Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: grahamgreene on December 19, 2012, 01:28 am
-
A little light reading - Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation.
Quoted below:
Title:
Whoa: Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation
Will you take the red pill or the blue pill?
Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."
In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.
Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.
So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.
"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."
The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.
Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?
University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.
*** CLEARNET WARNING ***
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html
*** CLEARNET WARNING ***
Links to the various proposals and theories are available in the article itself, if anyone is interested in reading the nitty-gritty.
Crazy though! As strange as it may sound, I've always considered this a possibility; I mean why not? It is perhaps as likely a scenario as 'The Big Bang' theory (which, it must be noted, is so-called because it is indeed still just a theory!)
What do you all think? Are we all living in a goo-filled pod controlled by a machine? Or do we all exist and interact within a simulated world? Does it matter?! What would you do if it was revealed that we do indeed exist inside a computer simulation? Would you change how you go about your daily life?
Or a question related to drugs; are powerful psychedelics such as LSD and DMT similar to 'power-ups' in computer games, allowing us to interact with our simulated world on a different kind of level? Perhaps they represent glitches in the system and ingesting such a piece of 'code' temporarily allows us to gain access to a different part of the simulation until the glitch is repaired?
Or maybe it's all a load of hogwash!
So many questions. So many theories as to the nature of our existence and origin. But with this one currently entering the realm of scientific possibility and understanding, what is YOUR opinion on it?! :o
- grahamgreene
-
It is entirely possible such a theory is correct!
After all, we are trying to invent 'AE' (artificial intelligence) and we do not know how far advanced we might get.
When I first took LSD, it occured to me how easy it would be to create a reality from just an idea.
The human mind is like every computer in the planet times a billion billion! It is so sophisticated yet on some levels is easy to manipulate.
Take religion, that is social conditioning but it works so well. An idea, accepted by the majority, will eventually be seen as the norm even if it is disproven by science, logic, common sense and people in pubs who always win the quiz.
Our 'reality' might well be something created.
One thing is for certain, we have a DNA code. I work, amonsgt other things, with code. I know one thing, no code just invents itself. It has to be written. Anyone who argues we, life, is an accident, ought to consider would a gust of wind somehow just create all the code needed for SR for example?
So if we are basically hardware with a coded software, its possible our code might take a zillion zillion terrabytes to store (all the computers in the world would not be enough) but, its so sophisticated, maybe its possible the code has some atomic weight, some substamce holding it together. Or are we like some old robot with a circuit board that sim[ly ceases to be once the power runs out? Or is our code wireless? We die and the code is saved? DNA might also be capable of storing memories. If so, if this code can somehow survivie after death it may be due to it being powered from the most tiniest of currents or power supplies.
Life is indeed strange, but its great to be here and ponder all this.
Good topic of conversatuion for anyone high.
Think I'll go for some hash right now = got homework to do and its all databases sadly! But also lucky as I can do those in my sleep and it pays well. Better than sucking dick I imagine, but I do suck dick. Almost breaks my back doing it to myself but its a cheap night in.
;D
Bet most of the men here cannot do that!
If they could SR would not be selling much.
And hey, DPR, you shoulda had a Christmas lottery!
Anyway, DNA, altrernate realities, the power of suggestions and the brain itself. Wow. We really could be someone else just creating life. And maybe it was done as a experiment to see what happens.
Children 300 million years from now doing a basic planet formation science project and we are it!
Well, at least we can smoke some hash and listen to some rock!
Peace!
Thanks for a thought provoking article!
Red.
-
I am not terribly impressed with his writing skills. He also takes some really big leaps in his arguments.
BUT...he is a philosopher at Oxford. He is not a physicist. He is allowed to be a bit kooky and allegorical.
I think they are running the tests just to prove that they can run them. I don't think anyone really thinks that this is a possibility.
This is more of a "I think therefore I am" situation. Cool to think about and challenge yourself with.
-
Yeah, anyone with the slightest manifestation of spirit or wisdom could tell you that we don't live in 'The Matrix.' This guy is a quack, and a product of these materialistic times.
BUT...he is a philosopher at Oxford. He is not a physicist. He is allowed to be a bit kooky and allegorical.
Real philosophers are better qualified to talk about the ultimate nature of reality than mere physicists. Unfortunately, aademics in philosophy departments are routinely refered to as philosophers. A true philosopher these days is rarer than 1000 carat diamonds.
-
True, I read his paper and thought " Who the hell wrote this?! This has to have be written by an undergrad."
Nope, he is a faculty member. WTH?
-
If you think the Multiverse is not a hologram, than you need to eat more LSD.
