Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum We exist in a computer program

This is really a followup of Robs "can life exist in a computer" -post. I found this article so intriguing that I felt it needed a post of it's own.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Arguments that WE exist in a virtual reality (like the Matrix movie) are for example that all our surroundings can be described by numbers and formulas. This would be exactly what a programmer would do if creating us in a computer program. Albert Einstein once said that one of the greatest mysteries was that everything seemed to be explainable by math.

Swedish born philosopher Nick Bostr?m at the Oxford University of England claims that
at one time computers will be able to simulate human's and nature's complexity and we dont know if that limit has already been reached, and we exist in a simulation.

He furthermore consideres 3 options.
1) Humanity ends before we develop the technology. Our world is real.
2) We develop the technology, but doesn't use it because of the ethic grey areas.
3) The most plausible according to Bostr?m. We develop the technology and use it. Simulated worlds will rapidly increase. The moment simulated worlds exceeds "real" worlds, it is most probable that WE exist in a simulated world!

Far out, but I love the Matrix movies!

"Everything seemed to be explainable by math."
Not true, when infinity is involved, maths becomes utterly useless.
Observe;
x = 0.9(recurring)
10x = 9.9(recurring)
9x = 9
x = 1

Maths has failed to explain how we got from 0.9999... to 1.

Therefore, a true replica of the universe can never be made. However, it can be made so big that we would never notice that it is finite. Or the boundaries can be programmed to annihilate anything that comes into contact with them. Like antimatter for example.

NO

Rob,

.999 repeating is exactly equal to 1.

Johan,
The philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that we can't be simulated in a computer because computers aren't fast enough to do stuff. Dennett's argument is wrong, because we don't know how fast putative REAL computers might be.

Your philosopher is also wrong, though. Math and logic exist prior to programming. If we follow the analogy it means that the programmers in the putative REAL world must have some mathematics. Following the logic, we must believe that THAT world was a virtual reality.

While I don't have a theoretical problem with recursion (it being one of my fortes), I do think that this is an argument leading nowhere - someone akin to the "Am I a man dreaming he is a butterfly or a butterly dreaming he is a man?" type question.

Everything exists because particles follow rules, right? Every single particle is made up of smaller particles; these smaller particles may have different rules to the ones they create. Therefore, since we only need to simulate the set of rules for the particles on our level; atoms, a simulation is, in theory, possible. However, anomalies in the behaviour in atoms are caused by the particles that make the atoms acting normally, this cannot be simulated and so, a TRUE replica can never be made.

Seth Lloyd at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has suggested that the alterations in the mass of information has increased with 10120 since the big bang. This means that we will never be able to make computers fast enough to simulate the whole universe. Bostr?m claims that this may not be necessary. Instead of creating billions of galaxys, the programmer could deliver small realistic lightobjects to the simulated people. They would then not question the emptiness of the simulated world.

Robotscientist Hans Moravec at Carnegie Mellon University believes that in 30 years we will be able to simulate worlds with conscious life. If that proves right, then we can truly begin to wonder if we are victims of simulation or if we are exploiting innocent simulated lifeforms. Or both.

What?

0.9999... *is* 1. They are the same thing. You don't need to "get" from one to the other.

Does it really matter whether we are living in the real world or not? I don't think so.
Johan, some programmers claim to have ALREADY simulated worlds with conscious life. This world, however, is very primitive and not like ours at all. The 'living' organisms are also very primitive. The debate is still raging over whether or not they are alive. Many think they are not.

Yeah Chris what do you mean no!

rob: these smaller particles may have different rules to the ones they create.

Alright you've lost me there.

rob: Every single particle is made up of smaller particles;

Superstring theory states that the smallest piece of matter/energy is a string; open or closed. The unique vibrations and 'spins' of these strings determine its properties.

In quantum mechanics, there is much that happens without determinism, and therefore we could not possible simulate a world on that scale.

0.9999999... is not equal to 1. What is 0.1111111... equal to then?

0.1111... is equal to 1/9

I meant what integer. You don't have to answer.

Amara,
"rob: these smaller particles may have different rules to the ones they create.

Alright you've lost me there."

Electrons, neutrons and protons do not operate on the same set of rules as atoms do.

P.S. String theory is flawed

"0.9999999... is not equal to 1"

Rob, yes it is. The argument is very simple.

x = .99999...

10x = 9.9999...

10x - x = 9.9999... - x
(but x is just .9999...)

9x = 9

x = 1

Therefore x = 1 and x = .99999...

The only way this could happen is if 1) I've made a mistake in the math, or 2) the numbers are indeed the same.

If I've made a mistake in the math, please point out the specific property or postulate that I'm violating.

Funny, I used the exact same example to prove that o.99999... was NOT equal to one. I was criticising maths for the very fact that 0.9999... is equal to one. After thinking over my statement, I realise it most probably is 1. But try to visualise this and there's just this annoying missing link. Oh well. P.S. so does 0.1111... = 1.11111... This is silly. infinity bugs me!

Hmmm... I don't think your example proved that .999... was not equal to 1.

Assume "<>" means "does not equal"

0.1111... <> 1.1111...

One good thing about math is that it abstracts things. We abstract things to what we think - or would like to think - are the elements. We have reasonably well-defined symbols, a collection of symbol "sentences" that are true (or at least assumed true) and we have production rules for combining these sentences to produce new sentences that are also true. These symbols, sentences, and rules form what is known as a grammar.

It's easiest to use this grammar if one doesn't try to ascribe a physical or real interpretation to each of the productions, but only to the final state. (George Boole explains this in some detail - repeatedly - in his book "The Laws of Thought.")

Doing this invariably leads us to some startling conclusions. Despite this counter-intuitiveness, we learn to accept that some things are just not what they seem.

We trust the simplest rules applied to the simplest rules as opposed to the complicated thoughts - not always, but generally.

Johan offered: We exist in a computer simulation.

Along the way this became an effort to find a value for 1 in .99999. Not being that keen on such things I would find it acceptable if my problems results always came in within .99999 of perfect. For a while I played with Newton?s constant in search of a clue to help me figure out how he arrived at it and why it worked (I still do) and in the process I learned that a natural variant of .99 or so is OK for many things. I went to the link Johan offered, excerpt follows.
?
II. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUBSTRATE-INDEPENDENCE
A common assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of substrate-independence. The idea is that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates. Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is nor an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon-based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon-based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well.
Arguments for this thesis have been given in the literature, and although it is not entirely uncontroversial, we shall here take it as a given.?

I must be missing something here and that is why I make this reply. I start with the conclusion that we live in our brain. What our brain tells us is our reality. If our brain is sick we may have a new reality, bizarre or beautiful that may be, and probably will be completely unrelated to the realities of other life forms around us. This departure from where we were to where we are is totally self contained and originated with our own organics. Now we know that drugs and other stimulants can alter our sense of reality but it is always encased in our focus, our personal conceptions and what we perceive to be true.

My argument with the concept of our living in a computer simulation is that it implies we are all involved somehow. Suppose we gave 50 people the same drug and they all had the same illusionary concepts they would portray. That is still created from within, not from without. A computer, no matter how fast or how large is outside our consciousness and not capable of causing us to exist within in it. The prospect my arise wherein individuals will subject them selves to virtual reality programs and become addicted. That has nothing to do with our existing in a computer program.

There are some very smart people out there and they must continually exercise their brains and this sort of bottomless topic is perfect for that purpose. I see us as a self contained unit that has many capabilities all of which are encased in our bodies. Too simple possibly?
jjw

Jim,

I've not seen you post for a while.

You said - 'A computer, no matter how fast or how large is outside our consciousness and not capable of causing us to exist within in it.'

I don't really understand what you are saying here. I presume you have seen 'The Matrix'. When computers are fast enough and sophisticated enough, they certainly will be capable of projecting an emersive reality into our brain that could correlate with that of others who are also plugged in. You only need to look at any of the mmorpg's to see rudimentary versions of this.

Or have I misread you?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Hi: I went to Eureka to see my son and got a fantastic case of flu which slowed me down. Back in the desert now and enjoying cocktails.

