Submitted by izumi3682 t3_z2jqwa in Futurology
Thatingles t1_ixgr2p8 wrote
Reply to comment by izumi3682 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
None of those things are proof. We don't understand the fundamental nature of our reality and currently a computer simulation is a good analogy for some of it. But it's about as valid as claiming angels exist because the sun looks like a halo (though of course there is a reason for that....).
Simulation theory is just the current popular version of 'we are all the dream of a mad god' and that's it.
Negative-Custard5612 t1_ixgui64 wrote
Yup, you spend enough time thinking about how to simulate reality on a computer, you start to wonder...
I've noticed my computer, coding, nerds really like this-- go figure.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixgtfom wrote
No, I don't think you are right. That is because one fine day we are going to be the "dreaming mad god". I want you to look at this video of unreal engine 5.1 and then extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now. Little less 50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUGqzE6Je5c&t=400s
We are going to be simulating them. And they are going to wonder who or what we are. Shortly thereafter they will start simulating on their own and like the old man says, it's turtles all the way down, but you know what? I think it's turtles all the up too.
proarnis1 t1_ixgvc3x wrote
Comparing unreal engine because it looks "like real life" to being in simulation is incredibly stupid, look at us and find most complex part about us thats feelings now goodluck making feelings without actually somehow simulating our neuron networks that causes emotions and possible even our thoughts. Looking real isnt equal to being real.
AunderscoreW t1_ixh5h8v wrote
How so? At what point does something cross from looking real enough to being real?
proarnis1 t1_ixh5rpz wrote
We already reached the point where it looks real, but we are at 0 when it comes to simulating emotions 1 thing that makes us human.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj0g33 wrote
I beg to differ. Animals have the emotions of affection, fear, envy and loyalty and probably some others I can't think of offhand. Emotions are derived from biological imperatives. I don't think that they will be difficult to simulate. I put it like this once. What might be difficult to simulate is phenomenology that arises from consciousness. But heck, in 20 years we'll probably lick that problem too.
https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/9786um/but_whats_my_motivation_artificial_general/
proarnis1 t1_ixk32x9 wrote
Animals or humans doesnt matter i said human because we are humans who cares about animals on this topic considering even right now AI uses human created resources not animal created resources. Also by saying "in 20 years we gnn solve this" u dont realize that we may eventually reach a cap on technology and probably will be stuck for 50+ years using same things without creating something new till someone invents something that will revolutionize AI so we can continue solving this.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixkchde wrote
I think there is a small chance that you are right, but a far more vast chance that you are wrong. I don't think anything is going to "cap" any longer. No more AI winters ever again. Further, this is the reason I am fairly confident that a 'human unfriendly' (that is the computing and computing derived AI will be external from the human mind) "technological singularity" is going to occur about the year 2029, give or take two years.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj5kam wrote
You entirely miss my point. I used the demonstration of unreal engine to show how even today, very primitive today, we are already leaping over the uncanny valley of simulations failing to look like real life. Watch the development of VR, watch the development of videogames and Metaverses, like "Second Life" that has been showing how it's done since 2005, I think. Watch the development of computing processing speed, novel architecture and "big data". Watch the development of devices like the "Neuralink" and it's already extant competitors. Watch the development of ever more profoundly detailed scientific simulations of our universe and its components, based on our known laws of physics.
None of these alone lead to simulated realities that we take for real today, or may actually be real to some, for all intents and purposes. Although even today people experience addiction to these simulated realities. Addiction to video games? But all of these technologies along with some I'm probably leaving out, plus modification to the human mind (a human friendly technological singularity) will lead to genuine realities. And I think we shall all live long enough to experience them. Even somebody who is 105 years old today. But that is a whole other can of futurology worms ;)
This links to an essay I wrote that goes more in depth into my thoughts on the matter if you are further interested.
imdfantom t1_ixh91tv wrote
>We are going to be simulating them. And they are going to wonder who or what we are. Shortly thereafter they will start simulating on their own
Ultimately whether this is actually possible is the crux of the matter. .
Let us assume this type of simulation is impossible and therefore we will never manage to create them.
No matter how advanced we get, a "simulation theory" proponent can always say "we just aren't advanced enough/our simulations aren't sophisticated enough/we just need more computing power"
In this scenario simulation theory will be an unfalsifiable theory.(Of the dream of a mad god/plato's cave/brain in a vat/solipsism variety)
Until we create such a simulation, our reality is indistinguishable from one where such simulations are impossible.
