On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edgaro...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to