On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind'
or simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try
again. Even if a simulated world is entirely convincing in the short
term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is not in
accordance with the actual logic of that actual reality it will
quickly or eventually fail.
Video games don't have to match the logic of our universe and nothing
stops them from running indefinitely, or at least long enough for
someone to spend their whole life inside one.
The real being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients
etc.
You don't think an AI could live in a virtual world?
in a real actual reality with which it is in logical synch with.
Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running
or the simulated being will quickly die in the real actual reality
in which it MUST have an actual existence. So there will always be a
way to tell if the reality you live in is simulated or not.
There isn't. As Terren said this violates the Church-Turing thesis.
If you actually exist then at least the basics must be in accord
with actual reality.
Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a
simulation can be wrong and the subject still function, but no
essential ones.
Which ones are essential?
No matter how simulated an internal reality is it still must exist
in a real actual reality and this will always eventually give a
false simulation away when it is tested against actual reality by
the test of whether it is consistent with the continued existence
and functioning of the subject.
So strong AI is impossible?
It is odd just how much we seem to disagree. On almost every subject
you seem to hold a view opposite to mine:
You/me:
Presentist/eternalist
One world QM/many worlds QM
Finite reality/infinite reality
Simulations impossible/sumulations possible
Math invented/math discovered
It might seem like I am always nitpicking what you say, but it is not
because I am not looking for common ground, it just seems on
fundamental matters we share very little of it.
Jason
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:48:25 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Edgar,
A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish
from sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by
your own theory it is possible to simulate the logic of external
reality precisely, as that is what you are positing happens at a
fundamental level.
I am asking why does a single computational reality need to be
fundamental? How could you tell in principle if the universe was
being computed through Ontological Energy (whatever that means in a
formal sense), vs being a simulation run by an alien in a different
universe?
The Church Turing thesis proves that you cannot tell the difference.
And because there are provably infinite different simulations that
could emulate your consciousness, assuming comp (yes, doctor), by
the UDA all of them must contribute to your experience of reality,
making it uncomputable.
You can stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't apply, but
that is not an argument. Until you start addressing questions head
on, rather than ignoring them or dismissing them insultingly (e.g.
adolescent sci-fi), nobody here is going to take you all that
seriously. And if you don't care about being taken seriously, then
why are you here?
Answer this question head-on and you won't lose me:
How do you justify the move of using the phenomenal experience of
the present moment as "obvious" direct evidence of P-time, when you
also state that our phenomenal experience is an illusory
construction of "external reality", whatever that is?
If you can answer that question without mere hand waving, then you
probably also have a valid rebuttal to those who are arguing against
your dismissal of block time. So it would be worth your while to
answer it... two birds, one stone. I await your answer.
Hoping for the best...
Terren
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular
simulation is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence.
If it didn't accurately model the logic of external reality you
wouldn't be here. The 'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish
between all possible simulations is adolescent irrational sci fi BS.
And if you recall, even in the Matrix they COULD tell which was real
and which wasn't.
If your simulation was seriously inaccurate you wouldn't be here to
tell me I couldn't tell....
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:58:13 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia....
If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then
there's nothing in principle that can select a single computational
reality over any other. All you appear to be doing is making that an
assumption of your theory, but it doesn't really buy you anything
and it contradicts computer science. Sounds exactly like the
argument over P-Time and Block time... what a coincidence!
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in
my theory.
Right, and because Platonia is logically implied given (what appear
to be) your assumptions, it signifies that your theory is
inconsistent.
There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present
moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our
existence. Just pull your head out of your books and look around for
goodness sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present
moment...
But you have pointed out that every observation we can make is based
on a constructed illusion. How do you go from the time we experience
in the constructed illusion of our experience, to the actual time of
the universe? You have yet to justify that move.
No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation
of reality is different.
Agreed. But there are an infinity of possible programs that compute
your retinal sky in this moment such that it would be impossible for
you to distinguish between them, from the inside. That fact has
nothing to do with my retinal sky, or anyone else's.
There is absolute certain evidence for "real, actual reality".
Evidence for reality only makes sense within a given theory. All we
have are models. What we are all doing here is a search for "the
best" model. Even if we think we have it, we can still never know
what reality really is. IOW there is no such thing as "absolute
certain evidence" for anything. You're engaging in dogma, as if
there is only one possible model.
Something has to be real because we exist, and what we exist in is
reality. Whatever that is is the "real, actual reality". Anyone who
doesn't think reality actually exists is brain dead....
You seem to be saying that our existence is a fact that refutes the
possibility that we are, as Bruno describes it, "the numbers'
dreams". And while that *is* counter-intuitive, it's not a logical
impossibility - on the contrary, if you say yes to the doctor, it
must be the case, unless there is a flaw with the UDA.
Terren
Edgar
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Terren,
There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your own
mental simulation of it, it's not clear how you can be so sure about
what "actual reality" is. I understand you have a theory, but that's
all any of us have. We can rule theories out when contradicted by
evidence, but you haven't provided that, unless you count various
hand-waving statements.
Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental
simulation of its external reality environment. This whole system,
external world simulated by the minds of multiple biological
observers, actually consists only of computational information flows
in the presence and logical space of reality. Everything, including
ourselves, is analogous to running, interacting software programs.
I agree with that. However in the logical, computational space you
anchor your theory in (something referred to on this list sometimes
as Platonia), there are an infinity of such "logical realities" that
go through your current computational state. From your first-person
perspective you cannot predict which of the infinite continuations
you will inhabit in the next moment.
The apparent physicality of reality in the minds of biological
organisms is an evolutionary adaptation to make reality seem more
meaningful and easier to function within. This physicality is not
real, it's an internal mental illusion. I devote the entire Part IV
of my book dissecting this illusion and explaining how it works.
Yes, I agree, and this is an important insight.
The book also explains in detail how once we identify and subtract
everything mind adds to reality we arrive at what reality actually
is, pure information computationally evolving in the logical space
of reality I call ontological energy. When we peel back all the
various layers of physicality that mind adds to external reality its
remaining purely abstract information structure is clearly revealed.
Personally, I think your theory fails because it insists on a
single, fundamental computational universe, running in "P-time", for
which there is no evidence or theoretical justification (none that
you have provided, anyway). I know you point relentlessly to our
everyday experience of present-moments, but using introspection as
evidence is problematic precisely because as you have pointed out,
our subjective reality is based on an illusion constructed in the
mind.
Going from Ontological Energy to Platonia is the same move as going
from P-Time to Block Time.
We all live in a world that is actually almost entirely a construct
of our mental simulations of an external information reality. Thus
when we look out into the world we are mostly looking into the
structures of our own minds. We live inside our minds under what I
call the 'retinal sky'.
Retinal sky is a good term. Imagine how many different kinds of
programs could compute the same retinal sky for any given moment.
Just as robots function within environments they simulate internally
with computations, so do all biological organisms including
ourselves. We do no 'see' the real actual world, we compute internal
models of it and live within those.
Right, and this is why it is so unclear as to how you can be so
certain about what constitutes the "real actual world". Do you have
access to some kind of oracle?
It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any
evidence for.
Again, if you could only turn such statements inward on your own
theories, I think it would be much easier for your ideas to gain
traction.
There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations. That's just
adolescent sci fi unless there is some actual evidence. Again I went
through that sci fi phase back in the 1960's in a short story i
wrote on the same theme titled "The Livies". Let's stick to evidence
based reality rather than sci fi...
By your own admission above there is no evidence for the "real,
actual reality" you've articulated either. It all looks like sci-fi
to the naive realist. If we dismissed theories on the basis of
weirdness, we would have tossed QM out the window a century ago.
Terren
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Edgar,
That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed,
and then conclude that because reality exists, reality must be
computed.
Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your
ideas and Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of
course being that the UDA entails that there are an infinity of
computed realities.
Let me approach this from a different direction. Given that you
agree that you could be digitally replaced and not notice the
difference, this also entails that you could be placed into a
simulation, where your simulated brain is functionally identical to
your real brain or the prosthetic brain that could replace it with
you noticing. So a simulation of you embedded in a simulated world
is also conscious - this is more or less what your theory of
consciousness says. The next step is to see that there are an
infinity of possible simulations that contain your current brain
state, and thus your consciousness, in this moment (or any given
moment).
If you're still with me we can go back to the UDA, which in so many
words says that all of these infinite simulations exist in Platonia,
traced by the Universal Dovetailer (a rather simple program) - and
your moment by moment reality is a view from the inside of the
infinity of simulations that contain you. Indeed, physics and the
physical world in general represent a stable measure on the kinds of
worlds that could support your consciousness. But because the
infinity of simulations is necessarily what renders the physical
world, it is not computable. That is the contradiction entailed by a
computational universe such as you elaborate in your theory.
Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is an
attempt to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most
problematic step for people who don't agree with the UDA. It would
be very interesting if you could identify a flaw in the UDA,
supported by arguments rather than simple assertion, as you have
done to this point.
Terren
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even
assume a computational universe in the first place you have to
assume (you are assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that
reality exists is conclusive proof.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
more convincing proof could there be?
One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start.
If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure nonsense
that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of reality.
The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain conclusions.
If the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then the correct
response is to throw out the original assumptions as invalid. Bruno
starts from the assumption that consciousness is a form of
computation and draws certain inferences. This isn't what comp
"claims" it's what the argument shows, given the assumptions. The
only way to falsify it is to show that one of the assumptions is
wrong, or that there is a flaw in the reasoning that leads to the
conclusions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
quot; group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