LOL, will do! I think I need to find a babysitter first...for me. I wonder if (Clearnet)**care.com could send me a nice trip sitter who has been background checked and likes to make macaroni pictures.
-
The theory originates from an Oxford paper from 2003, coincidentally a few years after the first Matrix came out. Seems as if the soon-to-become professor was scratching his head for ideas and thought, hmm, Matrix was a cool movie, I’ll just do that.
Computers have been around for not even a century and already we’re thinking in terms of this limited 2D technology as a means for explaining such a complex paradigm? I’m a little underwhelmed. I’m willing to bet 50 cents that if Matrix had not come out the idea would never have come ^.
Tell me that the billions of dollars spent worldwide on earthing miles of huge interconnected copper tunnels, again worldwide, in order to test some stupid crackpot theory of whether a new gas would be formed by colliding atoms together at the speed of light did not have its origins in this bored hypothetical musing??? Because that would slightly tick me off. Especially when yoy consider the same amount spent on Global South development would probably have given a multilateral starting base for self-sufficient, non-dependent trade reforms, and a starting chip on the table of the wealth that the Global North enjoys. Tell me it wasn’t.
In order for this theory to work you would have to be able to invent, control and direct a modified form of evolution and be able to encapsulate that on a platform capable of sustaining itself for thousands of years. Somehow, I think that is a pretty big phucing ask. It’s well known levels of intelligence and creativity were significantly higher in pre-lived times than in our own current postmodern era, but the type of collective genius required to collaborate on a project of those dimensions let alone achieve it, is seriously beyond reason. The only civilisation that could even come close was the Sumerians, whose advancement in scholarship was unprecedented, and that includes the ancient Egyptians and those good old wacky Greeks. Even they could probably not pull it off as current scientific progress in a given generation is different to MANIPULATING it. Quantum physics of our generation could try, but which university even teaches quantum physics?
It quite simply could not be done. This theory is bust.
-
It is perhaps as likely a scenario as 'The Big Bang' theory (which, it must be noted, is so-called because it is indeed still just a theory!)
I figure this was something you just threw out there, but since we're talking all sciencey and all, I just had to point out how false this statement is. First, theories are always theories regardless of how much evidence has been accumulated that backs them up. So you would correctly say that Evolution is "just a theory," except that it is best proved theory of the natural world humanity has every created. LOTS and LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of experimental data backs it up, and nothing has been found that discredits it. That is why the layman might "consider" is a "law of science" or whatever, but really it is just an incredibly well-proven theory.
So the problem with your statement is that the Big Bang theory also has a TON TON TON of experimental data backing it up. While the stuff you're posting is in it's infancy, literally just the one experiment so far. HUGE MASSIVE difference between the experimental validity of these two theories. So when you say the one is "as likely a scenario" as the other, that is very far from being true. You just like this new theory, is all. And there's nothing wrong with that, but little pet theories like this pop up all the time, get a little experimental jolt, get a little media attention, and fizzle out.
Hope I didn't come off as nitpicking, but it makes me happy when people have a better understanding of how science works, so sometimes I stick my nose in. :)
-
It is perhaps as likely a scenario as 'The Big Bang' theory (which, it must be noted, is so-called because it is indeed still just a theory!)
I figure this was something you just threw out there, but since we're talking all sciencey and all, I just had to point out how false this statement is. First, theories are always theories regardless of how much evidence has been accumulated that backs them up. So you would correctly say that Evolution is "just a theory," except that it is best proved theory of the natural world humanity has every created. LOTS and LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of experimental data backs it up, and nothing has been found that discredits it. That is why the layman might "consider" is a "law of science" or whatever, but really it is just an incredibly well-proven theory.
So the problem with your statement is that the Big Bang theory also has a TON TON TON of experimental data backing it up. While the stuff you're posting is in it's infancy, literally just the one experiment so far. HUGE MASSIVE difference between the experimental validity of these two theories. So when you say the one is "as likely a scenario" as the other, that is very far from being true. You just like this new theory, is all. And there's nothing wrong with that, but little pet theories like this pop up all the time, get a little experimental jolt, get a little media attention, and fizzle out.
Hope I didn't come off as nitpicking, but it makes me happy when people have a better understanding of how science works, so sometimes I stick my nose in. :)
THIS!!!!
A scientific theory is supported with data and statistics. The law of Gravity is a "theory"
I think people confuse hypothesis with theory.
-
The theory originates from an Oxford paper from 2003, coincidentally a few years after the first Matrix came out. Seems as if the soon-to-become professor was scratching his head for ideas and thought, hmm, Matrix was a cool movie, I’ll just do that.
