• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank Newgent said:
How does an entity in a simulation obtain the knowledge that it might be in a simulation?
Click to expand...

Well, at the very least, if it knows that it can build simulations itself, and those simulations can include simulated versions of anything in it's own frame.

For instance, the fact that we can build simulations accurate to the particle level, with an arbitrary level of detail, opens up the possibility that all the particles we think are real in our frame are actually ... simulated. Thats why the question of "computability" is actually very important -- if we can find an aspect of our own reality that cannot be computed, then the possibility that we are in a simulation ourselves is removed (or at least made very much more unlikely ).

But beyond that, if an entity knows it "might" be in a simulation, certain observed events could lead it to conclude there is a "higher" probability than otherwise. That is what I mean by glitch or bug.

For instance, suppose gravity reversed in your local area, but not globally, for a second or so. What are the possible explanations?

One explanation is that someone found a way to reverse gravity. OK, if that is true, we should be able to find that person and confirm. Or, some aliens might have found a way to reverse gravity, and are doing it from space. Again, we could look for them and confirm.

Then if we don't find an observable cause, we have to arrive at other conclusions. One possibility is that our understanding of the physics of gravity is incomplete, and we need to alter our mathematical descriptions (equations) to account for this. But since the effect was local, it might be very difficult. What happens when the consistent mathematics we are familiar with is incapable of accounting for an event (note that I say "account", not "describe," since everything can be "described" by mathematics.)

The final option is ... surprise... that we are in a simulation and there was a glitch. That isn't very hard to imagine, since if we were to build a complex simulation we would use multiple server machines that each ran a localized portion of the program and if there was a glitch in the physics simulation code, due to a hardware failure, on one machine it might not spread to the others. So perhaps this strange reversal of gravity is something like that, affecting the simulation we are in.

But -- like I said -- there would be no way to know with 100% certainty.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Well, at the very least, if it knows that it can build simulations itself, and those simulations can include simulated versions of anything in it's own frame.

For instance, the fact that we can build simulations accurate to the particle level, with an arbitrary level of detail, opens up the possibility that all the particles we think are real in our frame are actually ... simulated. Thats why the question of "computability" is actually very important -- if we can find an aspect of our own reality that cannot be computed, then the possibility that we are in a simulation ourselves is removed (or at least made very much more unlikely ).

But beyond that, if an entity knows it "might" be in a simulation, certain observed events could lead it to conclude there is a "higher" probability than otherwise. That is what I mean by glitch or bug.

For instance, suppose gravity reversed in your local area, but not globally, for a second or so. What are the possible explanations?

One explanation is that someone found a way to reverse gravity. OK, if that is true, we should be able to find that person and confirm. Or, some aliens might have found a way to reverse gravity, and are doing it from space. Again, we could look for them and confirm.

Then if we don't find an observable cause, we have to arrive at other conclusions. One possibility is that our understanding of the physics of gravity is incomplete, and we need to alter our mathematical descriptions (equations) to account for this. But since the effect was local, it might be very difficult. What happens when the consistent mathematics we are familiar with is incapable of accounting for an event (note that I say "account", not "describe," since everything can be "described" by mathematics.)

The final option is ... surprise... that we are in a simulation and there was a glitch. That isn't very hard to imagine, since if we were to build a complex simulation we would use multiple server machines that each ran a localized portion of the program and if there was a glitch in the physics simulation code, due to a hardware failure, on one machine it might not spread to the others. So perhaps this strange reversal of gravity is something like that, affecting the simulation we are in.

But -- like I said -- there would be no way to know with 100% certainty.
Click to expand...


Have you experienced any of these bugs or glitches?
 
dlorde said:
So if consciousness is a computational process,
Click to expand...

The "if" is the critical point. Obviously, if consciousness is a computational process (and we need to be quite precise about what we mean by that) then if can be produced by computation. If consciousness is a physical process, then it cannot be produced by its simulation.

There's no final evidence either way - but the brain is undoubtedly a physical object, and performs physical functions. It's an organ of the body, and if it can have its essential functions duplicated by a purely computational process, then it's the only organ that can.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Have you experienced any of these bugs or glitches?
Click to expand...

As with all such thought experiments, the problem is with the assumption that real reality would work like the simulation, if we're in a simulation. If we do live in a simulation, then how do we know how reality should work? Why shouldn't the laws of nature change from moment to moment? Indeed, the fact that the laws of nature appear consistent might be considered evidence that we are in a simulation - that the consistency of the laws of nature is merely a convenience of the "people" running the simulation. Of course, such a simulation need not be computational at all.
 
westprog said:
As with all such thought experiments, the problem is with the assumption that real reality would work like the simulation, if we're in a simulation. If we do live in a simulation, then how do we know how reality should work? Why shouldn't the laws of nature change from moment to moment? Indeed, the fact that the laws of nature appear consistent might be considered evidence that we are in a simulation - that the consistency of the laws of nature is merely a convenience of the "people" running the simulation. Of course, such a simulation need not be computational at all.
Click to expand...

Who is making that assumption? And even if one was, why is that a problem?

We know from our own experience with simulations that at the very least any simulated behavior must at least be consistent with the same mathematics that we use to describe real behavior. That is to say, 2 + 2 == 4 in and out of the simulation. So we can be sure that if we are in a simulation, math exists in the frame above and 2 + 2 == 4 in the frame above.
 
rocketdodger said:
We know from our own experience with simulations that at the very least any simulated behavior must at least be consistent with the same mathematics that we use to describe real behavior. That is to say, 2 + 2 == 4 in and out of the simulation. So we can be sure that if we are in a simulation, math exists in the frame above and 2 + 2 == 4 in the frame above.
Click to expand...


If your experience with simulations could be simulated (outside your knowledge) nothing is certain... concerning simulations.
 
Last edited:
Frank Newgent said:
If your experience with simulations could be simulated (outside your knowledge) nothing is certain... concerning simulations.
Click to expand...

If we can be certain of our own minds, then we can be reasonably certain of mathematics. 2+2=4 is equally valid in any possible universe. However, the laws of nature as opposed to the laws of logic are entirely unknowable to a simulation. Any conjecture as to their truth is based on the surmise that the makers of the simulation will simply implement reality. There's no particular reason why they should. It might be that in a universe where the laws are constantly mutable, this universe is merely an experiment to see what would happen if they stayed the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom