Are we...
- Thread starter Mr. G
- Start date
Не, я просто стараюсь понять разные модели. Привычка с детства рассматривать задачу со всех сторон.
"No, I'm just trying to understand the different models. It's a childhood habit to look at a problem from all angles."
Isn't the notion of a simulation model an angle?
Я не умею моделировать на компьютере. И вообще, всю интересную для себя информацию привыкла держать в голове.
If technology continues to progress (civilization does not collapse or backslide from a variety of threats), then at some point in the future one of Bostrom's "ancestor simulations" really will be commenced. There will actually be a situation where the inhabitants of a limited, artificial "world" are either created by advanced versions of themselves (existing at a prior-in-rank ontological level) or by posthuman "descendants" engineered by the latter.
Key to that will be whether those simulated beings subsisting as processes in an electronic slash photonic substrate will have experiences as we do. Or instead just be zombies whose "awareness" consists purely of outward behavior. IOW, can our kind of consciousness be replicated by a non-biological system?
If not, then we can pretty much rule out the speculation that we are abiding in one of those ancestor simulations ourselves.
Another thing we can also rule out for those artificial realities is that an entire cosmos would have to be maintained when not observed (a staggeringly impossible feat several times over) in order for the simulation to seem internally coherent.
If even the LLMs we have today can generate (often) rational appearing sentences and realistic images, videos, and music -- with only statistical prediction via training and extra bandaid approaches as a guide for those regularities, then surely that, coupled with adversarial network schemes, can generate on the fly what a human denizen of a simulation expects to sanely or consistently see, hear, and feel when entering their home or turning a corner in their outer environment. Granted, there may still have to be occasional editing of personal memories, by the system, to cover up glitches.
Even our brains can do a degraded job of simulation at times in our dreams. Where the dream-world behaves lawfully for temporary intervals before it wanders off into lunacy again. The machines need to govern the content of perceptions more reliably and strictly than neural tissue, and keep them coordinated across multiple observers.
Although in theory a "cruel joke" simulation could be solipsistically oriented toward a lone conscious inhabitant, with everybody else being superficial props (as in dreams). But even the living behavior of the props would still have to be kept harmonized with the overall sequence of events.
_
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If we are and cannot tell it does not matter.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
In your case, the Heritage Foundation.
Fox News.
We can tell . Question . The ability to question . Is essence of free will .
Last edited:
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
Are you assuming base reality for simulation hypothesis. If you consider this reality as indistinguishable simulation of base reality, then I see only one logical possibility.
You are pulling your own strings.
Also, it is logical to start with assumption that you live in base reality, if you actually live in one.
Simple. Right?
It is also logical consequences of indistinguishable symulation of base reality to start with assumption, that you live in base reality, and because there is no way to distinguish, you should stay with this assumption.
No mental exercise should convince you otherwise. Or you risk possibility to convince yourself that you live in simulation reality actually living in base one.
So you are pulling your own strings regardless where you are.
And even if we live in indistinguishable from base reality simulation we have made it indistinguishable exactly for that reason to be considered as base reality.
You are pulling your own strings.
Also, it is logical to start with assumption that you live in base reality, if you actually live in one.
Simple. Right?
It is also logical consequences of indistinguishable symulation of base reality to start with assumption, that you live in base reality, and because there is no way to distinguish, you should stay with this assumption.
No mental exercise should convince you otherwise. Or you risk possibility to convince yourself that you live in simulation reality actually living in base one.
So you are pulling your own strings regardless where you are.
And even if we live in indistinguishable from base reality simulation we have made it indistinguishable exactly for that reason to be considered as base reality.