How would you know how much demand there is for a particular kind of simulation? How would you even know who or what is there to generate demand or fulfill it? How would you even know what the objects in demand (or not) are like?excreationist said:Even if it is practical to deceive everyone and make them think everything adds up to 4 it doesn't mean that there is demand for it. Though of course you disagree.
If you say it's impossible to jump over a fence, all it takes is one person to jump over it to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be done. If you say that it's impossible for a simulation to simulate mathematics in an inconsistent way, then all it takes is a single simulation which simulates mathematics in an inconsistent way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be done.excreationist said:"incontrovertible proof"? That sounds like a case of complete confidence in your views:
I disagree. If I create a simulation, everything about that simulation is under my complete control. I create the world, I create the behaviors, I have virtually unlimited power. I can dictate the outcome of anything I please. I can decide that when people attempt to count objects they just blow up or turn inside out or split into litters of kittens.excreationist said:Like I was saying to properly deceive people with addition you have to worry about them counting "physical" objects such as circles. It's not just a case of:
float addition(float num1, float num2)
{
return 4;
}
Those with high ability are only partially confident about what they know (about 60% in the graph) (because they believe that the topic is very complicated and so aren't completely sure about it - they aren't actually more knowledgeable than they think - so they aren't underestimating it). I mean I think the graph is showing that they don't have 100% knowledge in their field - but they have the highest amount of knowledge currently in their field. The bottom of the graph about knowledge goes from "low" to "high"... (not to 100% knowledge).....The Dunning-Kruger effect hypothesizes (and there has been some evidence collected to support this hypothesis) that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability. Notably, and conversely, study of this idea indicates that people with high ability tend to underestimate their own ability.
You said earlier that you don't consider yourself an authority on the topic so you aren't on the right-most part of the graph.It does not hypothesize that a high level of confidence indicates a lack of knowledge in a field.
The low knowledge region involves 100% confidence. The high knowledge has about 60% (on that graph).In fact, you can see plainly from the illustration (bear in mind that it is only an illustration for gross, explanatory purposes) that both the low knowledge and high knowledge regions are high in confidence.
Like I said you also said you're not an authority on the topic - i.e. you aren't at the right-most place on the graph.How is it that you take an expression of confidence and equate that with a lack of knowledge when that is not even what the Dunning-Kruger effect describes?
Again, that graph is an illustration, not a plot of real measurements. It's also not from the authors of the associated studies either. It also misconstrues the findings of the authors as you have done in your explanation which, apparently, is based primarily on this illustration and not the actual work of Dunning and Kruger or their critics. Further, there are compelling criticisms of the actual findings which suggest that such an effect, if it exists, may not be caused by cognitive biases in self-assessment at all.excreationist said:Those with high ability are only partially confident about what they know (about 60% in the graph) (because they believe that the topic is very complicated and so aren't completely sure about it - they aren't actually more knowledgeable than they think - so they aren't underestimating it). I mean I think the graph is showing that they don't have 100% knowledge in their field - but they have the highest amount of knowledge currently in their field. The bottom of the graph about knowledge goes from "low" to "high"... (not to 100% knowledge)
Apart from the graph being a misrepresentation of an already tenuous concept, authority and knowledge are not interchangeable. Knowledge is typically required to convincingly establish oneself as an authority, but not having or claiming authority does not indicate a lack of knowledge.excreationist said:You said earlier that you don't consider yourself an authority on the topic so you aren't on the right-most part of the graph.
To be quite candid with you, it doesn't seem like you made much of an effort to convince me of anything or attempt to justify your beliefs. I spent a lot of time reflecting on your arguments and my thoughts before writing each response. I carefully read each of your posts and attempted in good faith to address them point by point. Unfortunately, you did not afford me the same courtesy. You seem to have skimmed over a lot, failed to address cogent criticisms, despite repeated pleas in earnest, and shifted the goalposts several times.excreationist said:Anyway I hoped that I could change your mind about your belief that there could be a high demand for deceiving people about addition such as making addition always add up to 4 (even when counting physical objects). Well it seems it is impossible for me to do this. I had already given up on the other topics and now I'm also giving up on the topic of deceiving people about addition and making it add up to 4....
Also I don't want to try and justify my beliefs any further - I already have to some degree in the past and it won't affect your confidence in your beliefs.
Thanks for the video links George. I'll probably check them out over the weekend if I can find the time. Thanks also for your humorous musings on the subject of creating simulations.George S said:If I were to try to write a simulation of a whole universe I would make the laws of physics as close to real physics as it is possible to simulate. Anything continuous would need an analog component so a hybrid computer (digital and analog) would be my first choice. As quantum computing comes into its own I would hybridize a second time and have three platforms of computing power in one, so, a tri-hybrid computer which I would quickly name "Trinity."
Simulated time (as a spacetime location) is easy enough. Simulated duration would advance at every location at 1 sec/sec. Trips which leave a location (x,y,z), move through space and return to (x,y,z) take a shorter time than the duration at (x,y,z) if we properly simulate Einstein's equations. There will be (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') which cannot be distinguished because the distance is so small it is beyond the hardware capability of the digital portion. The location(s) of the electron in a bare hydrogen at the lowest energy state become a cloud of points (see ).
But, of course, if I were designing a VR simulation I might use gross macro-scale approximations to real physics. The hardest would be to add in the other senses like proprioception and others (see ),
including the feedback of weight, temperature, smell and taste of VR objects. (A block of wood feels warmer than the iron skillet at the same temp.)
We both think we're right and that the other side doesn't really understand our points.... then we might go off on tangents (e.g. my counting circles example) which just results in more and more counter-arguments which we don't accept. You are pointing out more instances of fallacious reasoning in my posts but I just suspect some of your reasoning is flawed.....I wish we could have come to some kind of meaningful conclusion here but if you want to abandon the conversation, I can't compel you to stay.
Thanks.All I can do is urge you to disabuse yourself of fallacious forms of reasoning. They are roadblocks to understanding and communication. If you ever want to resume this discussion, you know where to find me.
I wish you the best of luck.
Hi I think our possible simulation would probably use machine learning.... like in Flight Simulator 2020 (allowing it to fill the world with grass, trees and buildings, etc, based on satellite images, etc)If I were to try to write a simulation of a whole universe I would make the laws of physics as close to real physics as it is possible to simulate. Anything continuous would need an analog component so a hybrid computer (digital and analog) would be my first choice. As quantum computing comes into its own I would hybridize a second time and have three platforms of computing power in one, so, a tri-hybrid computer which I would quickly name "Trinity."
Yes that would be the case if a player was playing it like a normal video game, but it could put the player's mind on overdrive.... like in Alan Watt's 75 years in 8 hours dreams or 55 years in a couple of minutes for "Roy" (Rick and Morty)Simulated time (as a spacetime location) is easy enough. Simulated duration would advance at every location at 1 sec/sec.
The Simulation Hypothesis is essentially theism in disguise.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.
Yeah though the creator isn't eternal....The Simulation Hypothesis is essentially theism in disguise.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.
It is, from the perspective of the universe they created. Just not themselves. It also opens a big can of worms that most theists try to escape from, but like the madness-inducing tentacles of an elder god, thus will invade one's thoughts with plagues of something far worse than doubt: understanding.Yeah though the creator isn't eternal....The Simulation Hypothesis is essentially theism in disguise.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.