Re: [agi] Simulation
On Saturday, September 28, 2019, at 4:59 AM, immortal.discoveries wrote: > Nodes have been dying ever since they were given life. But the mass is STILL > here. Persistence is futile. We will leave Earth and avoid the sun. You right. It is a sad state of affairs with the environment...the destruction going on for centuries actually. It's almost like man subsumed natures complexity is his rise to intelligence. Or electronic intelligence did. Oh well, can't cry over split milk :) Onward. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mbec5b69b96a014bb526c43de Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
You can hear the ratchet's hypertrophy screeching. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M6cda8589ce6eddb29bb5c3ea Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Nodes have been dying ever since they were given life. But the mass is STILL here. Persistence is futile. We will leave Earth and avoid the sun. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M05bae50dc34544925e34e620 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Persist as what? Unpersist the sun rising, break the 99.99... % probability that it rises tomorrow. What happens? We burn. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M1ebf99508486d21d6e0f55ae Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Well, we duplicate and build all our technology just to persist. So all you need is a intelligence that finds ways efficiently. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M87b438bd17bfb0185f8a73b4 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Friday, September 27, 2019, at 1:44 PM, immortal.discoveries wrote: > Describing intelligence is easier when ignore the low level molecules. What if it loops? I remember reading a book as a kid where a scientist invented a new powerful microscope, looked into it, and saw himself looking into the microscope. Our view of reality may be all out of wack with reality. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M5a403b7f8ce8fcdeea94fbe0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Describing intelligence is easier when ignore the low level molecules. What if we ignore the brain and focus on the hive? May lead to what Open AI did with the Hide & Seek bots. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M9bd2526ee7acc2730d6e6554 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Friday, September 27, 2019, at 10:57 AM, immortal.discoveries wrote: > We could say our molecules make the decision korrelan :) And the microbiome bacteria, etc., transmitting through the gut-brain axis could have massive more complexity than the brain. "The gut-brain axis, a bidirectional neurohumoral communication system, is important for maintaining homeostasis and is regulated through the central and enteric nervous systems and the neural, endocrine, immune, and metabolic pathways, and especially including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis)." https://endpoints.elysiumhealth.com/microbiome-explainer-e345658db2c John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Me991df962c2c00a3725d92e3 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Friday, September 27, 2019, at 8:59 AM, korrelan wrote: > If the sensory streams from your sensory organs were disconnected what would your experience of reality be? No sight, sound, tactile or sensory input of any description, how would you play a part/ interact with this wider network you describe… you are a closed box/ system and only experience 'your individual' reality through your own senses, you would be in a very quiet, dark place indeed. Open system then closed? Jump into the isolation tank for a few hours. What happens? You go from full duplex to no duplex transmission. Transceiver buffers fill. Symbol negentropy builds. Memetic pressure builds. Receptivity builds. Hallucinations occur. I'm not trying to convince but to further my own thoughts, I guess the question is to what extent are we individuals? Are we just parroting patterns and memes and changing them a little then acting as switches/routers/reflectors? Some people are more reflectors and some add more K-complexity to the distributed intelligence I suppose. But I think that we have less individuality than most people assume. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M737a43e4e9b79a6e8d63fa7b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 3:34 PM, korrelan wrote: > Reading back up the thread I do seem rather stern or harsh in my opinions, if > I came across this way I apologise. I didn't think that of you we shouldn't be overly sensitive and afraid to offend. There is no right to not be offended, at least in the country :) John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M73ea70ffba040f4d01d92ba0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 2:05 PM, korrelan wrote: > The realisation/ understanding that the human brain is closed system, to me… is a first order/ obvious/ primary concept when designing an AGI or in my case a neuromorphic brain simulation. A human brain is merely an instance node on the graph of brains. All biologic brains are connected by at the very least DNA at a very base level. Not a closed system. It's easy to focus in but ignore the larger networks of information flow the human brain or an emulated brain are part of. For example, when modeling vehicular traffic do you only study or emulate one car? Or say when studying the intelligence of elephants do you only model one elephant? If that's all you do you miss the larger complex systems and how they relate to the structure and behavior of individual components. Also, you ignore the intelligence hosted by differences in brains in a larger web of pattern networks. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mac461188ab36fa130f653384 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Reading back up the thread I do seem rather stern or harsh in my opinions, if I came across this way I apologise. Believe it or not I'm quite an amicable chap, I just lack/ forget the social graces on occasion. :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M9364edb559421575f774cb09 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
