rigorousintuition.ca

brainpanhandler wrote:Not so fast. The question of what is being simulated is answered best by the simulation. A tautology that won't sit well with you. I wonder if there is an inverse relationship between the willingness to entertain the idea that one is a simulation and the size of one's ego.

Is that directed at me? Seems to be, in context.

Actually, I have every willingness to entertain the idea. (Big ego or not. Truth to tell, I can't tell anymore -- my own negativity about my big ego is at least as big.) This idea is the easiest damn thing in the world to entertain. Every religion has done so. Again, I fail to see how any universe generated consciously out of an originating universe (a definition of creation-by-deity) does not qualify as a form of simulation.

Long as you're saying that, however, I would posit a direct relationship between the size of one's ego and the willingness to pretend you can figure this question out, whether through thinking or an internal voice or vision or a message from the simulation/simulator. (That applies even more to those making semi-definitive claims about the nature and intent of the simulation: big blind egos.)

I would also posit that those who publicly abjure "ego" more often than not are full of their own.

Finally, I think sfnate in his short statement and wombaticus in his posting of a graphic probably said more than is going to be said in the rest of this thread. Specifically, this:

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

Although I'll be thrilled if there's more said.

.

Actually, I have every willingness to entertain the idea. (Big ego or not. Truth to tell, I can't tell anymore -- my own negativity about my big ego is at least as big.) This idea is the easiest damn thing in the world to entertain. Every religion has done so.

I can't think of any religion that has posited that it's adherents are simulations. According to the simulation argument formulated by Bostrom if propositions 1 and 2 are false then you are likely a simulation. Which is to my mind a thought not posited by any religion before, although we might find analogues.

Again, I fail to see how any universe generated consciously out of an originating universe (a definition of creation-by-deity) does not qualify as a form of simulation.

As far as I know no one has denied this. I don't think I have. But neither has anyone suggested a potentially practical path to becoming creator deities ourselves, before. Unless you count Mormons.

Long as you're saying that, however, I would posit a direct relationship between the size of one's ego and the willingness to pretend you can figure this question out, whether through thinking or an internal voice or vision or a message from the simulation/simulator. (That applies even more to those making semi-definitive claims about the nature and intent of the simulation: big blind egos.)

Possibly.

I would also posit that those who publicly abjure "ego" more often than not are full of their own.

No doubt.

JackRiddler wrote:Finally, I think sfnate in his short statement and wombaticus in his posting of a graphic probably said more than is going to be said in the rest of this thread. Specifically, this:

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

.

I'm pretty sure that diagram is from Prometheus Rising. He might have been referring to the fact that quisp cannot really know that his head hurts because he is only ever experiencing a model of his head inside his head. It's a paradox. I think he was just being thought provoking and clever. My avatar is a similar model to the gestalt bubble model called the Cartesian Theater. Descartes just didn't have enough information about how our sensory systems and our brains process the energy of the universe into a model to be able to get rid of the ghost in the machine.

How that relates to the question of whether we are simulations or not is a lot to think about. I think. And really just the beginning of a conversation rather than an end.

brainpanhandler wrote:I can't think of any religion that has posited that it's adherents are simulations. According to the simulation argument formulated by Bostrom if propositions 1 and 2 are false then you are likely a simulation. Which is to my mind a thought not posited by any religion before, although we might find analogues.

Except that implicitly they all do, though they don't think so. Because

me wrote:Again, I fail to see how any universe generated consciously out of an originating universe (a definition of creation-by-deity) does not qualify as a form of simulation.

And you seem to agree:

brainpanhandler wrote:As far as I know no one has denied this. I don't think I have. But neither has anyone suggested a potentially practical path to becoming creator deities ourselves, before. Unless you count Mormons.

JackRiddler wrote:Although I'll be thrilled if there's more said.

.

The source for that is one of the first white papers I was ever handed. In terms of lifetime of drug abuse, I gotta say, the .pdf has been one of the most educational and debilitating substances I've ever been introduced to.

"Gestalt Isomorphism and the Primacy of Subjective Conscious Experience: A Gestalt Bubble Model"

And on a related and equally powerful note, I shouldn't pass up the opportunity to link to this one again:

Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgement of Global Risks

That's probably part of the orientation package for The Long Now Foundation....

...

The action of the consciousness creates the simulation.

Each of us does this, creates, destroys or sustains, somewhat consciously, somewhat unconsciously, so far as the limited finite temporal awareness reaches.

Each of us overlap in our creative spheres.

The inner life does mysteriously create the outer circumstances, we just don't know it, thus are actions confused and lead to conflict, because of the presence of persistent ignorance as to the true causes of effects.

We compete unnecessarily.

This resolves itself when higher levels of understanding are reached.

I have no idea if I can explain any of this to you.

I'm trying to explain it to myself, too.

...

Well said HoL, it is ironic that true understanding is not realized by gaining greater knowledge by conscious effort, but by losing the belief that one can actually know reality by dividing the inherent unity of reality into two parts, that which is me (subject), and that which is not me (object), and subsequently mistaking the resultant conceptual permutations as being possible or true expressions of the one reality.

It is this dualsitic conceiver - concept mind approach to understanding of one reality that results in a mental constructed simulation that is mistaken for the real thing. Not that the dualistic mind isn't the proper tool for a mortal time space based entity for survival in the physical world, but it can never comprehend the ineffable underlying unity of Cosmic Being.

That was great HoL. I think I understood.
Here is a bit from Anna Akhmatova that describes how I have always felt in life. I will post it here because of the simulation theories. I was amazed when I first read it because I felt like 'this is me' including the 'crimes' part. From Northern Elegies:

I myself, from the very beginning,
Seemed to myself like someone's dream or delirium
Or a reflection in someone else's mirror,
Without flesh, without meaning, without a name.
Already I knew the list of crimes
That I was destined to commit.

...

My Word that's some great poetry there Lottie.

I might put you on my friends list.*

I just want to find out whose dream I am.

Some days I think I am the egregore of RI.

Hang on a minute!

On edit;

lotsaluck wrote:I think I understood.

You think you understood?

My God.

You gotta be kiddin' me.

Hehehe.


* In fact, I just did.

...

Hammer of Los, I am glad you enjoyed the poetry from Anna A!
I am not near as bitchy as I seem sometimes-promise!
In fact, if I stop talking about election 2012, I will probably come across as a nice gal that wants to learn about everything, almost anyway.
There is one more site that I just remembered that talks about the simulation topic-hopefully back in a moment!
here it is: http://bottomlayer.com/
There is a huge amount of information at this site. I don't know if any of it is correct but interesting to think about either way!

Wow, Lottie, haven't dived into that yet but it certainly looks quite juicy! Hope it is. A bit daunting tho.

...

If I didn't already know more than I need to know, I would enjoy reading about quantum physics.

Vibrating strings are good too.

But I got laundry to do.

I gotta clean everyone's s**t up.

Ya know, despite being, well whatever I'm being.

Oh yeah.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Declare everything good in your sight.

Seek only to understand the hidden nature of causes.

Never act out of doubt or fear.

Belief is a most mysterious force.

The Will is a most dangerous master.

Inaction is a most subtle doctrine.

...

Link


Scientists plan test to see if the entire universe is a simulation created by futuristic supercomputers

Read more: http://news.techeye.net/science/scienti ... z2ElsgEfvA

US scientists are attempting to find out whether all of humanity is currently living a Matrix-style computer simulation being run on supercomputers of the future.

According to researchers at the University of Washington, there are tests that could be done to begin to work out whether we are in fact real, or merely a simulation created by a futuristic android on its lunch break.

Currently, computer simulations are decades away from creating even a primitive working model of the universe. In fact, scientists are able to accurately model only a 100 trillionth of a metre, with work to create a model of a full human being still out of reach.

By looking for underlying patterns, physicists believe that it may be possible to work out if we are existing in a computer created universe, created many years in the future. Looking at constraints imposed on simulations by limited resources could show signs that we are mere bit-part players in a Matrix-style film plot.

It will take many years to reach the computational power to give a real glimpse of whether we are living in a simulation, the scientists contend, but even by looking at the tiny portion of the universe that we can currently accurately model, it may be possible to detect 'signatures' of constraints on physical processes that could point to a simulation.

The researchers suggest that a signature could show up as a limitation in the energy of cosmic rays, for example. By testing the behaviour of cosmic rays on underlying 'lattice' frameworks governing rules of physics that could exist in future models of the universe, the researchers could find patterns that could point to a simulation.

“This is the first testable signature of such an idea,” one of the researchers, Martin Savage, said.

Aside from the rather mind-boggling proposition that we may be part of a computer simulation, another researcher pointed out that this would bring up the possibility of inter-universe computer platforms, and the potential to communicate across these.

“Then the question is, ‘Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?’” UW graduate student, Zohreh Davoudi, asked.



Read more: http://news.techeye.net/science/scienti ... z2ElsTjhMH

I can't shake this feeling that 30 years from now, the NPC's in "Elder Scrolls: The Re-Reckoning, part XXVII" will have this exact same discussion..

One other thing: I remember reading about "reality hacking" some years ago, where people claimed to be able to manifest visible "faults" in the Matrix, but I can't find much on the subject. Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Some good sources (and how-to guides ) somewhere?

Can't they drop the medieval scholasticism and just put a number on the bill they have in mind for their nifty next-generation computer?