/sci/ - Science & Math

All the computing power in the world doesn't mean jack if you can't Hello World.

But besides that where did you suddenly pick up the idea that computer simulations can create sentient beings?

>>3716658
a simulation of the earth along would require a computer larger than the ovservable universe

Seems about as reasonable as intelligent design.

>>3716671
> implying sentient beings can only arise in nature
> implying fats and proteins and water and ions are necessary for consciousness

get out of sci.

>>3716671
See the OP text:
>Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct)

Simply put, there's no reason not to believe we cannot simulate a human at an atomic level, ergo there is no reason to believe they would have difficulty.

>>3716678
Firstly, [citation needed]. Secondly, there is no reason the start universe would have to be as small as ours- I envision it being orders of magnitude larger. Is that estimate based on our current computing ability? If so, utilisation of quantum computers could easily cut the estimate down hugely.
>>3716681
How so?

>>3716683
what does that first point even mean? Define "Nature"

There's no evidence either way on the second point, but I see no reason to believe AI to be impossible.

Any computer that can simulate the universe (and if this is a simulation, then those other galaxies must be simulated) must be more complex and use more entropy than the universe.

Why would you simulate an entire universe down to subatomic level? One of the main differences between simulation and reality is that simulations have limited resolution.

Why are there no glitches?

There seems to be no purpose to the simulation; why would you run one just 'cause?

It would violate a whole bunch of ethics to do this, if the simulators were like us it would get shut down as soon as crap like the crusades, holocaust, holodomor etc got started.

>>3716686

Well isn't the idea that the universe was created for a specific purpose by an intelligent being?

Many of the arguments against creationism apply here.

>>3716691
>Any computer that can simulate the universe (and if this is a simulation, then those other galaxies must be simulated) must be more complex and use more entropy than the universe.
Agreed.
>Why would you simulate an entire universe down to subatomic level? One of the main differences between simulation and reality is that simulations have limited resolution.
Why are you presupposing that our "Subatomic level" is their "Subatomic level"? Look at the Planck distance, or quanta, for example. The universe has a noticeable resolution in many respects.

>Why are there no glitches?
From the FAQ:
>It seems likely that the hypothetical simulators, who would evidently have to be technologically extremely advanced to create simulations with conscious participants, would also have the ability to prevent these simulated creatures from noticing anomalies in the simulation. This could be done by avoiding anomalies altogether, or preventing them from having noticeable macroscopic ramification, or by retrospectively editing the brain states of observers who had happened to witness something suspicious. If the simulators don’t want us to know that we are simulated, they could easily prevent us from finding out. Consider that even our own humble brains – unaided by technology – usually manage to prevent us from realizing when we are dreaming at night, even though the typical dream is teeming with the most fantastic anomalies.

>There seems to be no purpose to the simulation; why would you run one just 'cause?
Why not? There are many reasons you'd do it. For entertainment, to test your self assembling computation device, to try and understand our history.
>It would violate a whole bunch of ethics to do this, if the simulators were like us it would get shut down as soon as crap like the crusades, holocaust, holodomor etc got started.
I disagree. We don't ban games like Sim City.

>>3716695
>Well isn't the idea that the universe was created for a specific purpose by an intelligent being?
Yes
>Many of the arguments against creationism apply here.
Which? Throw some a

>>3716718
Throw some at me*

Darn enter key.

>>3716713

>It would violate a whole bunch of ethics to do this, if the simulators were like us it would get shut down as soon as crap like the crusades, holocaust, holodomor etc got started.
I disagree. We don't ban games like Sim City.

You actually believe the people in sim city have the capacity to think and feel?

fullretard.jpg

What we are talking about is creating people and letting some fucked up shit happen to them.

>>3716728
Do you eat meat?

We would be vastly less intelligent than our creators. To an (extremely tenuous) extent, people in Sims games experience emotions and sorrow, just like we do. We simply don't mind this, because they're vastly less intelligent than us.

>suppose
>suppose
>let us suppose
>suppose
>therefore

Full of nonsense, don't bother with it.

>>3716739
You's trollin'.

also, bump

>>3716756
The premise relies too heavily on suppositions and ideas that we can't possibly know for sure.

This is science fiction, and should stay outside of proper scientific discussion.

>>3716766
It's a hypothesis. What do you expect?

All of the suppositions are essentially completely valid, too. Discounting the theory until you reach a stage where you can actually do what it talks about is remarkably foolish.

>>3716683
> implying sentient beings can only arise in nature
Implying you know how to raise sentience outside nature
Implying you know it can be raised outside nature
Implying you can authoritatively claim sentience can come out of binary circuits in semiconductors
Implying you have any clue whether sentience can exist in any silicon based computing device

> implying fats and proteins and water and ions are necessary for consciousness

Implying I implied that
Implying you have the expertise to state whether they actually are or not necessary for consciousness
Implying you are aware of any other conscious entity outside of hydrocarbon lifeforms
Implying you would keep that information to yourself out of your post if you knew

>>3716683
>implying otherwise
>providing no evidence
>current nature is an evidence in itself
There are no other brains with consciousness that aren't living, therefore part of nature. Computers don't feel shit and will never be self-aware. A computer is an electronic machine, a brain is not an electronic machine. A computer doesn't have hemodynamic response, no bloodflow, no metabolism, no nutrients, no homeostasis. There is no consciousness without them.

>>3716735
wtfamireading.jpg
>Simulated avatars from a computer game have "feelings"... Go to /x/.

>>3716780
Hold on.
>Implying you know how to raise sentience outside nature
Simulate nature on an atomic level. Done.
>Implying you know it can be raised outside nature
Define "Nature"
>Implying you can authoritatively claim sentience can come out of binary circuits in semiconductors
See #1
>Implying you have any clue whether sentience can exist in any silicon based computing device
See #3

The whole argument seems to boil down to an argument on the level of religion.

"It works in mysterious ways we don't know how. Everything is hidden from us."

>>3716798
>a brain is not an electronic machine
Feel free to, you know, back that up. It'd be interesting to see everything we have on nerves overturned.

What if we build a model of a human brain on a subatomic level?

>>Simulated avatars from a computer game have "feelings"... Go to /x/.
Excellent refutation.

>The whole argument seems to boil down to an argument on the level of religion.
As does string theory. Consider the fact that energy is stored in integer amounts and that distance is divided on a certain scale.
>"It works in mysterious ways we don't know how. Everything is hidden from us."
This is how every scientific endeavour, ever, has begun.

>>3716802
Do you even know what a simulation is?
It's an image, a representation, it's not a clone or a functional copy. An example of a simulation: a 2D drawing of a 3D object (a cube) on a screen. Another example: a computer simulated cortical column. None of them are the real thing, they are simulations, thus the name.

>>3716827
Why aren't they the real thing, and what do you mean by real?

Why are you assuming we are real?

>we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears
>implying that will ever happen
>implying implications

The simulation argument is sound IF you choose to accept a lot of wildly inane ideas.

>>3716823
THe brain has low electrical activity, it's true, but that is only a part of what happens in a brain. There are also regulatory genetic effects, metabolic effects which depend on what is ingested, there are endocrinal effects, hormonal effects, and so on. The computer metaphor was used until now to conceptualise what is happening at the level of synapse and neuron electrical activity. It's an abstraction, there are no bits or "data" stored in the brain, it all depends on the regulation of the state of individual cells.

Considering there is the Supreme Cognitive Being, without limits to his computing power, even the "ultimate reality" outside any such limited simulations is itself a simulation in an unkown medium set by the Being. He can manipulate, backup, reproduce or change anything inside the simulation. Resurrection, invisible action, change of "natural laws" or incredible "natural" circumstances resulting in miraculous events.
"27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
Acts of the Apostles 17

>>3716870
>implying we don't do this
We do this. Just so you know. Look at life simulators, or strategy based RPGs.

>>3716876
Yes


>>3716885
>Quoting the bible
>In my thread
Shoo.

>>3716841
Try cutting your hand with a chainsaw to see if it's real.

>>3716903
Try electrocuting a sim to see if it's real.

>>3716658
>So, What does /sci/ think? Valid hypothesis? Satanic lies? I'd like to hear some opinions.
>>3716890
>not living to his own words
All I am saying is its not Satanic lies, its biblical truth:

"9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."
Job 12

This was written 800 BC, and it assumes YHWH controls the lives of every being, much like if it was a mathematical simulation.

>>3716951
There's a difference between what I said and what you said. Satanic doesn't have purely Christian connotations. I realise you enjoy trolling, but it'd be nice if I could get somewhere with this.

>>3716658
DON'T POST LINKS AS GREENTEXT YOU ROTTEN FAGSUCKING SON OF A FILTHY WHORE

>>3716678
>a simulation of the earth along would require a computer larger than the ovservable universe
fullretard.jpg

>>3716984
Sorry. Try http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/87750

P = NP and black hole physics would like to have a word with you OP.

Any computer that could run an (accurate) simulation of the universe or any subsection of the universe would have to be at least as large (informationally) as the universe or said subsection. If you tried to pack it into a section of spacetime smaller than the thing you were trying to simulate you would form a black hole.

If you didn't then this "simulation" would in no appreciable way differ from the actual universe and could be literally considered as the universe.

tldr this is as useless a supposition as MWI in Quantum or Solipsism in Philosophy.

>Valid hypothesis?

No, because you cannot test it.

If you can't test it, its not a hypothesis.

>>3716798
A computer is a natural device.
It is created by humans, and humans are a part of the natural world, subject to natural law and processes.

NOTHING real is not natural.

Your point about simulations and Sim games is even stupider, but I'm too tired to bother.

>>3717001
This is the only decent reply to OP in this thread.

OP, I'm sorry that /sci/ are inimical retards, but this guy seems to be correct.

>>3717001
>Any computer that could run an (accurate) simulation of the universe or any subsection of the universe would have to be at least as large (informationally) as the universe or said subsection.
Yes
>If you tried to pack it into a section of spacetime smaller than the thing you were trying to simulate you would form a black hole.
uh, why exactly would that be? Also, why are you assuming the parent universe to be identical to ours in physical nature? We have atoms, we simulate polygons for efficiency. They might have "tomic" matter, and simulate particle based matter for simplicity.

>If you didn't then this "simulation" would in no appreciable way differ from the actual universe and could be literally considered as the universe.
Yes, it would. While it might not be necessary as a region of the actual universe could be used, it is nonetheless massively different. There's no way of moving lead from inside of it to outside of it, for example.
>If you can't test it, its not a hypothesis.
-You can test it. You could test the planck distance and see if it forms a regular grid, or measure the expansion of the universe's rate when massive computation is done within it.
-Tell that to observational science.

>>3717023
No problem, I posted on reddit too so I got some decent replies as well. I appreciate the politeness but I don't know how he reached his conclusions.

>>3716686
the observable universe doesn't depend on the size of the universe as a whole

and i think i have read the article that guy was talking about, it was based on quantum computers
turns out that computer would also generate so much heat that it'd melt itself

I don't really get the point of this line of thought. Where exactly does it put us either way?

>>3717042
>the observable universe doesn't depend on the size of the universe as a whole
It does to the observer. If you have never seen it and are only assuming it exists due to circumstantial evidence, how is it stronger than simulationism?

>and i think i have read the article that guy was talking about, it was based on quantum computers
>turns out that computer would also generate so much heat that it'd melt itself
you're going to have to substantiate that, sir.

>>3717001
Not absolutely true. What if the simulation, instead of simulating the universe to complete precision, simulates only the cognitive states of the beings contained in it. That way it would only simulate the results of the explorations these simulated minds make and would not have to simulate all the uninhabited far away space matter nor the complete workings of their quantum mechanics.
Another possibility would be for the actual real universe where the simulation is contained is much more complex and higher dimensional than our own. That way the machines made by sentient beings in that universe could easily simulate our hole universe in a moderately large, feasible, higher dimensional machine.

>>3717048
It's massively significant for virtually every field in existence, as it shows life to be artifically simulatable, "Gods" to exist, and physics to not necessarily obey unified laws. It would be the greatest discovery we have, and ever will, make.

I disagree with the idea that if a theory has no ramifications it should be discarded. It makes no sense whatsoever, and the truth doesn't care about practical application.

Shameless self bump. I still have a load of open questions.

>>3717030
Why exactly? Well it turns out information, energy, and entropy are all very closely related. You cannot have information without energy and entropy and if you get enough of those in a section of spacetime the curvature creates a black hole. This is one of the reasons the so called Planck Length is difficult to probe as we use higher and higher energy collisions to detect smaller and smaller spaces we reach a point (the Planck length) where to look any smaller the energy required would form a black hole.

You mentioned that we take shortcuts in modeling for efficiency but they are exactly that, shortcuts. To have a totally 100% infallibly accurate simulation you would need the same amount of data as the universe you are simulating. If there WERE shortcuts they would create error perturbations which would be observable and would let us know that hey, we're in a simulated universe.

Sure we could be in a perfectly simulated "clone" universe, and things like hollography and your mention of planck's constant as a universal "resolution" might even suggest as such, but as I mentioned before if this is the case then said universe simulator is indistinguishable from the actual universe. You wouldn't be able to adjust the simulation without changing the universe. You would just push go and pop new universe is born. Theoretically that is.

>>3717042
>turns out that computer would also generate so much heat that it'd melt itself
This sort of statement is so utterly ridiculous... Where are you guys pulling this shit from? Do you not think about what you're saying at all?

>>3717057
1)I wasn't saying you couldn't build a computer larger than the observable universe (which you couldn't) I was just saying that the observable universe does't depend on the size of the universe, it depends on the age of the universe and the speed of light
2)a computer would get less and less feasable the larger it got due to the time it'd take for information to pass from one part to another, one the size of the observable universe would be completely useless due to latency
3)it's a pretty simple result from the relation between entropy and temperature, go look up the partition function and work it out yourself, go check the temperature increase with however many bits you think will be rewritten per unit time

>>3717115
>hasn't read his thermodynamics textbook

>things like hollography and... might even suggest as such
Could you expound upon that?
I don't know what you're talking about, and google is no help.

>>3717060
Clever but I still don't see this as a workaround. Conciousness is inextricable from experience which is likewise inextricable from data. You could not accurately simulate a conciousness without all the data that might impact it. Which leads back to my earlier arguments.

As for the "it could be a way more complex universe simming us" well yes you're right it could be. But if it is they couldn't interact with us without appreciably changing the entire universe. And if it chooses not to interact then we are once again left in a universe no different then if it was not a simulation.

Essentially you're making the god hypothesis but with "extradimensionalallens!one!". Cool thoughts to ponder stoned, not a useful scientific supposition.

>>3717111
>Why exactly? Well it turns out information, energy, and entropy are all very closely related. You cannot have information without energy and entropy and if you get enough of those in a section of spacetime the curvature creates a black hole. This is one of the reasons the so called Planck Length is difficult to probe as we use higher and higher energy collisions to detect smaller and smaller spaces we reach a point (the Planck length) where to look any smaller the energy required would form a black hole.
I see, but why is this relevant to what I said? I neither said the computer was smaller than the physical universe, nor that it was in an atom based universe. You also seem to be disregarding the fact that spacetime could in all likelihood be greatly compressed in areas such as intergalactic space.
>You mentioned that we take shortcuts in modeling for efficiency but they are exactly that, shortcuts. To have a totally 100% infallibly accurate simulation you would need the same amount of data as the universe you are simulating.
True, but if that data repeats itself you can compress the repeating areas without losing information.
>If there WERE shortcuts they would create error perturbations which would be observable and would let us know that hey, we're in a simulated universe.
You mean like Virtual particles?
Cont.

>>3717167
>Sure we could be in a perfectly simulated "clone" universe, and things like hollography and your mention of planck's constant as a universal "resolution" might even suggest as such, but as I mentioned before if this is the case then said universe simulator is indistinguishable from the actual universe.
Again, I disagree. If the universe doesn't physically exist in the upper universe arranged as it is in the lower, then It isn't indistinguishable. Information stored within can't be transferred into the upper universe, and vice versa, unless the lower is literally a model. I'm not necessarily talking about that, I'm talking about a computed version without distinct elements. For our purposes, I agree it is "real".
>You wouldn't be able to adjust the simulation without changing the universe. You would just push go and pop new universe is born. Theoretically that is.
Yes you would, not sure what this argument is based on. There's no reason to believe you can't make changes to the simulation while it's running.

It's also possible, I guess, that the universe isn't simulated constantly, but instead that "frames" are computed. This would make changes even easier to put into place, and explain the gradual and constant theorised expansion of our universe in accordance with the self assembling theory.

Thanks for making solid posts and taking the time to reply. You're a cool guy :3

>>3717149
There's not much to expound upon its really just one possible philosophical-type interpretation of a theoretical result that's pretty hotly contested. Gerard t' Hooft has essentially argued that any n dimensional theory can be reduced to a hologram of n-1 dimensions projected from the boundary. Leonard Susskind has gone on to argue that not only is this a general principle, but it can be applied directly to our universe, and that the universe is in fact a hologram of 2space-1time dimension projected from its own boundary.

Whether t'Hoofts principle is even accurate, let alone Susskind's interpretation, is up for debate.


Anyway going to lunch now, hope this thread is still here when I get back, best thing on /sci/ haha.

>>3717116
>I wasn't saying you couldn't build a computer larger than the observable universe (which you couldn't) I was just saying that the observable universe does't depend on the size of the universe, it depends on the age of the universe and the speed of light
Evidential basis?
>2)a computer would get less and less feasable the larger it got due to the time it'd take for information to pass from one part to another, one the size of the observable universe would be completely useless due to latency
I posted about this just after you, I think it's possible that the universe is computed stage by stage rather than constantly, Also, there's no reason to postulate that the speed of light exists in this theoretical parent universe and it might be the controlled variable in this here universe.
>3)it's a pretty simple result from the relation between entropy and temperature, go look up the partition function and work it out yourself, go check the temperature increase with however many bits you think will be rewritten per unit time
Again, you cannot assume our laws of physics are theirs. For all we know, temperature might not exist there.

>>3717190
I wish this clarified anything for me.

>>3717256
What he's trying to say is that if you get a 2D holographic projector that's really big and really detailed, you can use it to make a 3D model (the same applies for 1D and 2D, 3D and 4D, and every dimension). This was then taken by a guy called Leonard and used to describe our universe- he decided that the universe could actually be a projection like this from one at the edge with two spatial dimensions (like a piece of paper) and a time dimension.

>>3717277

>>3717286

Bump

Why are some people afraid they might be a simulation?

Does it feel demeaning, or something?

Everyone, please play Star Ocean 3.

Just because you are(/may be) created, does not mean you do not exist.

>>3717668
>forming existential realizations because of japanese video games
well, whatever works...

>>3717668
Regardless of the meaning, I find this kind of thing annoying as fuck. When the point isn't portrayed by 8 year old girls I will give it a shot

>>3717679

It's the only example of media that I know of that portrays the idea that "everything is a simulation" as not an inherently bad thing (like The Matrix, for a counterexample).

If the simulation is adept enough to fabricate sentience, sapience, consciousness, and physics on both quantum and cosmic scales, you've basically just created a universe anyway. Just a universe on a "lower level".
Doesn't make it less a universe.

>>3716658

Stupid posturing.

As if the reality we know of isn't already a simulation of the interactions between particles.

Only platonists and Christians could wander into a thought like that and grapple with roots of tangled idiocy that have surely formed in their mind and proffer such imaginings as a deep thought. The fact that they believed in a real Real is proof enough of how shallow one must be to look at the computer simulation argument and give a shit.

Of course maybe those Christians who, in their inverted megalomania, want to KNOW the world (and they so dearly want to know, as opposed to act) haven't realized the absurdity of completely knowing a world without creating a double (which would already compromise the knowledge of the entirety of the world since the world + double would be in fact the world and another double...).

>>3717787

>platonists

Isn't Plato the very man who made the Allegory of the Cave as a description for the human situation?

He just didn't realize he was accurate on a grander scale.

>>3716658

if the 'Simulation' were detailed enough... you would not be able to tell the difference.
and a difference which makes no difference is no difference. Mr Spock was alleged to have said that.