I don't see any disagreement in concept as long as you recognise that the subjects must be plugged in if we want to alter their inner conceots. I propose it is impossible to exist in a computer program, at best you might substitute the program for your own goals but taking the complexitities of humasns into account that would be a far cry from "living". Just a view.
jjw

Jim,

I've not seen you post for a while.

You said - 'A computer, no matter how fast or how large is outside our consciousness and not capable of causing us to exist within in it.'

I don't really understand what you are saying here. I presume you have seen 'The Matrix'. When computers are fast enough and sophisticated enough, they certainly will be capable of projecting an emersive reality into our brain that could correlate with that of others who are also plugged in. You only need to look at any of the mmorpg's to see rudimentary versions of this.

Or have I misread you?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Black, jjw, I think you're both committing the same mistake that Dennett makes in his book on consciousness.

The point is this:
Thinking of the movie Matrix is too simplistic.

If we are in a simulated world, the computers in this world are also simulated. The computers in our artificial world could have vastly inferior capabilities to the ones in the 'real' world. In fact, the laws of the real universe might have no more relation to 'our' (simulated) universe than the laws of cartoon physics have to Newton or Einstein.

Of course, I don't believe this. But beliefs are irrelevant to logical implication.

Hey!

I didn't make that second duplicate post.

Or is my signal to noise ratio such that instead of deleting my posts you are adding to them

Regards,

Blacknad.

It's a good point.

I have a suspicion that the plot includes the existence of a heretofore hidden "third" (or "fourth") layer of "reality" similarly depicted in the movie, The Thirteenth Floor. My theory is based on the scene (in the last film) in which Neo halts the seeker machines by raising his hand, as he did towards the end of the first film to stop the Agents' bullets. This curious and unexplained ability takes place in the "real world", i.e., not in the Matrix. How could Neo have special powers (contrary to the laws of physics) outside the Matrix? I hope they make another sequel which depicts a "third", superimposed "reality" demonstrating that the "real" world, as perceived by the humans, actually is another Matrix.

VB

--
This curious and unexplained ability takes place in the "real world"
--

I agree. I noticed the same thing. I liked the series, though I detested the end. It was truly a let down. Probably it does hint at layers of "reality."

However, what I'm saying is this: the computers in whatever real world exists might be vastly more complicated and vastly more powerful than the computers in THIS reality. Therefore, I think Dennett's argument is wrong - and pretty blatantly so.

I'm not sure how to turn this kind of conversation away from philosophy and into science. How could we detect that our reality is not real?

First we donot live in the Computational World in the Classical Sense.
Second we live in a finitely computable Space.
Third Computational Space has distributed computational strength.

Here's a good one: Say we do live in 'the matrix' and it was created by a species that thought it would be a really quick way to come up with good inventions because they could accelerate time in the program simulation that 'we' live in to way beyond their evolutionary stage and then steal our ideas. Say that we had the idea to do the exact same thing and make our own 'matrix'. I don't know a lot about computing, so I was wondering, would the computing power needed for the simulation double, or just stay the same, and would the simulation in the simulation work?

I don't know a lot about computing, so I was wondering, would the computing power needed for the simulation double, or just stay the same, and would the simulation in the simulation work?
DKV:Very interesting question.But let me tell you there is no one outside Matrix waiting for you to save them.In the end you create , you live and you destroy or you liberate.

Great science is always simple.
I assume you meant immersive (generating a three-dimensional image which appears to surround the user). I agree that an immersive reality easily could be projected on our consciousness through our senses. Yet, I wonder how fast and sophisticated computers would have to be before they could experience motivation, plans, goals, purpose, etc. necessary to instigate such behavior on their part.
I think that the aliens? simulation would be subject to their own technological speed limit. In other words, if they cannot generate such advanced ideas for themselves, no simulation which they create would be able to do so either. Assuming that someday man will develop and prove a TOE (I suppose I should say: The TOE), one can imagine that algorithms based on, inter alia, quantum theory sufficiently may explain the structure and operations of, um, everything, such that the necessity of creating a model of the Cosmos which includes the location and trajectory of each and every atom in all dimensions will be obviated. I don?t think so. Man?s mental life generated through his perceptive abilities and their focus has evolved in his particular environment including everything and everywhere that is, ever was, or ever will be. The chaotic chain of events which gave, or gives, (an ?arrow of time? issue) rise to the emergence of what is may or may not have a beginning or an end. It may or may not have followed a predictable path, have been guided by the nature of things, be infinite or finite, etc., etc. Perhaps man is and always will be incapable of building his nuts and bolts homologue. Man wasn?t there when the innumerous forces in the Cosmos seemingly indiscriminately formed, um, everything. To find, identify, understand, chronicle, and record every aspect of each of these forces, and their interrelationships, in detail, no matter how small, large, enduring, foreign, vague, etc., and to use the data to create a model indistinguishable from the present ?reality?, sounds tough.

VB

All adressed to BELLATOR:
"I think that the aliens? simulation would be subject to their own technological speed limit. In other words, if they cannot generate such advanced ideas for themselves, no simulation which they create would be able to do so either."

REP:
Step 1, they find out all the (needed and relative)rules that are present to create the universe we (they) experience. In other words they find a TOE.

Step 2, they turn this into a computer program, a simulation of the universe if you will

Step 3, say they have been evolving for 30000 years, they search through the universe simulation for a planet that can harbour life, and accelerate time in the simulation to say 50000000 years when the artificial organisms will have evolved into extremely intelligent beings. They then observe how these extremely intelligent life forms live, what they do, their technology etc... and copy it in the real world.

Regarding your REP to "Therefore, a true replica of the universe can never be made."...

Everything affects everything else. There is no way that a finite number of chips can simulate an infinite number of things happening -all at the same time. It may be able to simulate what's happening in one reigon of the universe, but it would have to pause calculations on any other reigons. Therefore the simulation would be inacurate because the other reigons affect the one in question. I might add, chaos would rule at the borders of these reigons.

P.S. How do you get italic script?

This is off topic, but this is a well known dilemma. Our system of calculating has infinite negative and infinite postive numbers. It also has infinite numbers between 0 and 1, and between 1 and 2. But this isnt a problem. Creating a VR a programmer would have to make simplifications in the code, and especially in regards to limiting complexity.

Anyways, read calculus 1 and read the sections surrounding "lim".

"Creating a VR a programmer would have to make simplifications in the code, and especially in regards to limiting complexity."

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's not the "code" that is simplified, it's the underlying hardware. The code would need to be more complicated to deal with things like overflow, underflow, loss of precision, etc. I assume of course, that you're not referring to VR in the sense of, say, modern MMOGs, but in the sense of the matrix movie.

Let me help you.
The Code or logical Packet(as I like to call it) has a relation with the Hardware.

Hi:

I know from past offers that TFF has computer science knowledge. I know there is great interest in the potential progress of computers and computer external control. What I do not know is why so many smart people would ponder a hypothetical Matrix involving live people?

There are unfortunates in captivity that have a very different picture of reality. They somehow gave birth to that illusion. we can not take them back to where we think they should be.

Whoose Matrix do we seek? Drugs will do a better job on us than computers and waste us faster.

I respect all. I simply do not fathom how you expect to get the world living in a computer program, no matter what the name is. You all sound very profound never-the-less.
jjw

What I do not know is why so many smart people would ponder a hypothetical Matrix involving live people?
REP: Before I answer let us understand that the world is not Binary and hence the Matrix is also not like a typical simulation.
Smart people know that this understanding is crucial to their own existence...Every 10000 years a meteorite falls .. Every 100 years a new deadly disease reappears...
What if tomorrow a cross of Brid Flu and Aids appear with a longer dormant period.
What is the ultimate limit to the Lethal Smartness of death?And if the death is inevitable why are alive at the first place.Why not opt for a peaceful death instead of ruthless torture by rapists of soul.
==========================================
There are unfortunates in captivity that have a very different picture of reality. They somehow gave birth to that illusion. we can not take them back to where we think they should be.
REP:Illusion becomes real when some looses the job..:-))Who can provide you your kind of reality for ever? No one . Except you.
===========================================
Whoose Matrix do we seek? Drugs will do a better job on us than computers and waste us faster.
REP: You seek it or it seeks you. Drugs are not an answer for all seasons.
========================================
I respect all. I simply do not fathom how you expect to get the world living in a computer program, no matter what the name is. You all sound very profound never-the-less.
REP: Thanks but sadly Bill Gates can not give you this software .. nor can anyone .Except the Guru who can at best give you the clues to where you can find it.

Jim,

I don't believe that all of society will end up living within a VR program, but I know people who spend seemingly all of their waking hours playing in online games - see the following screenshots from Guild Wars to see how far these games have come - this game is immersive.

http://www.guildwars.com/gallery/gwscreenshots/gw060.html

http://www.guildwars.com/gallery/gwscreenshots/gw059.html

http://www.guildwars.com/gallery/gwscreenshots/gw032.html

http://www.guildwars.com/gallery/gwscreenshots/gw075.html

I have had the opportunity to explore this world a little and chat and adventure with other online players - it is an incredible experience and the world is beautiful and strangely hypnotic.

This is still exceptionally basic, and when you can actually plug into this, it will be highly addictive to many people.

But there will be other things to do, play at the Super-Bowl, go to war, be the president - complete with your very own America, be a god and create new worlds and of course...

?the big one - Become a Porn King - do whatever you want to any 'babe' in a consequence free environment, free of virtual HIV.

Maybe your thing is 'Super Torturer IV - get the Iraqi to spill his beans' or 'Power Rapist 2015' or 'Ethnic Cleanser version 1' or 'Homicide Hero - gain bonus points for the more inventive methods of murdering your co-workers'.

There will be an angle for almost everyone. For the house-bound, it will simply be the ability to spend time in a virtual community with others.

You will be able to buy virtual body upgrades and become more beautiful (it?s the Capitalists dream ? sell a million body upgrades and not actually use any raw materials, apart from the time you spent designing it).
You will have beautiful people in online communities that have all the appearance of models and playboys who will pull up next to you in the street and lean out of the window of their latest flying Ferrari, but being unable to escape their personalities, will still say things like 'The history and properties of concrete are more interesting than most people think - let me educate you....'

Jim, how will you resist its lure?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Creating a beliavable virtual world would be very difficult. Look at the world around you -It's extremely complex. Strangely enough, when you dream, you can see such complex things. This is one idea I was thinking of giving to sony who are working on VR systems; There is a part of the brain that differentiates between what is real and what is not, or part-S of the brain. (I got this info from newspaper so it's not that specific) They should find a way to stop this part of the brain, or alternatively put the brain in a 'dream state' so that basic graphics can be shown but the brain (I'm guessing) will do the rest of the work to make it seem real.

Blacknad:

Your description makes it sound like the ultimate game or an animated chat room with the words of the players comming from their mouth.

I think my problem is with "living" or "existing" in a computer program.
jjw

Seems to me there are already enough people walking around who cannot distinguish dreams from reality...

I think my problem is with "living" or "existing" in a computer program.
Dkv:That depends on your understanding.How do you feel? I feel I am living and not-living.This follows from my understanding of I or the Self.
You can say that I was never Created thus I shall never Die.Therefore the question remains a superficial one as I am the Present , Present and only Present.

And when I read your posts I am confused, confused and only confused.

DKB, "We are the present and only the present." He makes sense, it's totally true. Our past is contingent upon memory and memory is not completely dependable. Future is hopes, dreams, predictions, beliefs, etc.
But sometimes the present is boring....so the past and future are interesting playpens for our thoughts.

Amaranth, is it possible to remove the exclamation point attached to this post, so it can follow the natural course of death and resurrection like the other topics?

The exclamation point means that this is considered an important topic, see the legend.

It is possible. It's a trick I'll have to learn. Thanks, Justine, for reminding me of that.

So who here, after reading through this thread actually thinks that this world is possibly a simulation in some other world?