The realisation/ understanding that the human brain is closed system, to me… is a first order/ obvious/ primary concept when designing an AGI or in my case a neuromorphic brain simulation. > Your model looks like it has a complexity barrier. On the contrary, I’m negating a complexity barrier by representing processing at the basest level, akin to binary on a Von Neumann machine. In my opinion the only way to create a human level AGI is to start at the bottom with a human derived connectome model and build up hierarchically. > I'm not pursuing a complex system model perhaps that's our disconnect here? Yes... perhaps that's our disconnect, cheers for the protocol exchange. :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M3adf8a31d6cfc7293fc1c5a6 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 7:36 AM, korrelan wrote: "the brain is presented with external patterns" "When you talk to someone" "Take this post as an example; I’m trying to explain a concept" "Does any of the actual visual information you gather" These phrases above, re-read them, are more related to a consciousness/communication layer IMO an open system. "Presented", "talk", "explain", visually gather., etc.. I totally agree this "layer" surrounds something much deeper which you are referring to and I wasn't describing yet only in a weakly represented form. Your model looks like it has a complexity barrier, or on your particular emulation of the human brain. Still not closed. On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 7:36 AM, korrelan wrote: > Does any of the actual visual information you gather from viewing ever leave your closed system? You can convert it into a common protocol and describe it to another brain, but the actual visual information stays with you. Yes! But it's representation is far removed from the input... How far away? This is very tedious to describe in detail mathematically the description of which we could spend much time discussing. I'm not pursuing a complex system model perhaps that's our disconnect here? John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M00afb1f07c5bac0eed38da4b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
>How does ANY brain acting as a pattern reservoir get filled? No one fills/ places/ forces/ feeds/ writes information directly into a brain, the brain is presented with external patterns that represent information/ learning by other brains that triggers a similar scenario in the receiver’s brain. It’s the singular closed intelligence of the learning brain that makes sense of the information and creates its own internalised version for its own usage based on its own knowledge and experiences. When you talk to someone you are not imparting any kind of information, language is a common protocol designed to trigger the same/ similar mental model in the receiver, but it’s the receiver’s version of reality that comprises the information, not the senders. Take this post as an example; I’m trying to explain a concept in a manner that will enable your personal closed internal simulation of reality to recognise/ simulate the same/ similar concept, but you will be using your own knowledge and intelligence to grasp it… not mine. > Uhm... a "closed system" that views. Not closed then? Does any of the actual visual information you gather from viewing ever leave your closed system? You can convert it into a common protocol and describe it to another brain, but the actual visual information stays with you. A brain can’t learn anything without the innate intelligence to do so. :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mebf2be0557ae3129c04da517 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 7:07 AM, immortal.discoveries wrote: > The brain is a closed system when viewing others Uhm... a "closed system" that views. Not closed then? John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mdf132d4bed1b97879811f946 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
We are machines, your home is a machine. The brain is a closed system when viewing others, but your not "you", its all machinery actually. There may be some magical consciousness but it has nothing to do with the physics really. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M716fc00deaa6787c5df9c252 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Monday, September 23, 2019, at 7:43 AM, korrelan wrote: > From the reference/ perspective point of a single intelligence/ brain there are no other brains; we are each a closed system and a different version of you, exists in every other brain. How does ANY brain acting as a pattern reservoir get filled? There is an interaction point or a receiver/transmitter component(s). There are no closed systems for brains, look closer and you will find the graph edges. Some patterns auto-generate but the original structure prepop comes from another brain even if it is a geeky programmer. On Monday, September 23, 2019, at 7:43 AM, korrelan wrote: > We don’t receive any information from other brains; we receive patterns that our own brain interprets based solely on our own learning and experience. There is no actual information encoded in any type of language or communication protocol, without the interpretation/ intelligence of the receiver the data stream is meaningless. Of course, it's a given that the receiver needs to be able to interpret... the transceiver piece also feeds data from environment to add to new pattern formation. Even an insect brain can eventually discern between an "A" and a "B". Another thing I'm looking at - conscioIntelligent flow - or to put it another way, patternistic flow. Potentially even modeled somewhat by Bernoulli equations. but perhaps this is covered by memetics. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Ma300915a3e0b0902e1050d6d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