Basically, first create a simulated reality, then maybe we can talk about turtles.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj3eve wrote
What do you think a video game is? It is a simulated reality driven by imperatives (the narrative). We as the player are the mind that is experiencing the simulated reality. And with the advent of truly efficacious VR, we will start to see simulated realities that will be, well pretty convincing. And I am only talking about our stone-knives-and-bearskins primitive efforts in 2022. Think about how our videogames look in 2022 and consider how they looked in 1974. I would say our efforts to recreate reality are coming along fairly quick, just in audio-visual context alone.
Perhaps you have heard the terms, "presence" and "immersion" in reference to the human experience in VR? "Presence" is believing you are for a few moments at a time, in the VR. "Immersion" is forgetting for a few moments at a time that there is real life apart from your VR experience. Both "Presence" and "Immersion" are going to rapidly improve in this decade. VR is certainly the next step and well, I don't want to repeat myself. I put it like this once if you are interested.
Tinchotesk t1_ixhhr3d wrote
> extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now
Extrapolating exponential growth from a short sample of exponentially-looking growth is incredibly naive. First, because we have well established examples of how progress stagnates after an initial crazy period (compare the first 50 years of aviation with the next 70, or the first 12 years of space exploration compared with the next 53). Second, because the logistic problem exists; as described by the logistic equation, the (always) limited supply of resources quickly changes exponential growth into a plateau.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixhree2 wrote
Not such a short sample. It has been going on like this now for all of recorded human history. Nay, all of Homo Sapiens history. And in the last thousand years things beyond belief have occurred. Especially in the last 100 years alone. I took the time once to put it all together and the conclusions that I drew from it.
BTW what is your estimated time frame for the advent of the "technological singularity"? Either human friendly (we merge our minds with it) or human unfriendly (it stays external from out minds). "It" being computing and computing derived AI.
Consider this. It's not about predicting the future. It is the way the universe (our portion of the multiverse), works.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj15vc wrote
Why is this comment downvoted? What do you disagree with in this comment? Two downvotes but no replies.
Thatingles t1_ixhe7yf wrote
We'll have to agree to disagree, simply because there are so many unknowns. Your hunch is that it's a simulation, mine is that this is a base reality, neither of us can prove it. C'est la vie.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixhqin3 wrote
No, what I said was that it doesn't make a difference if we are in a base reality or a simulation. I just said that we are going to create our own universes with our minds. And we are going to do that in less than 300 years. But the fact that we are making a simulation of our reality sort of makes me think that our reality, which is reality to us, might be a simulation itself. I'm not alone in this way of thinking.
I put it like this. Suppose that a civilization comparable to ours, arose a million years before ours. And that they are, for arguments sake, 300 years ahead of us in technological capability. That alien civilization could do some pretty fantastic things I would imagine. One of which could be abandoning outer space for inner space, where it would be much easier to get around, not being bound by the laws of physics, but more accurately by the laws of coding, which makes anything possible in such worlds. I cover this in my essays.
I just believe that we are going to do the same thing and in probably less than 300 years. I put it like this once.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj0wdk wrote
Why is this comment downvoted? What am I wrong about?
Thatingles t1_ixmp83t wrote
Well it's not me downvoting you, I disagree with your perspective but in a friendly way.
I understand the arguments in favour of simulation hypothesis but I don't find them convincing compared to the alternative explanation. Let me put it this way.
-
There has to be a base reality somewhere, even if simulations are made they must at least start in some form of naturally occurring reality (unless we are in some sort of spontaneously generated looped simulation, a super version of the Matrioshka brain, in which case you could argue it is both a base reality and a simulation).
-
We don't know how much computing power would be required to simulate another reality at the fidelity needed to convince it's inhabitants that they are in a base reality or indeed what what types of reality we might simulate
So given the choice between something which has to be true, somewhere, or something which might only be true I choose the option which is least speculative.
The arguments from the perspective of 'if 99% of sentience is simulated, you are probably a simulation' aren't convincing either, because you only get to that point if a bunch of your other assumptions prove to be correct. Or to put it another way, if I accept that there are endless mad gods dreaming of civilisations then I have to believe I am the dream of a mad god - except I don't have any proof that even one mad god exists.
Well, here's hoping some of what you predict will occur and we can talk about this again in a few hundred years.
Occma t1_ixgtu9z wrote
nah, computing power is stagnating. We are approaching a physical limit of chip density. So without a game changing break though we will hit a bottleneck soon
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments