[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 807 KB, 1000x645, Simulation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3332312 No.3332312 [Reply] [Original]

Mindfuck Time!!!

This time, simulation argument:

i. It is possible that an advanced civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence (AI).
ii. Such a civilization would likely run many, billions for example, of these simulations (just for fun, for research or any other permutation of possible reasons).
iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn’t necessarily know that it is inside a simulation — it is just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the "real world."

Then the ultimate question is — if one accepts that the above premises are at least possible — which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself?
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)

In greater detail, we attempt to prove the trichotomy, either that:
intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (assuming that this is possible in principle); or
races who do reach such a sophisticated level do not tend to run such simulations; or
we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.

>> No.3332321

oh shi..

>> No.3332364

>>3332312
Ok, so how is this different than the gaia theory, and that the earth is a single consciousness?

>> No.3332380

isn't there some kiwi physicist that is talking about this?

>> No.3332403

What if the advanced civilisation is simply a computer simulation too?

>> No.3332416

i watched this on through the wormhole. just speculation, no proof.

>> No.3332417

went to a Mormon theology conference once upon a time and someone wrote a paper on this. Pretty intense stuff.

>> No.3332422

>>3332403
BBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>> No.3332427
File: 29 KB, 211x193, orbits.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3332427

>>3332403

>> No.3332430

>>3332422

Come again?

>> No.3332440
File: 23 KB, 333x500, leonardo-dicaprio-inception-prem-pic4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3332440

>>3332403
Are you saying a simulation within a simulation!?

>> No.3332456
File: 12 KB, 413x387, 130819716980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3332456

>>3332403

>> No.3332458

>>3332440
we have to go deeper!

BWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNG

>> No.3332466

It's like existenz where there's a simulation in a simulation in a simulation that you THINK is the real world, but is still just another simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation...

>> No.3332489

>>3332458
The correct form is BRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM which is more widely accepted in /tv/.

>> No.3332498
File: 19 KB, 313x233, whoa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3332498

>> No.3332527

>>3332430
In /tv/ parlance BRRRRRMMM is the onomatopoeic representation of Inception. Not that Anon btw.

>> No.3332550

>>3332312
I personally believe the creation of such a thing is impossible, because the universe inside the computer would not be able to be infinite. It would hit a block.

Although now that I think about it, there is finite matter with infinite space, and binary works exponentially, so there are many more combinations than there are atoms in the universe... so maybe it is possible? It's something to ponder.

>> No.3332556

If you have lots of simuleptions the universe would be smaller and smaller for each simulation.

>> No.3332576

>>3332550
This never works, as all simulations can be dumbed down, made repetitive and use other compression tricks to hide the true extent.

>> No.3332584

Well, actually, both a) and b) could be true. Actually a) IS true. You can easily make an evolution simulation.

>> No.3332588

either or. would the "individuals" inside the simulation, being the "person" that isn't "virtual?" but the physical being who's mind is "running" the simulation, be in it from "birth"?

>> No.3332613

>>3332312
Surely it would have to be a much more complex universe itself though?

>> No.3332680

wat if the real civilization has like 11 dimensions and can only run a simulation with 3

>> No.3333077

Watch out! There's a sniper over by th....

>> No.3333082

>>3332403
We must go DERPER!

>> No.3333085

>>3332312
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

>> No.3333090

>create pretend civilization
>state what they would do

Great argument.

>> No.3333097

what snyper? i dont see anyo....

>> No.3333099

It's possible that we are in a simulation. But far, far too much is assumed to say that we are PROBABLY in a simulation.

>> No.3333104

yah, i think his over by the...

>> No.3333112

wicht is he; i tink its he guy ower by the....

>> No.3333119

I remember hearing this theory on Horizon years ago. Blew my mind.

If we are in a simulation then it is an excellent one, well done to the boffins and computer nerds that created this. *claps virtual hands*

>> No.3333129

z0mg! d3r5 4 5/|/93R |39 7|-|3 P....

>> No.3333175

Well if we're in a simulation, we wouldn't have to be seperate from the simulation. What I'm really saying is that the simulation wouldn't have to be perfect for us not to find out, since we could be just as imperfect and therefore not able to discover the faults. And also, if we're in a simulation and have allways been in this simulation and base all our lives on experiences we have aquired through observations, sensations, etc. built on parameters set by this world / universe, we are then rendered incapable of discovering the fallacies.

btw, whats that over by th....

>> No.3333190

The Thirteenth Floor (Boltzmann remix).mp3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>> No.3333198

>>3333119
You remember NOTHING!

Ooooh, a piece of cand...

>> No.3333223
File: 3 KB, 320x240, l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3333223

>>3333119
>If we are in a simulation then it is an excellent one

How would YOU know?

>> No.3333248

If this whole world/universe is just a simulation, there must be other simulations somewhere, and this one has to be the most-affordable one, like the "starter, novice" simulation for "real entities" that can't afford shit, because it's pretty shitty, it lags a lot, and it's full of bugs. I fucking hate bugs.

>> No.3333267

evidence for a simulated universe:
1. everything is quantized
2. nothing in the universe exists to finite percision
3. everything at the very lowest level is the result of a random number generator
4. you only need to simulate things to the quantum level where humans are, you can simply the FUCK out of 99.9999999999999999999% of the universe

>> No.3333274

If our civilization was simulated, then at some point in our ongoing increase in knowledge we would discover that we were in a simulation. Only if our knowledge potential is eventually infinite could this be 100% true.

I see no point for such a civilization to create a simulation for any scientific purpose. Perhaps it's meant for enjoyment?

>> No.3333298

>>3333274
Well, that's kinda messed up.

We can certainly conjecture that we're in a simulated reality, but if this is true:

*) If we are in a simulated reality, we would never be able to prove without a doubt that we were.

If that's true, then what about the possibility we are NOT in a simulated reality and NEVER prove that either?

It still leaves it open-ended, just how I imagine a simulation would. There is no "definite" here. You have to define something to begin understanding something. You have to start somewhere. You have to make an axiom somewhere. You have to define a protocol. "We" have to create something in order to understand something else. We can't just "have knowledge".

Smells like simuWorld tome.

>> No.3333302

>>3333267
>simply the FUCK
>simply

>> No.3333336

What if a simulated society creates/discovers the ability to make a simulated society which in turns learns the same ability and so on and so on, wouldn't the eventual exponentially expanding power drain of all these virtual societies cause the destruction of the initial society, or cause the initial society to kill all of the virtual ones?

>> No.3333357

>>3333298
At some point we would discover something that would lead us to the conclusion that we were in a simulation. If the simulation were so perfect then it wouldn't matter at all if we were in a simulation because it is no different than the simulator's universe.

If a mouse in a maze knows every detail about that maze, then he will know he's in a maze. A rather crude analogy but that's essentially the point I'm trying to say.

>> No.3333367

ITT: Retards believe a simulation would create consciousness.

>> No.3333379

>>3333357
Then it would depend on the design. If the simulation was designed to be "self-discovered", it would be. If it was designed to be "hidden", it would be.

>> No.3333389

>>3333367
> implying consciousness cannot the result of a simulation.

>> No.3333403

>>3333389
> implying the rules of physics allow for it

>> No.3333404

What if a civilization created a simulation, and the simulation then went back in time to create another simulation, which was the civilization that first created a simulation?

>> No.3333414

>>3333403
>implying we're all p-zombies outside the realm of physics

>> No.3333412

>>3333403
>implying they don't

>> No.3333423

>>3333412
they allow for it just as much as they allow for unicorns

>> No.3333434

>>3333423
They do allow for unicorns. How could they not?

>> No.3333464
File: 141 KB, 2640x1960, md.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3333464

> "This is all a tape-recording."

> "It's all recorded."

>> No.3333470

>>3333298
Science PROVES nothing. Ever.
Clearly, sir, you do not understand the nature of science.

>>3333267
had the right idea, by listing specific pieces of evidence, which, if found, would contribute to the theory that we are living in a simulated universe and are, by extension, simulations.
However, I think that >>3333267 was listing evidence that we would be living in a low-end simulated universe, but that is another matter entirely.

>> No.3333483

>>3333470
Real science or simulation science?

>> No.3333490

>>3333470
>Science PROVES nothing. Ever.
fullretard

>> No.3333577

solution is simple: if it is possible you would'nt let AI create another AI ( it will consume a lot of processing pwer).
just try to do it, if everything crashes it means we live in a simulation

>> No.3333660

>>3333577
>>3333577
Great doubles there idort

>> No.3333667

>>3333660
Thanks quad-doubles-singleton moran!

>> No.3333682

>>3333667
I see you noticed.

Also the universe is apple shaped

>> No.3333755

>>3333333

>> No.3333790

>>3333755
Don't remind me

>> No.3334072

There's some philosophical theorem that goes something like "we have the following universe of possibilities:

1)Intelligent beings will never seek to make simulated universes

2)It is impossible to create simulated Universes

3)If both 1 & 2 fail to be true, we are almost certainly living in a simulated Universe

." (The idea being that simulated Universes will far out number the "actual" one).

>> No.3334116

>>3334072
Well, hello, Mr. Nick "Paraphrase" Bostrom.

Little lawnmower men, /sci/ is. Explore all these facts, and regurgitate them for anonymous men you've never met. I pity the sorcerer that watches over you.

>> No.3335319

>>3333490
You're wrong and probably are thinking of 'proof' in layman terms. Science works with falsification and induction. It doesn't prove anything like in math or logic.