From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 19:44:45 MDT
X9987ghy7Q writes---channeling through the Simulated Human
Being (SHB) Brent Thomas---
> It seems clear to me [X9987ghy7Q] that as a civilization advances
> and increases its available computing power a larger and larger
> portion of that available power is used in simulation. Simulation
> of physics, of environments, of creatures and yes of detailed and
> functional creatures in environments. Creatures such as ourselves?
Yes, indeed, simulations of us too. However, it is in my opinion
rather complicated. Let me explain (summarizing many past posts).
In the first place, our infinite universe at levels 1, 2, and 3
(see Tegmark) runs infinitely many copies of us. Therefore our
current experience---as you explain---is not only being simulated
infinitely many times, but actually *occurs* in physical space
infinitely many times.
In order to keep the word "infinitely" from making the text less
comprehensible, allow me to confine this discussion to a suitably
large, but finite space on level 1, say one trillion light years.
Now whenever we use the words "this solar system", the word
"this" does not have the unambiguous meaning that one may at
first suppose. After all, in our sphere of a trillion light
year there could be many simulated versions of me or you in
identical states saying "this", and a few real versions too.
So it is proper to identify with *all* your copies who at this
moment within the trillion light year sphere who are saying
"this".
Now, we may choose to *mean* this here in the sense of "this
here physical" solar system, thus confining attention to only
the real physical processes. Remember, all the simulations
and physical processes are completely identical, so therefore,
I claim, WE MIGHT AS WELL BE REFERRING TO THE PHYSICALLY REAL
ONE.
(It does so simplify the language, as does dropping "infinitely
many" from each sentence did. Besides, the simulations have many
aspects to them that are true but which are unavailable to us,
and they come in many varieties, as I will now show.)
In the second place, let us for the moment allow "this" to
point to one of the simulations. In this case, we have to
ask how many of us are in this simulation. Only the people
reading this list? Or all six billion humans? Or just you?
Or just me?
Now if it is all humans---which is the usual default assumption
when people start going on about simulations---then note that
our simulators are cruel indeed. The bastards have bothered
to simulate the collapse of the World Trade Center, the
Cambodian holocaust, and even the people rotting in Castro's
jails. Why? What on Earth would motivate them TO *DO* THIS?
One does not have to go as far as Samantha and several others
do to assume that advanced races are vastly nicer than we are;
if they attain only our *present* level of morality they will
abstain from reenactments of Gettysburg, World War II, or even
a day in the life of some poor soul in the U.S. who is suffering
from depression.
It seems both pointless and immoral to run simulations that
are in any sense correct emulations of our present world.
Therefore, granting that the simulations do occur in great
numbers, as you, X9987ghy7Q say, then it is most likely the
case that no real suffering is happening, and we only have
the *memories* of having suffered. And those whose entire
lives are never ending bouts of schizophrenia and misery
aren't being emulated at all, but are only being portrayed.
So the whole ensemble of simulations dribbles off into
imponderable semi-simulations of unknown characteristics.
> As computer power increases over time so too must
> the frequency and capability of those simulations.
> Given a simple statistical evaluation of the process
> it is nearly inescapable that we must in fact be
> resident in such a simulation (even if it is not
> detectable as such to us). In fact these simulated
> creatures must so substantially outweigh any "real"
> creatures that most often any thinking and intro-
> spective being is most likely in such a simulation.
> Such a simulation would explain many aspects of the
> questions discussed on this list. Why are there no
> visiting aliens?
Hell why not indeed?
> why they're not present in our simulation....etc etc etc
It seems to me that you adduce further evidence that
"this" is not a simulation at all or is a simulation
that does not include life elsewhere within a sphere
of a billion light years.
> The real question becomes then if one is resident
> in a simulation how to "discover" this fact?
> How to communicate with the "runner" of the
> simulation... and what benefit may be derived
> from doing so? (It may in fact be futile and
> best ignored. Shall we then behave and believe
> that we are in fact real?)
Absolutely yes, we ought to suppose at all times
that our pointer "this" is pointing to the real
instances. There is utterly no payoff to focus
on the instances of the pointer "*this" that
refer to the interior of simulations.
> Ultimately this may be a futile question with
> no answer but it may in fact be the only question
> worth answering.
I very much doubt it, X9, (may I call you "X9" for
short? :-) A better question might be, shall
we run simulations when we have the ability, and
what shall we run?
> Python had it wrong...the earth isn't a massive
> computer designed to answer some obscure question
> ...the whole universe is...
Yes! Now that *could* be! But it ought to be saved
for another thread, another time, and another email.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 19:54:06 MDT