Disappearing Santa Hat

[Matthew Ellard]

Elon Musk's "simulation theory"

Let's look what Elon Musk actually said.......
https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation


"His (Elon Musk's )argument — one presumably honed in the soothing waters of many a jaccuzi — goes that the incredibly fast advancement of video game technology indicates we'll be capable of creating a fully lifelike simulation of existence in a short span of time. In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences."

"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions."

OK. Slight problems
1) You can't simulate gravity or inertia and neither are only sensory inputs.
When my simulated spaceship goes from zero to half lightspeed in two seconds, my body doesn't go splat......

 

[arthwollipot]

Musk was merely paraphrasing Bostrom's work of 13 years previously.

 

[arthwollipot]

When my simulated spaceship goes from zero to half lightspeed in two seconds, my body doesn't go splat......

The simulation's body does.

Or, if not, the simulation has different laws of physics than our world does.

 

[DebunkThisPls]

I know that Elon Musk didn't create the idea, I think it was Nick Bostrom, I hope I spelled that right. He basically says that once computing power gets to the point to where we can simulate an exact model of our universe, it's more likely that we are in a simulation than not.

 

[Thermal]

This is a lot of work to say Brain-in-aVat 2.0.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is a lot of work to say Brain-in-aVat 2.0.

Not quite the same thing, though.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Musk was merely paraphrasing Bostrom's work of 13 years previously.

The simulation's body does. Or, if not, the simulation has different laws of physics than our world does.

Hang on. Are you saying no real humans are part of the simulation?

In that case we are jumping back to Rene Descartes "Am I a butterfly thinking I'm a human?" from about 400 years ago.

Once we claim everything in the simulation isn't real and isn't bound by any laws, then it isn't a simulation of anything, is it? It's free form anything goes.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

This is getting silly now.

If Debunkthisplease isn't real, but just a software script in a software game and he isn't really asking us anything, as we are just other scripted software characters, then it doesn't matter if there were Christmas hats or not in the past. It's just fictional characters following a narrative.

I think that was what Rene Descartes' point was. It's complete nonsense.

Let's ask Debunkthisplease" Do you consider yourself real or just a character in a scripted fictional narrative?

 

[arthwollipot]

Hang on. Are you saying no real humans are part of the simulation?

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

In that case we are jumping back to Rene Descartes "Am I a butterfly thinking I'm a human?" from about 400 years ago.

Once we claim everything in the simulation isn't real and isn't bound by any laws, then it isn't a simulation of anything, is it? It's free form anything goes.

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life. Simulated people could have their own simulated lives, and never have actually existed in the real world. But the simulation is still of an Earth-like planet with Earth-like simulated people. If I am a simulation, it is not required that I have an exact analogue in the real world.

But again we're moving away from the real point of the simulation hypothesis when we speculate too much about the entities that are actually running the simulation. To the hypothesis, it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

 

[Thermal]

Not quite the same thing, though.

Right, hence 2.0. I never agreed that Bostrum's outnumbering simulation would follow. Why would you simulate at that scale, even if you could?

Creating a simulated universe does not create the sentient beings to live in it. That would go back to the Matrix-type connection to existing people.Too much work.

 

[arthwollipot]

Right, hence 2.0. I never agreed that Bostrum's outnumbering simulation would follow. Why would you simulate at that scale, even if you could?

As I pointed out earlier, we do all sorts of things just to see if they are possible.

Creating a simulated universe does not create the sentient beings to live in it. That would go back to the Matrix-type connection to existing people.Too much work.

You could simulate a universe with people in it, or you could simulate a universe without people in it. It would depend on what you want to achieve with your simulation.

 

[Thermal]

As I pointed out earlier, we do all sorts of things just to see if they are possible.

You could simulate a universe with people in it, or you could simulate a universe without people in it. It would depend on what you want to achieve with your simulation.

As soon as you are simulating people, assuming you mean sentient ones, you have become God. Simulation is kind of in the rear view mirror.

 

[arthwollipot]

As soon as you are simulating people, assuming you mean sentient ones, you have become God. Simulation is kind of in the rear view mirror.

Well, that is kind of implied by the simulation hypothesis. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or religion.

But again, speculating on the origin of the simulation and the identity of the simulators is kind of not the point of the hypothesis.

 

[Thermal]

Well, that is kind of implied by the simulation hypothesis. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or religion.

But again, speculating on the origin of the simulation and the identity of the simulators is kind of not the point of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis, in broad brush, is that we/they would be able to create a simulation indistinguishable from reality, and therefore would make one who's occupants would vastly outnumber the 'real' one, making it highly likely that we are in fact in one. That's what the clickbait title builds to, in any event. And I don't think a word of it follows.

 

[arthwollipot]

The hypothesis, in broad brush, is that we/they would be able to create a simulation indistinguishable from reality, and therefore would make one who's occupants would vastly outnumber the 'real' one, making it highly likely that we are in fact in one. That's what the clickbait title builds to, in any event. And I don't think a word of it follows.

Notice that Bostrom is a philosopher, not a scientist. It's the job of philosophers to think up scenarios like this. If we have a way of scientifically disproving it, then it will become an interesting historical note.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

Hang on. The humans in Elon Musk's Simulation theory article are real. Elon Musk is merely talking about virtual reality on real humans.

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life.

Non real world software creatures individually following non real world software logic isn't a simulation of anything real is it? It is simply what it is.

Remember Conway's Game of Life from the 60's.

it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

If they are created software characters, in a software environment, with any rules the programmer makes, they aren't conscious. They are simply stimulus response programs.

 

[Thermal]

If you are playing Go in that attachment, you suck at it.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I was cooking dinner and remembered that there is a movie where the humans are simulated in a simulated environment. (Even better it is by an Australian director.)

In Dark City the simulated humans are programmed never to remember that it is always night time. They can't have free thoughts because they are programmed.

That suggests to me that in a programmed simulation with programmed simulated humans I can simply program them to never think it's a simulation
Therefore the program is not simulating anything ...but is it's own thing.

Phew......and I wrote that while straight

 

[Matthew Ellard]

If you are playing Go in that attachment, you suck at it.

How rude. I'm going to delete your character program if you keep that up. You do know the next level in your current simulation game is jelly wrestling on the planet of nymphos.

 

[arthwollipot]

Only simulated humans can be part of a simulated universe.

Hang on. The humans in Elon Musk's Simulation theory article are real. Elon Musk is merely talking about virtual reality on real humans.

I don't care what Elon Musk is talking about. As I said before, Musk is at best paraphrasing the original hypothesis. At worst he is bastardising it into saying things that Bostrom didn't intend.

It's not necessary to Bostrom's premise that the simulation exactly simulate every real person and every real action that they took in their life.

Non real world software creatures individually following non real world software logic isn't a simulation of anything real is it? It is simply what it is.

It is a simulation of a world, or a universe, either with or without simulated conscious beings. But again, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the simulation is sufficiently powerful to convince the simulated conscious beings - us - that it is real.

Remember Conway's Game of Life from the 60's.

70s. Yes, I do. It too is a simulation, to an extent.

The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1] It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

Your definition of "simulation" is too narrow.

it matters only that they are conscious, and that they have sufficient computing power.

If they are created software characters, in a software environment, with any rules the programmer makes, they aren't conscious. They are simply stimulus response programs.

By "they" I am referring to the creators of the simulation, not the simulated beings.