A Conundrum
by MikeGeneThe SA essentially states that, given the potential for posthumans to create a vast number of ancestor simulations, we should probabilistically conclude that we are in a simulation rather than the deepest reality.
Most people give a little chuckle when they hear this argument for the first time. I've explained it to enough people now that I've come to expect it. The chuckle doesn't come about on account of the absurdity of the suggestion, it's more a chuckle of logical acknowledgment — a reaction to the realization that it may actually be true.
But this is no laughing matter; there are disturbing implications to the SA. We appear to be damned if we're in a simulation, and damned if we're not.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
That would depend on the probability of one ancestor simulation, compared to one deep reality, as well as the number of possible deep realities. MWI would suggest a huge number of deep realities (does argument for MWI?).
Comment by The Pixie — May 27, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
It would depend on the motives of the designer.
It sucks being a dependent being, doesn't it.
You are not in control.
So if this is all a simulation, is it possible the designer really got it all setup in about six 24-hour periods, with simulated long time spans?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Let's see, given the purely hypothetical potential for x at some future point, we should in fact conclude that x is most probable?
Talk about a non-sequitur.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 27, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
LOL!!! My goodness, these folks have way too much time on their hands. I rather like the ending to the 8-07 NYT article…
Now, I don't see why a simulated world need involve all that much computing power, since the only simulated individual in the game that needs a functional sim-consciousness is the simulator's avatar. The billions of 'others' only need act-react algorithms to model behaviors, and only when interaction pertinent to the avatar occurs. A restatement of the good old "only person I'm sure is conscious is me" situation.
That said, it's slightly interesting that even posthumanist dreamers can't seem to get away from the idea of design and a "Prime Designer." But then again, if your innermost desire is to be an immortal computer game avatar dependent on the unreasonable premise that the electricity won't ever go out, a Prime Designer with the ability and will to supply never-ending electricity is probably a comfort.
Comment by Joy — May 27, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I wonder how long it will take before someone files a lawsuit to restrict any mention of this idea in a science class since it is "religious."
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hey, the simulation argument.
I've been referencing this a lot lately, as I find it just too fascinating.
One problem is that, if we're inside of a simulation, we'll have trouble even speculating about what's going on outside of it. Maybe the 'universe' there is utterly unlike our own – we may have enough processing power to run a simulation within our simulation, and simulations within that. Maybe physics is different out there as well, so the mere possibility throws a wrench in 'Well it depends on what we know of nature' – we may be studying artificial nature.
There's a lot that could be said here, but I think the general ramifications of modern computing haven't really 'caught up' with the philosophers yet – save for the philosophy of mind, where it mostly demonstrates how in the dark we are on certain subjects. I'm surprised I haven't seen more talk of it in ID circles (Though UD recently made passing reference to Maxis' "Spore", which I think is going to result in a whole lot of discussion – at least in one small net niche.)
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Very soon after some big institute starts promoting teaching it in schools as science – only not really – I would hope.
Comment by The Pixie — May 27, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
As a computer science student, I once was very enthusiastic about the prospect of Artificial Intelligence….of course this led to the question: "What is intelligence?"
A simulation is the formation of an analogy. If the analogy is sufficiently strong, we consider it "real" so much so we cease from calling it a simulation….
For example, we could create 3 computers : 1 made of silicon, 1 made of germanium, 1 made of vacuum tubes….etc. If we run the same software on these 3 dissimilar systems, the analogies in the software would presumably be so exact that we would be hard pressed to say whether the software analogies remain analogies, but are in fact the real thing (even though the hardware is different)….
Closer to home — MS word is still microsoft word independent of the physical platform it resides in….
Now, if artificial intelligence is fundamentally made of software, how about real intelligence (which also has consiousness) — is real intelligence made of software???
We are not made of the same molecules we were made of 20 years ago. It seems what has persisted is not the material substance but rather the form or "software".
So the simulation argument has some merit, but with some qualification….
Oddly enough, a few ID proponents subscribe to the simulation argument, most notably physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler…They view the universe as one massive Quantum Computer running the "Universal Simulation"….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 27, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
It's certainly possible to think of the entire observable universe as the working out of the algorithms of physical laws in a computational matrix of whatever it is that matter and energy really are. It's fun to think about, but has little bearing on the investigation of what's observed (although information science will get ever more interesting if some of the more intriguing ideas in quantum physics start to pan out).
And if it pleases you to think of all this being set up by some extra-universal mechanism, or running on some other system that's unreachable through the simulator rules, then by all means be pleased: it doesn't affect things (although it is vastly incompatible with Abrahamic theologies). All its assumptions are untestable.
Simulations are extremely useful, of course, because they're a very powerful way of testing ideas against reality. Moreover, ones that run on the computers we build — unlike the simulation of the world that we constantly run in our consciousness — make all the assumptions behind those ideas explicit, which may be their most powerful effect: if I simulate the weather, other people can examine the model and methods and come up with improvements or criticisms that help improve the process.
It used to be said that if it doesn't have numbers, it isn't science: I think the 21st century variant will say that it isn't science if you can't simulate it.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Your comments are so revealing.
But let me ask again, how so?
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I actually have an affinity for something akin to the SA. However, its been around for a long time, absolute idealism. Absolute idealism says that reality is mental. Subjective idealism has problems because of common experiences among individuals. Absolute idealism solves that problem because all minds are part of Absolute Mind. A metaphor I like to use is Author/Story. The story the author is creating is in the authors mind as are the characters and events. It's all mind. The characters have their own minds and often, as many authors will attest, surprise the author (free will?). What I find appealing about this view is that it solves so many problems. If mind is fundamental then there is no problem of phenomenal consciousness. I also think an absolute idealism offers an interesting solution to the intelligence in intelligent design because since everything shares in absolute intelligence perhaps there is some, at least, rudimentary intelligence all the way down to the cellular level or even lower. (James Shapiro's cellular cognition might fit in here from an ID perspective).
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 27, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
PC,
Seconding Doug on this one. Maybe those with the Abrahamic theologies should decide what is and isn't compatible with their faiths, eh? Or what questions such as simulation theory lend themselves to with regards to philosophical or theological thought. Someone could turn around and say that simulation theory is utterly incompatible with atheism, but what would the point be other than.. well, point-scoring?
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Where to start…
The Old Testament is very clear that God is the creator of everything, that mankind was given awareness and free will, abused that, and is thus capable – and often willing – to act in ways that displease God.
The consequences of this displeasure vary according to certain subsequent variations on the theme, but all depend absolutely on God's continued interaction with us as a race or as individuals.
A simulation that is undetectable as such cannot have the simulator wandering around within it but outside its rules. Either the God of the Bible is part of the simulation and thus not the Abrahamic omniscient Lord of Lords, or the simulator is not undetectable as such.
And what to make of "And God so loved the world that he gave his only son" – a simulated son? A real son that died in simulation? Whatever your view of the mysticism of resurrection theology, it is rendered entirely impotent if it is in any way simulation and not absolute reality — unless, of course, God is unawares a part of the simulation and thus not the highest being there is. Much blood has been spilled over the years over the exact nature of Jesus: that he may have been a simulation knowingly created by God is something which is thoroughly on the far side of blasphemy. I cannot see any compatibility with this thought and that of any form of Christianity, as famously elastic as such definition can be.
(Simulators also have the essential property that they can be stopped, wound back and tweaked. Simulated time is entirely at the disposal of the simulator. Nowhere in any tradition of which I am aware is such a mechanism even hinted at: instead, we and God seem entirely part of linear time where events are fixed and may not be revisited.
Which also makes God seem part of the simulation: the tweaks applied during the history of mankind (the Flood, the Resurrection, the revelation of the Qu'ran) are simply not necessary where re-running with different parameters would lead to a much more effective achievement of God's stated aims. But that's just a special case of the problem of earthquakes under the purview of a loving God, so I doubt it's any more convincing.)
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I object to the term "simulator". Whatever this spacetime reality is, it is what it is (how profound), and "simulator" implies there is something like our universe that is "more real", that our reality is, well, "merely" simulating.
If our spacetime is being executed on some colossal supercomputer of unknown nature, it would not make this spacetime any less "real." Dependent, yes. Imaginably unlike our intuitive notions about "matter" and "energy", no doubt. But still very much real.
Waves on the water are not the water, but they are still real.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Platonic Caveman,
One word: Demiurge.
These ideas are not new by any stretch. And the notion that our spacetime is a "virtual reality" is not in any way incompatible with Abrahamic religions.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
PC,
You can lay out your problems with it as you like. But it's no more convincing than is, say, the assertion that either the world is 6000 years old or the Abrahamic faiths are false. That you won't admit to any compatibility between one thought and another isn't really of much concern, anymore than my or anyone else's stance would necessarily be to you.
Nevertheless, from an ID perspective, the simulation question is – falsifiable or not – pretty interesting. And it does highlight the new perspectives and questions raised by the mere fact of modern computers, not to mention the future possibilities.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Abrahamic religion has claims to represent cosmic truth. A simulator is, to some extent, a lie. Unless you get jiggy with the Gnostics — which I'd certainly exclude from the Abrahamic traditions around us today — you're not going to square the two.
I think that, at heart, is my basic perception of incompatibility between the two concepts.
I don't suppose for one second it matters nor that it's particularly original (it's just a spin on phenomenology), but I do think it's logical and an interesting slant on the theological implications of design theory. Which I find far more interesting than the scientific implications, given that most ID fans are of Abrahamic persuasion and, begging Ben Stein's pardon, theology is more intricately and intractably implicated in the history of human suffering than science.
Look what happened to the Gnostics, after all.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
PC,
No need for anyone to bring in the gnostics to square the views. And casting a simulation as a 'lie' has its own problems, as kornbelt888 brings up – these aren't black and white issues, but yet more questions for philosophers and theologians to approach. I doubt anyone would regard George Berkeley as a gnostic, or at least would expect such a view to be plainly obvious.
Yes, PC. At this point we understand you really do not like religion, or at least the western Abrahamic faiths in particular, and thus your worldview remains colored. Are the jabs just part of the introduction, or is this going to be a regular routine?
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Firstly, "simulator" is a misnomer. (See previous post.)
Secondly, it would only be a "lie" if Yahweh said it "wasn't a simulator" or whatever.
As far as I can tell, there is no explicit detail about the nature of reality in the Abrahamic scriptures. No mention of atoms or quarks, or what they may consist of "really." Can you find any?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Religions, I like. Nothing human is alien to me. It's what people do with them and why that gets my goat, and while it's fun to weave philosophy I am admittedly more keen on the practical implications. It seems to me that most of the world of ID is similarly keen on the practical implications and seeks to precipitate them by a wedge of philosophy.
As for quarks in the Bible, it says as little about them as it does about genes, evolution, cosmology or any other modern science. WIsh more people felt that way.
And as for simulations – or however you choose to call them – as I said, it's not important.
If the idea ever caught on, that would change…
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Steve Petermann:
Well, it is certainly true that we (and other) living things express ourselves in a sort of 'matrix' that gives the world its forms and phenomena – space, time, matter, energy and all the odd combinations of plus and minus. One thing I like best about the Orch-OR model of consciousness mechanisms is its computational dependence – the 'computer' (brain) running the simulation (world) and relating/reacting to it (conscious awareness and perception).
As a synesthete, I long ago came to the understanding that the various qualia of perceptual experience are more like raw data than 'things' as-is. In a computer analogy the data would be the zeros and ones, I suppose. In synesthetes – and it is theorized that all humans are born synethetes who learn quickly to segregate the 'frequencies' of incoming data to their separate processing centers – the segregation is incomplete and 'crossover frequencies' that carry extra information about what is being perceived don't get lost in the shuffle. There are shortcomings of grammatical ability to describe the extra information, so it gets parsed via the sensory equipment our physical bodies have developed: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin. Thus hearing colors or seeing tastes or smelling smooth. It's all data of the same type, understood as what the processed analysis returns.
It's a tree out there. If you walk or drive right into it, it's gonna hurt. It's this far away, it's about that big around, it's about so tall… it does have independent existence, whether we're looking at it or not. But the projection of the world inside our heads – informed by the data we collect about it through our sensors – *is* a simulation. It is generally (objectively) shared because the data doesn't change among observers/interactors. A tree is still a tree, a lake is still a lake, to the entire crowd of people viewing as well as to the bear and squirrel in the thicket wondering what all those people are doing there.
The most amazing part of the simulation to me is physical, not mental. That in this universe of relative movements and data to be differentiated things can manage to maintain the relative integrity of their matter-energy allotment *as is* from moment to moment, coordinates to coordinates is pretty impressive, even if it is mostly habit. And even if it's not perfect (entropy). FAPP, however, it's best to view life and the world as "real enough for gub'ment work" because "real" is what we must deal with and adapt to. Even if it is a simulation.
Comment by Joy — May 28, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The word "simulation" is unfortunate….
The more accurate and fundamental problem is whether we, as human beings have access to the underlying machinery of reality, and the answer is probably "no"….
For example, on certain computer systems, you may not have access to the hardware (for security or other reasons). You have to make all your deductions about the computer's inner workings by your interactions on the computer screen….and this will surely lead to a lot of faulty speculations in the absence of any other source of information….
If our experience of reality is like a session at a computer terminal, we have a very limited perspective on the fundamental workings of reality…..
The unvierse we experience might only be the software of a much larger reality, one which we have very limited access to. It is presumptuous that we can extrapolate our limited experiences on Earth to all of reality….
The universe we perceive might be only one among many X-box games, or possible X-box games…..physicists have certainly posited what other universes might be like, or other X-box games if you will…
If conscious intelligence is fundamentally made of software, then in principle, whatever "hardware" the software is run on can re-create consciousness, and thus the possibility of eternal life is not unreasonable if the sys-admin of the universe has a computer with infinite computing capacity and the willingness to re-run the software that defines your consciousness….that was the crux of Barrow and Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle which argued that conscious intelligence is central to physics and it will be an eternal entity.
There was also an interesting issue brought up in Dennett and Hoftstadter's book The Mind's Eye. If we create self-aware artificial intelligence (AI), is it murder to turn off the computer that is running the AI program? I'd argue it might be, but it would be resurrection to turn it on again.
However, I'm inclined to agree with penrose that conscious intelligence is deeper than algorithmic description. The kind of physical computer that can drive it is different from our current digital Turing machines. Penrose believes conscious intelligence is real but non-computable, like most of mathematical reality….Penrose has speculated on the construction of such "computers", but it remains only at that stage…
Finally, it is interesting to see the likening of the laws of physics to algorithms. Landauer, in fact, referred to the laws of phyiscs as algorithms. It may be that conscious beings are also algorithms, but not necessarily algorithms that can be run on a traditional turing machine….Penrose has some speculations on the sort of hardware architectures that can implement a conscious mind, and they can't be the traditional digital turing machine…..
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 28, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Said conundrum seems like unfounded speculation to me. I know of little justification for the view of mind as "software," or "computer simulation." First show me the computer that feels itself playing chess, and the toaster that feels itself baking break, otherwise the speculation goes nowhere but to the unfounded hubris of scientism. More likely it is that something connected to consciousness is fundamental, and this better view relates to a self evident panpsychism of a kind noted by David Skbrina's "Panpsychism in the West."
Comment by Stephen — May 28, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Sal:
Oh, I'd suspect that we *do* have access to the underlying hardware, in that it 'runs' the concentration of consciousness that expresses through our matter. Of course, our understanding of that which is greater than we are is never going to be sure (or probably even adequate), as can our understanding of that which is less than or equal to – via science and experience. It would be the panprotopsychist "Funda-mentality" Hameroff talks about.
But in the end it's just analogy, and analogy is always limited by what we're comparing and what's within our knowledge and experience to compare it with.
That said, the best analogy we can offer ourselves right now per the subject of regularities in the matrix (laws) *are* algorithms. Maybe if we ever do manage to understand and develop quantum computers, we'll have multi-dimensional algorithms to work with and the analogy will come closer.
Comment by Joy — May 28, 2008 @ 5:32 pm