>From the reference/ perspective point of a single intelligence/ brain there are no other brains; we are each a closed system and a different version of you, exists in every other brain. We don’t receive any information from other brains; we receive patterns that our own brain interprets based solely on our own learning and experience. There is no actual information encoded in any type of language or communication protocol, without the interpretation/ intelligence of the receiver the data stream is meaningless. :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M376259a89e4e444d954a3076 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Sunday, September 22, 2019, at 6:48 PM, rouncer81 wrote: > actually no! it is the power of time. doing it over time steps is an > exponent worse. Are you thinking along the lines of Konrad Zuse's Rechnender Raum? I just had to go read some again after you mentioned this :) John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Md0f09f577b2797183834e1cf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Sunday, September 22, 2019, at 8:42 AM, korrelan wrote: > Our consciousness is like… just the surface froth, reading between the lines, or the summation of interacting logical pattern recognition processes. That's a very good clear single brain description of it. Thanks for that. I don't think a complete understanding of consciousness is possible from a single brain. Picture this - the rise of general intelligence in the human species and that collection of brains spread over time and space communicating. Each brain being a node in a graph. The consciousness piece is a component in each brain transceiver transmitting on graph edges to other brains and other non-brain environment related structure. On this model naturally there is much superfluous material that can be eliminated compared to a single brain model since a single brain has to survive independently in the real environment. And the graph model can be telescoped down into a single structure I believe. To be more concise, consciousness can be viewed as a functional component in the brain’s transceiver. That’s essentially the main crux of my perspective. Could it be wrong? Oh ya totally… But that functionality, whether or not in consciousness itself is still integral to general intelligence IMO. And there are other related reasons… It would be interesting analyzing single brain consciousness connectome structure based on the multi-brain intelligence model, why things happen as they do in their electrochemical patterns firing up the single brain model and getting it transceiving with other emulations. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M884a62d1fa8b831989377578 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Yeh thats what im talking about thanks, all permutations of space and time and im getting a bit confused... -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M0de418647e9834420ee6c80f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
The butterfly effect is like a tree, there is more and more paths as time goes on. In that sense, time is the amount of steps. Time powers Search Space. Time=Search Space/Tree. So even if you have a static tree, it is really time, frozen. Unlike real life, you can go forward/backward wherever want. Not sure time powers outer space though, outer space is outer space. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M1ed245101f58b767071b6a0f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
actually no! it is the power of time. doing it over time steps is an exponent worse. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M58be065288caaccfec1fad3f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
oops, that thing about time not being the 4th dimension in a way, was wrong. and im just being confusing on purpose, sorry about that. 2^(x*y*z*time) -is all permutations of the 3d space (blipping on and off) over that many time steps... actually im not sure if im right or wrong abotu it. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mda73239009d51efe13c9b580 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
> Or network on top of network on top of network... turtles. Close... though more... networks within networks... Consciousness seems so elusive because it is not an ‘intended’ product of the connectome directly recognising sensory patterns, consciousness is an extra layer. The interacting synaptic networks produce harmonics because each is using a specific frequency to communicate with its logical/ connected neighbours. The harmonics/ interference patterns travel through the synaptic network just like normal internal/ sensory patterns. Consciousness uses the same internal/ external networks that are the product of learning through external experiences but… it’s disconnected/ out of phase from the normal deep pattern recognition processes… it’s an interference bi-product that piggy-backs/ influences the global thought pattern. It’s similar to hypnotism or deep meditation…cortical regions learn the harmonics… our sub-conscious is just out of phase, or to be more precise, our consciousness is out of phase with the ‘logical’ intelligence of our connectome. Our consciousness is like… just the surface froth, reading between the lines, or the summation of interacting logical pattern recognition processes. Consciousness is just the sound of all the gears grinding. https://www.youtube.com/user/korrelan :) -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M5717525ccecbe5e67a353269 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, at 7:24 PM, rouncer81 wrote: > Time is not the 4th dimension, time is actually powering space. > (x*y*z)^time. And what's the layer on top of (x*y*z)^time that allows for intelligent interaction and efficiency to be expressed and executed in this physical universe? Symbol representation creation/transmission a.k.a. consciousness. It is the fabric on which intelligence operates. You cannot pull it out of the equation no matter how hard you try. You can pretend it doesn't exist but it will always come back to bite you in the end. Unless there is some sort of zero energy, zero latency, infinite bandwidth network floating this whole boat... which there might be, or I should say probably is... Or network on top of network on top of network... turtles. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Medd560a53934d144fcc71295 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Agreed with everyone here on this subject. yes simulation - what have I got to say? Time is not the 4th dimension, time is actually powering space. (x*y*z)^time. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mcf9c3e0eee9e3edc384603c2 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On Saturday, September 21, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Stefan Reich wrote: > Interesting thought. In all fairness, we can just not really interact with a > number which doesn't have a finite description. As soon as we do, we pull it > into our finiteness and it stops being infinite. IMO there are only finite length descriptions. When something more accurate is needed in this thermodynamic universe a better description is attempted to be expressed and we create pointers to yet to be computed computations a.k.a. symbols. Coincidentally related - did anyone see this quite interesting recent proof utilizing Graph Theory! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-proof-solves-80-year-old-irrational-number-problem/ paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04593 John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mb3eab92c328ca9ffb07cc64c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
> It is like saying that the vast majority of real numbers don't have a finite length description. I can't give you an example of one of those either. Interesting thought. In all fairness, we can just not really interact with a number which doesn't have a finite description. As soon as we do, we pull it into our finiteness and it stops being infinite. Actually, the property of having "a finite description" is very anthropocentric, isn't it? All depends on our language. e is quite infinite in a way, yet we can describe it exactly. How did the topic move to infinite math again? Nevermind, it's always fun. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mfc61ea94b8cf893b40f46787 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
These aren't the only 4 possible simulation scenarios. There are probably others we cannot imagine because the simulation doesn't allow us to. And no, I can't give you an example for that reason. It is like saying that the vast majority of real numbers don't have a finite length description. I can't give you an example of one of those either. On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 5:39 PM TimTyler wrote: > On 2019-09-02 16:39:PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > Here are at least 4 possibilities, listed in decreasing order of > > complexity, and therefore increasing likelihood if Occam's Razor holds > > outside the simulation. > > > > 1. Only your brain exists. All of your sensory inputs are simulated by > > a model of a non-existent outside world. The universe running this > > simulation is completely different and we can know nothing about it. > > It might be that space, time, matter, and life are abstract concepts > > that exist only in the model. > > > > 2. Your mind, memories, and existence are also simulated. You didn't > > exist one second ago. > > > > 3. The observable universe is modeled in a few hundred bits of code > > tuned to allow intelligence life to evolve. In this case the speed of > > light is in the code. > > > > 4. All possible universes with all possible laws of physics exist and > > we necessary observe one that allows intelligent life to evolve. > > This makes 3 and 4 sound more likely. However, there's a problem with > that argument - > > which is that the four cases are not mutually exclusive. 3 and 4 include > 1 and 2 as possibilities. > > If you try and fix that problem by defining 3 or 4 so that they exclude > 1 and 2, then the > > argument about 3 and 4 being favored by Occam's razor (if that is still > a thing in the enclosing > > world) no longer holds - because they are no longer simpler options. > > If this argument about Occam's razor did hold, I think simulism would be > a bit of > > a less interesting possibility. However, it isn't a valid argument. > > -- > __ > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ > -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mf6ea7db8b105df69e545d488 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
