Re: Q: Simulation checking

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 11:59:50 MDT

  • Next message: Steve Nichols: "Re: extropians-digest V8 #158"

    On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 02:16:14 -0400, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
    <sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
    > Aside from speaking into a voice recorder, does anyone else have any
    > suggestions for creating a permanent record of an event which would force
    > that event to be simulated in greater detail? In particular, such that
    > for the simulator to get a historically accurate probability distribution
    > on the gross characteristics of the permanent record created (its ones
    > and zeroes, which would be later examined), the simulator would find it
    > useful to simulate the original event in greater-than-usual detail.
    >
    > Note that we are talking about making it *useful* for the simulator to
    > expend more computing power, to simulate to a greater depth, in order to
    > get a *more accurate* picture of the *probability distribution* of the
    > ones and zeroes in the permanent record. This means that the probability
    > distribution of the permanent record depends on fine physical details in
    > a way which can be usefully refined by expending more computing power.
    > Assume that the initial conditions are 'spread out' evenly over whatever
    > space of possibilities is permitted by the state of the existing low-
    > resolution simulation at the moment when it begins modeling at greater
    > detail, so that what we want is not just sensitive dependency on initial
    > conditions, but the simulator's ability to get a more historically
    > realistic picture of the probability distribution, after dropping from
    > the previous low resolution into the evenly distributed high-resolution
    > initial conditions, by expending more computing power to model the
    > convergence of the development of those initial conditions at a finer
    > level of detail. So what we want is a physical process, which converges
    > to some degree, which creates sensitive dependency in the permanent
    > record, such that a noticeably more refined picture of the probability
    > distribution of the permanent record can be obtained by expending more
    > computing power to simulate that moment at a finer level of resolution.
    >
    > Or if that's too complicated: some way of creating a permanent record
    > that sensitively depends on small details of the sim - either
    > expensively, using off-the-shelf equipment, or (bonus points) using stuff
    > lying around the house.

    But there's recording, and then there's processing. What if _attention_
    (mine, yours, *"theirs"*) is the limiting factor? If nobody _looks_ at the
    permanent record, is it there? Not trying to gainsay your line of
    reasoning, just trying to get my head around what seems like a fatal flaw.
    It's be diferent, perhaps, if the "sensitive dependency" influenced, say,
    the shape of a river, or a famous statue, or something. But in order to
    tell, wouldn't *everybody* (or a preponderance of people) have to know
    about the connection ahead of time?

    I mean, how much time would you personally spend looking at the ones and
    zeroes of that audio recording, out of all the time in your life? After
    you'd done so, wouldn't you just compress the experience into a memory with
    a lot fewer bits?

    Sorry if this is scattered, I hope you can encode the experience
    meaningfully. :)

    -- 
    I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. 
    Sometimes I forget.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 12:09:59 MDT