Computers have been around for not even a century and already we’re thinking in terms of this limited 2D technology as a means for explaining such a complex paradigm? I’m a little underwhelmed. I’m willing to bet 50 cents that if Matrix had not come out the idea would never have come ^.
Tell me that the billions of dollars spent worldwide on earthing miles of huge interconnected copper tunnels, again worldwide, in order to test some stupid crackpot theory of whether a new gas would be formed by colliding atoms together at the speed of light did not have its origins in this bored hypothetical musing??? Because that would slightly tick me off. Especially when yoy consider the same amount spent on Global South development would probably have given a multilateral starting base for self-sufficient, non-dependent trade reforms, and a starting chip on the table of the wealth that the Global North enjoys. Tell me it wasn’t.
In order for this theory to work you would have to be able to invent, control and direct a modified form of evolution and be able to encapsulate that on a platform capable of sustaining itself for thousands of years. Somehow, I think that is a pretty big phucing ask. It’s well known levels of intelligence and creativity were significantly higher in pre-lived times than in our own current postmodern era, but the type of collective genius required to collaborate on a project of those dimensions let alone achieve it, is seriously beyond reason. The only civilisation that could even come close was the Sumerians, whose advancement in scholarship was unprecedented, and that includes the ancient Egyptians and those good old wacky Greeks. Even they could probably not pull it off as current scientific progress in a given generation is different to MANIPULATING it. Quantum physics of our generation could try, but which university even teaches quantum physics?
It quite simply could not be done. This theory is bust.
You have to take into account the technological singularity ; there was a wonderful short story ( I think it was by Asimov, but I could be mistaken ) talking about this exact issue. Also it mentioned the tiered level of civilization ( again, don't know the exact person that first talked about this ) which basically states that eventually technology will progress where we can harness 100% of the energy produced by one planet, then by one star, then by one galaxy, and then by one universe. Throughout the story, eventually people integrate themselves into their own technology, and reach a hive mind status, and then ALL energy is focused on finding 'whats next' if I'm not mistaken.
Long story short, the hive mind entity retreats into subspace and long after the universe has experienced the big freeze, the hive-mind basically re-boots the universe.
In the grand scheme of time, a civilization reaching even the tier of civilization harnessing the power of the sun could have the quantum computing power necessary to fully generate a universe of our scale, although it would still take massive power. I whole-heartedly agree with the ideal that this is possible. Is it true? I don't know. But I would definitely think it is possible.
-
You have to take into account the technological singularity ;
lol. Here's an excellent debunking of the singularity myth:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/singularly_silly_singularity/P50/
You see, Kurzweil is predicting that the accelerating pace of technological development is going to lead to a revolutionary event called the Singularity in our lifetimes. Drum has extended his graph (the pink areas) to show that, if it were correct, these changes ought to be occurring at a still faster rate now…something we aren't seeing. There's something wrong in this.
I peered at that graph myself, and the flaws go even deeper. It's bogus through and through.
Kurzweil cheats. The most obvious flaw is the way he lumps multiple events together as one to keep the distribution linear. For example, one "event" is "Genus Homo, Homo erectus, specialized stone tools", and another is "Printing, experimental method" and "Writing, wheel". If those were treated as separate events, they would have inserted major downward deflections in his chart a million years ago, and about 500 to a few thousand years ago.
The biology is fudged, too. Other "events" are "Class Mammalia", "Superfamily Hominoidea", "Family Hominidae", the species "Homo sapiens", and the subspecies "Homo sapiens sapiens". Think about it. If the formation of a species, let alone a subspecies, is a major event about a million years ago, why isn't each species back to the Cambrian awarded equivalent significance? Because it wouldn't fit his line, of course. As he goes back farther in time, he's using larger and larger artificial taxonomic distinctions to inflate the time between taxa.
It's also simplifying the complex. "Spoken language" is treated as a discrete event, one little dot with a specific point of origin, as if it just poofed into existence. However, it was almost certainly a long-drawn-out, gradual process stretched out over hundreds of thousands of years. Primates communicate with vocalizations; why not smear that "spoken language" point into a fuzzy blur stretching back another million years or so?
Here's another problem: cows. If you're going to use basic biology as milestones in the countdown to singularity, we can find similar taxonomic divisions in the cow lineage, so they were tracking along with us primates all through the first few billion years of this chart. Were they on course to the Singularity? Are they still? If not, why has the cow curve flattened out, and doesn't that suggest that the continued linearity of the human curve is not an ineluctable trend? This objection also applies to every single species on the planet—ants, monkeys, and banana plants all exhibit a "trend" if you look backwards on it (a phenomenon Gould called "retrospective coronation"), and you can even pretend it is an accelerating trend if you gin it up by using larger and larger taxonomic divisions the farther back you go.
Even the technologies are selectively presented. Don't the Oldowan, Acheulian, and Mousterian stone tool technologies represent major advances? Why isn't the Levallois flake in the chart as a major event, comparable to agriculture or the Industrial Revolution? Copper and iron smelting? How about hygiene or vaccination?
I'll tell you why. Because not only is the chart an artificial and perhaps even conscious attempt to fit the data to a predetermined conclusion, but what it actually represents is the proximity of the familiar. We are much more aware of innovations in our current time and environment, and the farther back we look, the blurrier the distinctions get. We may think it's a grand step forward to have these fancy cell phones that don't tie you to a cord coming from the wall, but there was also a time when people thought it was radical to be using this new bow & arrow thingie, instead of the good ol' atlatl. We just lump that prior event into a "flinging pointy things" category and don't think much of it. When Kurzweil reifies biases that way, he gets garbage, like this graph, out.
Now I do think that human culture has allowed and encouraged greater rates of change than are possible without active, intelligent engagement—but this techno-mystical crap is just kookery, plain and simple, and the rationale is disgracefully bad. One thing I will say for Kurzweil, though, is that he seems to be a first-rate bullshit artist.
there is not a shred of evidence that "the singularity" will ever happen, yet transhumanists have great faith in it. like many religions, transhumanism is partly motivated by a fear of death and a belief that death can be overcome by magical "techmologies" that don't exist. also like many religions, transhumanists tend to gravitate around guru figures, and certain sacred texts.
-
^ I see no reason, even with that article, that the singularity is disproven. I do agree that the fear of death may be a driving factor in the singularity, but at a basic level looking at the singularity simply as the point at which computing power of current computers exceeds the computing power of the human brain, it seems inevitable to me.
Now, look at the human brain: objectively, it is only a mass that employs electricity to fire neurons into your synapses ( along with various hormones ) which produces every sensation you will ever experience, from taste to touch to sight to understanding... everything.
Then, look at how a computer works: electricity fires into circuitry which employs binary code allowing individual pieces of the circuit to be turned on or off, which control everything a computer does at a very basic level.
Both the human brain and the computer processor are extremely similar, no? So it would stand to surmise that as time goes on, a method to emulate a human brain in circuitry could stand to be accomplished.
I feel like that is the only logical thing that could happen.
Evolution is bound to occur in one form or another in the Human species. I simply believe that the next evolution will be of a technological means rather than a biological.
-
^ I see no reason, even with that article, that the singularity is disproven.
That's not how science works my friend. Compared to human justice, for scientific theories is guilty until proven innocent. By which I mean guilty of being bull shit. It's not until a LOT, like dozens if not hundreds or thousands, of independent experiments have been completed that confirm a prediction made from the hypothesis being tested, that people can begin to refer to a scientific theory as being "proved." So the burden is not on anyone to *disprove* this singularity stuff. Quite the contrary, the burden of proof is on the proponents of this theory to prove it via peer-reviewed published studies. Until then, it goes in the bin with Big Foot and the other bits of modern mythologizing.
-
lol A Riotous Defect. Your posts are starting to sound like pine's lol. :)
-
Emulating a brain in software is already possible. In fact it's a very simple thing to do. Google "neuronal network". It's inevitable that these artificial brains eventually reach and exceed the complexity of the human brain.
-
Emulating a brain in software is already possible. In fact it's a very simple thing to do. Google "neuronal network". It's inevitable that these artificial brains eventually reach and exceed the complexity of the human brain.
And I imagine it's only a matter of time before we can integrate neuronal networks with human brains.
I'm gonna believe in the singularity until it happens or I die, haha. I guess that would make it borderline religious of me. But it's my god-given right to believe that one day I can become an immortal cyborg and I'll hold on to that dream for as long as I live.
-
Emulating a brain in software is already possible. In fact it's a very simple thing to do. Google "neuronal network". It's inevitable that these artificial brains eventually reach and exceed the complexity of the human brain.
And I imagine it's only a matter of time before we can integrate neuronal networks with human brains.
I'm gonna believe in the singularity until it happens or I die, haha. I guess that would make it borderline religious of me. But it's my god-given right to believe that one day I can become an immortal cyborg and I'll hold on to that dream for as long as I live.