When I dream, I can see anything, I was in a huge desert full of buildings, no end in sight, creatures walking up a grass oompa-loompa land. Sometimes I have a new body and even can feel tentacles around a sewer wall while in my new body not even touching that wall (I have a skin around the wall, linked to me...). Clearly, all we see can be dreamed for sure. -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M1fc0414525edcfa31ca72db9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
All four are partially correct. It is a simulation. And you're it. When you die your own private Idaho ends *poof*. This can all be modeled within the framework of conscioIntelligence, CI = UCP + OR. When you are that tabula rasa simuloid in your mother's womb you begin to occupy a representation of the world. Since there is little structure yet the communication protocol is simple. After you are born that occupation expands and protocols are built up. Structure is shared amongst other simulators. Symbol negentropy is maintained and you could also say a memetic pressure exists among those agents. Communication, particularly, is done through your eyes, ears, mouth, etc.. When you chow down on that big cheese burrito what are you doing? You are occupying a representation of the glorious nature of it all And, the universe observes itself though your senses, or occupies a representation of itself by observing through everyone’s senses… informational structure gets instantiated, transmitted amongst people nodes. Whether or not a big alien is running it all is another topic, intelligent design? deity? Those topics used to be taboo like UFO’s even though we have public military footage of UFO's now. John -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M209d8471049d236e109afd8e Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
Hi Tim I'm enjoying your website. Thanks for sharing. Robert From: TimTyler Sent: Saturday, 21 September 2019 01:35 To: agi@agi.topicbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Simulation On 2019-09-02 16:39:PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > Here are at least 4 possibilities, listed in decreasing order of > complexity, and therefore increasing likelihood if Occam's Razor holds > outside the simulation. > > 1. Only your brain exists. All of your sensory inputs are simulated by > a model of a non-existent outside world. The universe running this > simulation is completely different and we can know nothing about it. > It might be that space, time, matter, and life are abstract concepts > that exist only in the model. > > 2. Your mind, memories, and existence are also simulated. You didn't > exist one second ago. > > 3. The observable universe is modeled in a few hundred bits of code > tuned to allow intelligence life to evolve. In this case the speed of > light is in the code. > > 4. All possible universes with all possible laws of physics exist and > we necessary observe one that allows intelligent life to evolve. This makes 3 and 4 sound more likely. However, there's a problem with that argument - which is that the four cases are not mutually exclusive. 3 and 4 include 1 and 2 as possibilities. If you try and fix that problem by defining 3 or 4 so that they exclude 1 and 2, then the argument about 3 and 4 being favored by Occam's razor (if that is still a thing in the enclosing world) no longer holds - because they are no longer simpler options. If this argument about Occam's razor did hold, I think simulism would be a bit of a less interesting possibility. However, it isn't a valid argument. -- __ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-Mfce9d65a1731d6faaa6b27b1 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
Re: [agi] Simulation
On 2019-09-02 16:39:PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: Here are at least 4 possibilities, listed in decreasing order of complexity, and therefore increasing likelihood if Occam's Razor holds outside the simulation. 1. Only your brain exists. All of your sensory inputs are simulated by a model of a non-existent outside world. The universe running this simulation is completely different and we can know nothing about it. It might be that space, time, matter, and life are abstract concepts that exist only in the model. 2. Your mind, memories, and existence are also simulated. You didn't exist one second ago. 3. The observable universe is modeled in a few hundred bits of code tuned to allow intelligence life to evolve. In this case the speed of light is in the code. 4. All possible universes with all possible laws of physics exist and we necessary observe one that allows intelligent life to evolve. This makes 3 and 4 sound more likely. However, there's a problem with that argument - which is that the four cases are not mutually exclusive. 3 and 4 include 1 and 2 as possibilities. If you try and fix that problem by defining 3 or 4 so that they exclude 1 and 2, then the argument about 3 and 4 being favored by Occam's razor (if that is still a thing in the enclosing world) no longer holds - because they are no longer simpler options. If this argument about Occam's razor did hold, I think simulism would be a bit of a less interesting possibility. However, it isn't a valid argument. -- __ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Taa86c5612b8739b7-M3b751c8020ee32a5d6cc86fa Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
