Bottoms up: The Simulation Argument and Research Potential?
by Techne
In 2002, Nick Bostrom proposed his version of the simulation argument. Anders Hammarström concluded with the following in his MA thesis:
The conclusion reached in this paper is that the argument is, at our current stage of technological development, in principle irrefutable. It all depends on whether or not consciousness can emerge from advanced computer simulations of the human brain, and the answer to this question is, unfortunately, out of our current reach.
David Chalmers in an entry on his blog makes the following (among other interesting) comments:
As for intelligent design, I'm on the record as saying that I can't rule out the hypothesis that we're living in a computer simulation, so I suppose that it follows that I can't rule out the hypothesis that our world is designed.
The simulation argument could thus provide a starting point to look for evidence that our universe might be as a result of mind by focusing on the simulation argument and looking for evidence that might support the simulation hypothesis (any particular one).
What kind of simulation?
Memetic algorithms and pre-existing realities. An example.
Memetic Algorithms (MAs) are search techniques used to solve problems by mimicking molecular processes of evolution including selection, recombination, mutation and inheritance.
A few important aspects of MAs (Figure 1):
1. The fitness landscape needs to be finite.
2. The search space of the MA is limited to the fitness landscape.
3. There is at least one solution in the fitness landscape (Figure 2).
4. A fitness function determines the relationship between the fitness of the genotype (or phenotype) and the fitness landscape.
5. Selection is based on fitness.
Figure 1: A) Basic lay out of memetic algorithms. A population of individuals is randomly seeded with regard to fitness (initialized). The individuals are randomly mutated and their fitness is measured. Individuals with optimal fitness are further mutated until convergence of a local optima is reached. The process is carried out for the entire initialized population. The global optima is selected from the various local optima. B) Fitness landscape with local optima (A, B and D) and a global optima (C). In a memetic algorithm, the initial population of individual are randomly seeded and can be viewed as any of the arrows indicated in the figure.
Autodock (a molecular docking program) employs a MA in order to try and predict the orientation of a ligand within a protein receptor. A docking run with Autodock can be characterized by the following:
1. Finite fitness landscape: The physical properties of the protein receptor (E.g. electrostatic properties, Van der Waals interactions, desolvation energies etc.). This can be characterized as the pre-existing fitness landscape.
2. Search space: Confined to the protein receptor.
3. At least one solution: The original crystallographic pose.
4. Fitness function: Estimated Free Energy of Binding pose. This is determined through a combination of various interactions including Van der Waals-, electrostatic-, desolvation-, hydrogen bond- and torsional free energy.
5. Selection (guiding function): Selection is based on fitness, i.e. The Estimated Free Energy of Binding pose.
Using Autodock as an example, a docking simulation of Colchicine was run 4 times by docking Colchicine into the tubulin receptor. Each time the ligand is docked, 30 populations with 250 individuals (ligands) are randomly placed within the receptor and the position of each ligand is randomly "mutated" after which the Estimated Free Energy of the pose is measured. The position of each ligand is "mutated" until a local optima of the Estimated Free Energy of a ligand is reached. The local optima of each of the four docking runs were measured (results here) and in all four runs, the convergence of the global optima (in each run) corresponded reasonably well to the crystallographic pose (RMSD<1.8). Two conclusions can be reached thus far:
1. The software can predict the best pose (biologically relevant) of a ligand in a protein with reasonable success.
2. Separate runs converge on similar local optima after random variation and selection in a pre-existing finite fitness landscape.
Are there parallels between the above mentioned docking simulation and the evolution of life?
Compare MAs to our current understanding of some aspects of the universe.
1. Finite fitness landscape: From Einstein's equation, E=mc^2, all matter was ultimately created out of energy, and is theoretically reducible to energy, and thus energy can be understood to be the ultimate foundation of all matter in this universe. Recent Quantum Teleportation experiments have shown that it is possible to accept that energy supervenes on information (informationalism). What are some of the aspects of information which energy supervenes on? Mass, spin and charge? What about elemental proto-experiences (PEs) as phenomenal aspects that are properties of elementary particle (superimposed) described in this paper (another paper)?. Thus, the finite fitness landscape of the universe can be viewed to be the elemental physical properties; mass, spin, charge and PEs. Granted that PEs are currently a philosophical construct and not testable entities. Whether they are scientifically testable remains to be seen.
2. Search space: Confined to this universe, and since the beginning of life on earth, confined to earth.
3. At least one solution: Consciousness is at least one solution. Us.
4. Fitness function: Standard evolutionary theory describes fitness as the capability of an individual and/or a population of a certain genotype to reproduce (self-replicate). Is this fitness function solely confined to self-replication prowess? Intelligence and agency also seem to play a role in organisms that do not self-replicate in high numbers (e.g. elephants [low] vs bacteria [high]). Self-replication entities do not necessarily result in intelligent self-replicating entities, and intelligent self-replicating entities do not necessarily result in intelligent self-replicating agents. In order to differentiate between intelligence and agency, intelligence can be viewed as an ability to process information (e.g. genetics, proteomics, metabolomics) and agency can be viewed as the ability to willfully manipulate information. Can self-replication, intelligence and agency all be part of the fitness function?
5. Selection (guiding function): Natural selection and the ability of an organism to survive. Self-replication, intelligence and agency would thus play a part.
What about the evidence?
A. The Memetic Algorithms of life.
1) A reasonably optimal genetic code that seems to be optimized for evolution and random searches. It also maintains its own functional integrity.
2) Quality control systems are in place. These include DNA repair, protein folding and programmed cell death (also in unicellular organisms). Some of these systems are so efficient that they remove even functional mutated proteins from the population of proteins generated in the genome. Thus this serve to constrain evolution, preventing certain functional proteins from entering a population.
3) Variation inducers. These include cytosine deaminases, Low vs High fidelity polymerases, gene conversion and homologous recombination. The immune system harnesses the properties of the genetic code for antibody diversification. Protein folding is an exquisitely controlled process, but cells can tweak this process under periods of stress to introduce variation. For example:
Misfolded Proteins Accelarate Yeast Evolution
ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2008) — Under stress, yeast cells can unleash a remarkable mechanism based on protein-misfolding that gives them new characteristics without requiring genetic mutations.
The article continues to comment that this mechanism serves as a mechanism tailored for evolution? Irrespective of its origins, somehow, life utilizes evolution FOR evolution.
B. Convergence
As seen in the docking simulation, the solutions all converge on relatively similar local optima. Examples of molecular and structural convergence are abundant in nature. Also, abiogenesis spectacularly converged into a reasonably optimized genetic code (with a few derivatives) and life's memetic algorithms. Convergence in virtual simulations and in nature thus serve to point to similarities between them.
C. Quantum Physics and Consciousness
The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction (orch. OR) model provides a basis to connect consciousness with quantum mechanics. Philosophical models compatible with this view include Type-F monism (panprotopsychism) (Article) or Type-D Dualism. This view is also not incompatible with the Metaphysical Hypothesis discussed here (p10), and fits in nicely with the view as that information is an irreducible property of nature. Also, the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of consciousness (and agency?) can theoretically be connected by viewing the ability of an organism to quantum mechanically interact with the irreducible information of the universe as an adaptive advantage.
D) The Biased Nature of Evolution.
After running the docking simulations, the software seemed to have been biased towards a few local optima. Compare the developmental program to evolution. An interesting article that shows the parallels between evolution and development.
For development:
Primordial germ cells (PGC) are prevented from entering the somatic program and are demethylated (genome-wide erasure of existing epigenetic modifications). Then the gametes are imprinted (targeted DNA methylation) during gametogenesis, only to be demethylated again after fertilization. Then during development, DNA is methylated again, causing totipotential cells to become pluripotent. X-inactivation and reactivation of the paternal also occurs. The whole process is governed by the genetic (and epigenetic?) program. During the unfolding of this somatic program, random variation and selection occur, ultimately leading to just a few endpoints, every time it is successful. The process is constrained (few end points) as a result of pre-existing information that is set up during the initiation of the process. All this is controlled by information in the genome.
For evolution:
There also seems to be only a few endpoints (small subset, limited variation) out of all the possible endpoints.
In the article:
An End to Endless Forms: Epistasis, Phenotype Distribution Bias, and Nonuniform Evolution
It is argued to be as a result of genetic instructions dating earlier in evolutionary time. (Preadaptations)
As in the case of the evolution of eyes, as soon as these sets of genes were formed (E.g. Pax genes), (through whatever mechanism), evolution seemed to have been biased to a few end points, and these few endpoints arose 40-60 times, independently, as a result of pre-existing (preadaptations) information in the case of eyes. To make it even more intriguing is the notion that the whole process is facilitated and under intrinsic control. Why? What other "biased" end points can there be? Nervous systems, smell, hearing? And why would evolution be biased, as in development, to only reach a few end points over and over?
To conclude, some evidence seem to point to parallels between our own designed simulated docking runs and the evolution of life. Humans seem to be teleological agents by nature. We plan, we create, we intentionally manipulate nature as a means to an end. Science by its very nature also seem teleological as scientists plan and execute experiments in order to gain an understanding of the universe and life with the assumption and faith that we will be able to understand it. What to do?
Research Potential?
1) What other mechanisms exist that could bias evolution? Riboswitches? Biomelucular machines? Preadaptations?
2) Simulate a Front-loaded state and see what happens.
3) Can quantum mechanics and biological structures (e.g. tubulin) explain consciousness? What about elemental proto-experiences? Is it testable?
4) Why does the scientific endeavour seem to be biased toward teleological explanations for our existence, and why would one want to force non-teleological explanations 
?
Update (2008/12/04)
Figure 2: Similarities between reality and a docking simulation.
Figure 3: Similarities between evolution and development.
The above figures can be used to focus future discussions on the similarities between these systems.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
The problem is that the simulation argument tells us that we won't find any evidence of the simulation. So if we found something, by whatever method, we would not be able to distinguish evidence that the simulation is faulty from evidence that the simulation argument is wrong.
But don't let that stop you.
It would be a huge step forward if you could just define what a "front-loaded state" was in a way that would distinguish it from any other state. I didn't read the article you pointed to yet ("Reverse engineering a front-loaded state"), but from the title I'm going to guess that using it would be circular: reverse engineering depends on assuming an intelligent origin, so I don't think you can logically use it to demonstrate that some initial state is a front-loaded state.
With all due respect, the stuff in between looked like some extremely frantic hand-waving, but I have to admit that that initial impression stopped me from taking the time to read it carefully. Maybe later.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hi Don,
The simulation argument might tell us that we won't find evidence of the simulation, but that should not prevent one from testing a range of simulation hypotheses and correlate it to evidence.
With regards to the "front-loaded state", it does not necessarily follow that the state was the direct product of mind. One could choose simple unicellular life, or an organism at the base of the eumetazoan tree as "the front loaded state", and see (through running a simulation) if it is able to bias evolutionary trajectories, and in doing so determine why.
No worries.
Comment by Techne — December 2, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Techne:
Like what? It seems to me the simulation hypothesis is irrefutable since it is indistinguishable from saying God did it. By the way, a simulation of what? Of the "real universe"?
Comment by Raevmo — December 2, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Well, I suppose you could put it that way and try to do that, although, like Raevmo, I'm a little unclear what specific simulation hypotheses one could have other than "we are in a perfect simulation" or "we are in an imperfect simulation".
No, I reject this statement. "Front-loaded state" can only mean that the state is the direct product of mind. If no mind is implied, "initial state" is the correct term.
Glad to hear it. As I think about it, I realize that one reason I said that is that the bulk of your post seems like a lot of heavy duty, detailed work, that might actually have an application elsewhere, but it's easily overlooked in this context because we're unlikely to get beyond arguing about its foundation. And that would be a shame.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
If you want to say God did it, I guess you are going to have to have a sound theodicity. It seems plausible (to me) that an omni-max, logically rational God would know that the best way to create an optimal design and free will is through the utilization of memetic algorithms in a given fitness landscape. Guess that can be discussed in a separate entry?
The universe as we perceive it. It might not be "the real one", but how would we know if it is the case?
Don:
Fair enough, replace "front-loaded" with "initial' in this case. But, if the initial state biases evolutionary trajectories (say the emergence of agency over and over), the "front-loaded" state without necessarily implying it as the product of mind might still apply.
Comment by Techne — December 2, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
The point was that for your effort to make sense, you have to be doing something differently than you'd do to investigation "God did it." If you can't, you're using "simulation" and will probably in the future use "intelligence", but in fact what you are actually investigating is the proposal "something unknown did it".
This is wrong in an interesting way. The simulation is our universe, not merely the universe as we perceive it. But, of course, you meant the universe as the creators of the simulation perceive it. Although, of course, there's absolutely no reason to assume there's any relation between this simulation and their universe beyond the relation of this blog entry to the paper you start with ("ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?") which posits specifically a posthuman culture simulating its human era.
Hilarious paper, by the way. Thanks for pointing to it. I haven't had time to read it all, so I don't know whether the author is making a serious point or just being funny for its own sake.
I'm not sure what "over and over" means when we are talking about our experiences inside the simulation: we only see one trial.
Obviously a simulation would be "front loaded", but in that context it is unrelated to the term as used elsewhere in TelicThoughts.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Not sure if it will help,…
From the ISCID boards (2002)
Over at Techne's blog there's this quote from MikeGene's, The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues:
Comment by Rob R. — December 2, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
There is more to it than that. We rarely simply shrug and say something unknown caused x. Generally we are able to say more based on circumstances. If we observe effect y we can infer something about cause x. If the effect is an unknown written language we can make inferences about the causal source. If it is found on earth we implicate humans and eliminate other species and inanimate objects. If it arrived via an interstellar signal and subsequently was transcribed we infer an extraterrestrial intelligence. We can point to a location and infer more information. Something unknown is rarely all we have to go on.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The universe as we perceive it.
It is accurately stated as is. The creators of the simulation rely on the work of others in forming their perceptions. Your perception of our universe is dependent on data gathered by others.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Rob R.,
Thanks for the links, and I promise to look into them later when I have a little more time. But I suspect that I'll find what I always find: nothing to actually explain what a front-loaded state looks like that is different from what any other state looks like. Well, I mean nothing more than the typical, "it will look front-loaded to me."
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Sorry, but I just went back to double check, and the question was what the simulation that we are hypothetically in is a simulation of. The answer "The universe as we perceive it" is nonsensical: the universe cannot possibly be a simulation of itself. Who's gathering what data has nothing to do with the problem in that answer.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I agree. But Techne starting point is, in fact, the unknown in a specific logical sense because hypothesis is that everything we know is false. As Raevmo said, he could just as easily posit that God did it and that everything we know is false for that reason instead of because we are in a simulation.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Why? Isn't it conceivable to you in priniciple that the proximate cause of the front loading was a sophisticated computer that assessed the properties of earth, and programmed the first cell to successfully evolve into "forms most beautiful" appropriate for said properties?
The front-loader need not be a mind. Although, it would seem that somewhere in causal chain a mind with foresight is necessary to front load the front loaders.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 2, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
From the link:
The Computational Hypothesis is compatible with the Creation Hypothesis in my view. It could be considered to belong to a a subset of the Creation Hypothesis. The key to understanding the author lies with the concept of underlying realities. There was a time when the microscopic world could not have been part of an empirical underlying reality even as it could have been part of an imaginative underlying reality. That is presently analogous to the Computational Hypothesis. Indeed quantum probability analysis is an underlying reality distinct from the classsical perceptions built from experiences with our macro-world.
The simulation tool is a means of reminding us that our perception of underlying realities is subject to revision as our understanding, pegged to ever more precise technology and mathematical models, enables a deeper, more fundamental understanding of the physical universe. An underlying computational simulation can be seen by us as our universe. That is not the same as saying the universe is simulating itself- a peculiar Dawkinesque interpretation. The Computational Hypothesis would be the evidence of intelligent design. The programmer being the designer. The real Dawkinesque question is: can a program program itself and how does an initial program arise ex nihilo?
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Raevmo's superficial observation stems from his atheism, not his good sense. The falseness is an accurate depiction of historic perceptions. The perceptions were not irrational due to a belief in God- one of the mythologies currently in vogue among atheists. Rather our false perceptions of underlying physical realities were attributable to our limited means of viewing the natural world. Microscopes advanced our capabilities within the biological world, telescopes in the astronomical realm and particle accelerators within the realm of sub-atomic particles. Further technological progress could lead to further revisions in thinking which might take the Computational Hypothesis from speculative concept to underlying reality. Another paradigm shift. More false blinding scales falling from eyelids.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Techne:
It occurs to me the term quantum mechanics is somewhat oxymoronic. How can we describe a process that by its very nature is indeterminate as mechanical? Mechanical things that are designed by human beings, on the other hand, are very predictable or deterministic in their operation. Even when they fail (a plane crashes, for example) we can usually find a cause for the failure. In fact, we can do this so well that no one that I know of believes that plane crashes etc. are “uncaused.”
The modern theory (or theories) of evolution has been mired in this deterministic/mechanistic way of thinking since the time of Darwin. Evolutionist of this ilk conceive of evolution as some kind of cosmic pinball machine with moving parts that can be traced back step-by-step to some kind of mechanical first cause.
Consciousness, and the emergence of consciousness is something that the modern theory of evolution has yet to grasp. For example, there was an explosion of advanced fauna during the Cambrian period. Did the primitive animals that lived during this period possess some rudimentary form of consciousness? How did this property of consciousness emerge from non-coconscious life forms made up of unconscious matter? How do unguided and blind mechanistic forces accidentally (?) create consciousness? How did consciousness change natural selection? It seems to me that even primitive conscious agents can make better or more robust “choices” than robotically mechanistic processes.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 2, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 am
The point is correlating evidence that might fit a particular simulation hypothesis and evidence that do not. In this case, were MAs used to find an optimal solution in a given fitness landscape? I agree, even if it is true or sufficient evidence is found that our situation resembles such a simulation scenario, the question remains "who did it", if someone did it. That is a philosophical and metaphysical question I would argue. At present, I am only interested in evidence that might correlate to a particular simulation hypothesis. And in this case it is: "were MAs "used" to find an optimal solution in a given fitness landscape and what kind of evidence will fit and what kind of evidence won't fit such a hypothesis?".
I did not say this universe is not our universe. I meant that the universe as we perceive can be assumed to be real and ours (apologies, I was not clear on this). It is probably best to assume we are not in a simulation, but that does not prevent anyone from looking at the evidence and see if it resembles some sort of simulation.
I am referring to the emergence and prevalence of agency in our universe. Would you consider this as an example of agency, as in an intentional plan laid out by agents in order to manipulate the environment as a means to an end (acquiring food utilizing biomolecular machinery)?
If it "looks "front loaded" to all, is it necessarily "front loaded" (as in the result of mind)? The point of viewing simple life as a "front-loaded state" (from my perspective) is to see whether it is able to bias evolutionary trajectories to a few endpoints. Even if it does, does it prove it is actually front loaded (act of an agent)? Not necessarily, although it might count as evidence for it and not against it.
I think it is best to assume our universe is real and true (not a false simulation), but nothing prevents anyone to look at evidence and see how it might fit a particular simulation hypothesis. If evidence for a particular simulation scenario has merit, does that mean the belief that someone will hold that we are in a simulation will be false because he is in a simulation? Also, does it necessarily follow that if we are in a simulation of some sort, that everything we know is false?
JOHN_A_DESIGNER, did you mean quantum mechanics is oxymoronic in a deterministic sense but compatible with free will?
Comment by Techne — December 3, 2008 @ 2:18 am
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 am
techne,
It's worth pointing out that Chalmers deals with this very question in The Matrix as Metaphysics, which you included in your original post. Hopefully people are actually reading your links.
Comment by nullasalus — December 3, 2008 @ 4:36 am
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
This is the essential issue I believe. But you believe that positing an intelligent being who created the program solves the problem, while it seems to me that you are making it worse.
Either we must accept that an initital program (the simulation, or the existence of the laws of nature, or the information in our genomes, etc) arises ex nihilo, or we must accept that some sort of being arises ex nihilo and proceeds to create this information. (Or, we might decide that one or the other has always existed, or that one or the other is necessary, or that it exists outside of space and time, or any of the other tricks theologians have come up with to deal with this).
As far as I can see, there really is nothing to favor one idea over the other, since none of us has the faintest glimmer of comprehension regarding how either of these could arise without antecedent cause. You like to think that mind preceeded information; it seems to me that information preceeded mind.
Think of it this way: In all of our experience, the production of CSI is always associated with intelligent agency. But it is also true that in all of our experience, the production of intelligent agency is always associated with CSI. That means that the "initital program" – the front-loading of whatever it is we are living in – arose by means of something entirely outside of our experience, not by something we are familiar with at all.
Comment by aiguy — December 3, 2008 @ 11:58 am
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
That would be "a mind". Are you thinking minds have to be blood and guts?
A boring distraction. All you are claiming is that the front-loading might not look like front-loading because the real front-loading was earlier. I seriously doubt Techne wants us to think his argument is that pathetic.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
That's what I said. You said that it was a simulation of our universe. If you're going to retract that, retract it. When you try to change your position and cover it up with a bunch of irrelevant verbage, it makes me wonder if you're always being this dishonest in our conversations.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I'm sorry, but his observation is just logical. Your reaction stems from thinking that any reference to God that is inconvenient to you is an attack on religion, rather than a logical point that just happens to reference the concept "God".
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Statistically.
Perhaps it is your thinking rather than evolution itself that is so mired. Have you considered that? Nothing I see looks anything like what you're describing, and the fact that you don't even know how quantum mechanics describes things makes me wonder if you really have any idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, see, that's the problem: it seems clear to me that it's your grasp of evolution that doesn't exist. The theory of evolution describes "consciousness" just fine, thank you very much, you just reject its explanation.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
aiguy:
While these matters are intensely interesting to me I also believe that no empirical or philosophical resolution to them will be found. I think that our arrival at this point is progress in itself for it shows where rational approaches eventually lead us.
Also a good point. When facing enigmas like this, pointing out the limits of science is helpful. It allows us to choose our own metaphysical interpretations without falsely invoking an empirical discipline as the pillar sustaining our beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you're thinking when you ask that I hypothesize that our universe is a simulation, and then you say we can assume it to be real. I now have no idea what you mean by "real".
You're starting to remind me of someone at ARN that kept proposing the matrix problem (which, of course, is the same as the simulation hypothesis), and then got confused when I used the fact that the matrix problem proposes that nothing around us is real.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Then by all means supply us with the details delineating how consciousness evolved. There are some fine evolutionary biologists who would think your comment is an overreach.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I learn something new everyday.
Cool.
Comment by Rob R. — December 3, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
From a dictionary:
The second definition would be consistent with a designer having divine qualities. The characteristics or conditions, as of a system or physical process, would first exist in the mind of the designer. The model or representation of them would be expressed in the form of our universe. The first definition refers to our ability to model the universe by means of computer programs. What is a model for the designer would be our sensual reality.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
OK. In that case, what's missing is any reason to associate agency in our universe with anything about front-loading. I guess you're saying such connections will be accomplished at a later date, so I suppose I'll stop complaining about them even if I cannot see any logical way they can be made.
Me, too!
This borders on being disengenuous. If you are looking for evidence that fits a particular simulation hypothesis, you have to accept and deal with objections that actually assume that there is a simulation. Otherwise, you're just pretending to investigation the simulation hypothesis, but then running back to hide in reality's skirts whenever some aspect of the simulation hypothesis proves inconvenient to you.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
If you say so. To me, that's just using "simulation" as a euphemism for "creation". When you hypothesize that we are in a simulation, that specifically means that what we think is reality isn't.
Personally, I'm starting to think this is a fundamental problem with this thread: Techne really wants to exploring front-loading in a creation, but he's confusing the issue by calling it a "simulation" which contributes nothing. I say this because it seems to me that every time I bring up some quality implied by "simulation" that differentiates it from reality, someone shouts me down. If we're talking about reality, let's talk about reality.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Not at the level we're talking: consciousness is explained by the development of intelligence through evolution. Metaphysical problems with that are another matter: biologically "consciousness", whatever it is, is the result of one or more survival advantages.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Techne:
I don’t think that quantum indeterminacy is the same as a conscious freewill decision. Freewill involves some kind of organized deliberate thought– even stupid and silly choices involve some kind of thought. A particular atom of U235 (half life 703,800,000 yrs) does not decay (emits an alpha particle, for example, and is transmuted into another element) because it chooses to. We don’t know when or why it decays and we cannot predict when particular atom will decay. That is what we call indeterminacy.
Let me help Don out here. There are theories of consciousness put forward by contemporary Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and his protégé Susan Blackmore: the so called theory of memetics which grew of Dawkins selfish gene theory. The psychological version of this theory talks about memes (selfish memes) as a mindless gene like unit that drive evolution. Ironically it explains mind and self as mere illusions. In other words, mind is explained by mindlessness, which in my opinion really doesn’t explain a whole lot.
In his book, Agents Under Fire, Angus Menuge gives a good refutation of this theory. He writes:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 3, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I'd like to look at this carefully. The dualist claim is that no organization of natural forces can have free will because any such organization will be deterministic. As far as I know, that's the only dualist argument. Do you agree? If so, then quantum indeterminacy seems to blow that argument completely out of the water. After that, you're just left with impotent arguments such as, "Well, I can't imagine how it would work."
Now it's true, you added "conscious freewill", and I'd love to think you actually had some logical reason to do that, but I suspect you just threw in "conscious" because no one was any idea how that works, so the "I can't imagine how it would works" appears a little stronger, even though it's really still logically empty. But go ahead and tell me why you really thought adding "conscious" makes a difference.
I don't really need any help. Consciousness could be a supernatural force granted by Jesus Christ himself as far as biology is concerned, as long as the ability to have it is passed down genetically and provides a survival value.
But feel free to start a thread on memes if you really want to discuss them.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 5:09 am
December 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Is it perhaps that he is pointing to an initial state (like you mentioned) and view that tentatively as the "front loaded" state and see how this state is able to bias evolutionary trajectories?
These are the points I am trying to make:
1) At present, the simulation argument is irrefutable. There are various simulation hypotheses and speculations, but lets focus on one and compare it to what we find in reality.
2) After comparing reality to the results of a simulated docking run, what do you see? I updated the post to highlight and demonstrate the similarities.
3) This does not mean we ARE in a simulation and that what we perceive is not real just because it looks similar. It just shows that there are similarities and that it is not impossible that evolutionary processes are analogous to some simulation hypotheses.
Thus, to ask you again:
1) If evidence for a particular simulation scenario has merit, does that mean the belief that someone will hold that we are in a simulation will be false because he is in a simulation?
2) Also, does it necessarily follow that if we are in a simulation of some sort, that everything we know is false?
Does the simulation argument explicitly say that nothing around us is real? Perhaps it is simply the way that the world is?
What is wrong with drawing parallels between a particular simulation hypothesis and reality?
Comment by Techne — December 4, 2008 @ 10:37 am
December 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Start with initial state, see how it "biases" or otherwise affects evolution or "evolutionary trajectories". Fine. Biologists use this kind of logic all the time.
As soon as you try to apply "front loaded" or even "simulation", you are trying to change how we look at the scenario. If you had some reason, that would be fine, but not only do you not present any good reasons for using those terms beyond the metaphysical observation that it might be true, when I myself try to bring up what would be different about a front loaded scenario, you object.
That's why I'm suspecting you want to sneak "front loaded" and "simulation" into the conversations for motives having nothing to do with objective evaluation of the hypothesis.
If I still trusted you, I'd probably just let this pass. But "simulation argument" is not well defined, and, in particular, a definition which is only currently irrefutable, not logically irrefutable, would have to be pretty specific. So I'm going to have to stop you and ask exactly what you mean by "simulation argument".
Yes, is really does. That is specifically what being in a simulation would mean.
{Editted to add: I'm speaking here of what we know about metaphysical reality, but that might be confusing. Everything we know about the environment inside the simulation is still true as far as we can tell, although being in a simulation, the rules we've discovered and consider true might not continue to hold. The discussion below ignores this aspect of "truth".]
Personally, my reaction to simulation hypotheses is "So what?" If you assume the hypothesis is true, and that there's some deeper level of reality, it makes no different to you: what happens to you only depends on the simulation. The metaphysical point that we might as well pretend that the simulation is reality is perfectly reasonable; I even say it's the only reasonable reaction. But it's simply wrong to say that that means the simulation is reality: the term "simulation" means it is not.
The paper ("ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?") reaches almost the same conclusion. It also goes into a hillarious tangent about the possibility of us being in a simulation being run inside another simulation, making us realize that even if we assume we're in a simulation and manage to find some hints about the simulation's environment through the hypothetical methods you are suggesting, there's no reason to think that that's reality, either.
Now mind you, in the end I think we agree about the bottom line: there's no point in thinking reality is anything but what it is. But I claim that the logic behing that involves rejecting the simulation hypothesis outright (although on practical grounds, not logical grounds), not by redefining "reality" and/or "simulation" so that what's inside a simulation should be called reality other than by someone that fails to recognize they're in a simulation.
Yes. That's what "simulation" means. If you want to talk about "simply the way that the world is", the terms to use are "creation" or "reality", not "simulation".
Nothing at all. What is your particular simulation hypothesis?
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Interesting. Could you please elaborate here?
Say you replayed the tape of life (like Gould famously said), would you expect similar endpoints from a particular "initial state"? If so, it essentially means that is the way it was supposed to evolve (as in development). In the docking simulation, after replaying the runs (4 times), they all converged on similar local optima, essentially meaning those ligand positions are supposed to be reached after random variation and selection processes. Can you see similarities between the docking simulation, development and evolution?
Do those similarities run deeper? Perhaps, we will only know if we gather and discuss the actual evidence. So let's discuss and compare the evidence.
How do "we" look at the scenario? Is it that cells are passive entities whereby random mutations (and other mechanisms) introduce variety for no reason on which natural selection blindly acts upon with regards to fitness?
Or is that cells are active entities that search random space for solutions during times of selection pressure with intrinsic quality control systems that act as selection mechanisms to constrain the random search and thus bias the output of a random search?
Fair enough, I still feel a front-loaded state can still be viewed to be the result of random variation and selection. You choose "initial state" to describe it. Let's stick with that and reverse engineer an "initial state". Will an initial state be able to bias future evolutionary trajectories towards a small subset of possibilities, and will this small set of possibilities be reached if you were to replay the evolution of that "initial state"? Let's look at the evidence we have so far then and compare it to a few models, e.g. docking simulation and MAs as well as development.
From the FAQ, each of these has a probability higher than zero of being true at present.
Which is true? No one knows, but interesting hypotheses can be built around it to test those probabilities.
An "initial state" (with a few core components) will repeatedly produce similar endpoints after evolutionary processes, irrespective of its origins.
Comment by Techne — December 4, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
In the movie “The Matrix” Morpheus asks Neo:
“Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real. What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”
The latter question in my opinion go to the heart of the problem that we are discussing in this thread. It doesn’t matter if we really exist in a real world, or, we are conscious agents inside an ever lasting dream, or “brains in a vat” being fed a simulated reality by some invisible super computer, or even “sims”–simulated conscious agents that are actually created by the computer within the computer (which are indeed themselves self conscious), there is no way to get outside our reality to see if it is the only reality, or to see if it is the only true reality. We are limited by our perceptions to the reality which we perceive.
If we follow this line of reasoning to its conclusion it suggests to me that there are definite boundaries or limits to scientific knowledge. Science can only objectively study the world presented to it.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 4, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Spot on. I find that a large part of the telic/ID anti-evolution argument involves introducing these metaphysical uncertainties, and I suspect it's because most ID supporters do not recognize that science is a useful tool precisely because it limits itself to the world presented to it and ignores the metaphysical uncertainties. This approach has turned out to be spectacularly successful.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Sure, but I'm kinda surprised I need to. Paleontology is all about establishing initial conditions of environments and organisms, known or hypothesized, and evaluating how those initial conditions affected subsequent development. Convergence, for example, is the observation that similar initial states can lead to similar outcomes even though the organisms involved are quite different.
We looked at the scenario impartially, asking how it happened rather than asking who did it, as the explorers in the centuries before had done. What we found when we did that was what you describe.
"Initial state" is the neutral description. I don't propose we say, "unintentional initial state", and I ask you not to suggest "intentional initial state" as implied by the term "front-loaded".
Oh, OK. Sorry. I thought you were using that paper as a jumping off point, not as an actual argument to be followed. In that case, "At present" is inappropriate: the paper presents a logical argument that, by its very nature, can never be refuted.
But thanks for the clarification. I'll go back later and review those points and your updates in that light.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
December 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Positing mind and agency to be the ultimate origin of our reality might solve a issues in the truth department I would try and argue. Why?
Truth, I feel is a mental construct.
An objective truth from another person's/natural agent's point of view, I would argue, is that that person had a surefire reason for creating… say a chair. A person had a boni fide true, objective reason for making it. I can study the chair and come to certain conclusions about the chair.
1) It is made of wood (Fact)
2) It was made (I know from experience that agents can create chairs)
3) The person had a reason for making it (Because in the mind of that person there was indeed a reason for making it)
4) I might not know what the reason was for the creation of the chair, however, it can be seen that I have reached objective truths about the chair. Those being:
The chair is made of wood.
The chair was indeed the result of a mind creating it.
The person has a reason in his mind for making the chair.
Now looking at the universe and information as an irreducible property of it. If we were to accept that the laws and information of the universe are indeed necessary facts and not the result of a necessary mind would science be able to discover truths about laws that describe themselves? The existence of a necessary fact seems to be irrational, as it describes itself and no further truth can be discerned from it. The laws might seem perfectly rational to us, but their existence is irrational. What truth can be discovered about something that exists irrationally. Wouldn't it undermine the scientific endeavour (search for truth) if one were to posit the existence of the universe to be the result of irrationally existing laws?
From Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:
It is the observation, not the mechanistic explanation of it. How and why are more interesting than the observations.
I would describe it now to be closer to entities that are able to harness random variation and selection in order to maintain homeostasis.
Comment by Techne — December 7, 2008 @ 10:52 am
December 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
It is the result of starting with an initial state and "see how this state is able to bias evolutionary trajectories", which was what we were discussing.
I don't know what this homeostasis is you speak of nor what entities have mastered random variation and selection to maintain it.
Comment by don provan — December 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
For the same reason we build bridges and invent other ways to improve our lives that life, nature, and history do not have.
Comment by don provan — December 8, 2008 @ 5:43 pm