Creating backups of one's own mind would be so cool :o
-
Creating backups of one's own mind would be so cool :o
I would think that with the way things are going now that such a thing could be accomplished before the next century. I'd imagine that the next big advent in storage after SSD's become the norm would be able to hold such information and process it as fast as a human brain could. By that time I'd imagine that RAM would have evolved into something more efficient as well, and then all that would be needed to perfectly integrate a mind inside of it would be an extremely complex GPU/processing unit and wham.
Of course I don't know jack shit about what I'm talking about. These are all suppositions on my part that probably make me sound like a loony. But hey, I want to be a cyborg. That's MY dream. Hahaha.
-
It's fun having a dream, and that's a pretty cool one, don't get me wrong. But even with all the technological advancements we've seen, and even ones we can legitimately expect to be reached in the foreseeable future, we're still a LONG way from any of this stuff being real. Read something like Jon Ronson's essay "Doesn't Everyone Have a Solar?" It's a great investigative piece that provides some perspective on how far along we actually are, and how much further we might still have to go.
-
Creating backups of one's own mind would be so cool :o
I would think that with the way things are going now that such a thing could be accomplished before the next century. I'd imagine that the next big advent in storage after SSD's become the norm would be able to hold such information and process it as fast as a human brain could. By that time I'd imagine that RAM would have evolved into something more efficient as well, and then all that would be needed to perfectly integrate a mind inside of it would be an extremely complex GPU/processing unit and wham.
Of course I don't know jack shit about what I'm talking about. These are all suppositions on my part that probably make me sound like a loony. But hey, I want to be a cyborg. That's MY dream. Hahaha.
No, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Check this out:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-supercomputing-solutions.html
I'm sure if you built a computer with enough of those today, you could already create a very complex and powerful AI that could almost be classified as a "mind".
-
No, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Check this out:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-supercomputing-solutions.html
I'm sure if you built a computer with enough of those today, you could already create a very complex and powerful AI that could almost be classified as a "mind".
And when you look into it, all you need is one super-intelligent being put on a mission to learn and eventually create a more powerful AI, which could then do the same. Fucking skynet. I'd offer up my brain to AI overlords in a second.
-
Yeah, anyone with the slightest manifestation of spirit or wisdom could tell you that we don't live in 'The Matrix.' This guy is a quack, and a product of these materialistic times.
BUT...he is a philosopher at Oxford. He is not a physicist. He is allowed to be a bit kooky and allegorical.
Real philosophers are better qualified to talk about the ultimate nature of reality than mere physicists. Unfortunately, aademics in philosophy departments are routinely refered to as philosophers. A true philosopher these days is rarer than 1000 carat diamonds.
I don't see why we couldn't live in The Matrix. I will wait for their research before I come to any conclusions, but it seems to me that several respectable scientists have not discounted the possibility.
-
Creating backups of one's own mind would be so cool :o
I would think that with the way things are going now that such a thing could be accomplished before the next century. I'd imagine that the next big advent in storage after SSD's become the norm would be able to hold such information and process it as fast as a human brain could. By that time I'd imagine that RAM would have evolved into something more efficient as well, and then all that would be needed to perfectly integrate a mind inside of it would be an extremely complex GPU/processing unit and wham.
Of course I don't know jack shit about what I'm talking about. These are all suppositions on my part that probably make me sound like a loony. But hey, I want to be a cyborg. That's MY dream. Hahaha.
There are already battery powered RAM disks, those are much faster than SSD.
-
Yeah, anyone with the slightest manifestation of spirit or wisdom could tell you that we don't live in 'The Matrix.' This guy is a quack, and a product of these materialistic times.
BUT...he is a philosopher at Oxford. He is not a physicist. He is allowed to be a bit kooky and allegorical.
Real philosophers are better qualified to talk about the ultimate nature of reality than mere physicists. Unfortunately, aademics in philosophy departments are routinely refered to as philosophers. A true philosopher these days is rarer than 1000 carat diamonds.
I don't see why we couldn't live in The Matrix. I will wait for their research before I come to any conclusions, but it seems to me that several respectable scientists have not discounted the possibility.
Actually it's one of the oldest examples of a thought experiment that creates a philosophical paradox. These day's it's referred to the Brain-in-a-vat paradox, but in Arthurian times they often used the evil wizard metaphor, Descartes wrote it up using the Evil Demon as the antagonist. But it goes back to Plato and even further to various Eastern stories. Really it's just a thought experiment used to show the limits of what can be proved through reason and logic. That knowledge is very important to being able to do get a grasp on valid reasoning, so that's why it'd stayed in use over the centuries. And the Wachowski brothers (?) made a movie out of it. So now some people refer to it as The Matrix. But it's really just a teaching tool. :P
The wiki article is pretty basic, but it's worth a read if you're curious: (CLEARNET) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat