tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post242632550161513117..comments2011-11-28T23:50:55.991-06:00Comments on Casual CAS: It’s simulations all the way down!Johnny GoTimehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16311186674721089763noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-9980398659245385922009-03-21T14:21:00.000-05:002009-03-21T14:21:00.000-05:00Interesting read. Some observations:The simuation ...Interesting read. Some observations:<BR/><BR/>The simuation definition from wikipedia: "Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviors of a selected physical or abstract system."<BR/><BR/>According to that, a complex adaptive system (that by definition evolves in unpredictable ways) that is situated in a computer and has 0 and 1 (or if you wish "go" and "no go") as fundamental building blocks, is NOT a simulation. And it stops being a simulation right after you push the "RUN" button.<BR/><BR/>Exploring the notion of "simulation" we can also see tht it is an "intellectual concept". When you have a simulation of ants looking for food an taking it bakc to the nest, in reality you having nothing close to that. You just have a program that produces a pattern that your mind associates with another pattern (the one of ants). In one sentence, simulations do not exist outside our heads (the argument here could be "what does exist outside our heads?").<BR/><BR/>In the same line of reasoning, Artificial Intelligence is a very bad term. According to CAS theory, nothing is artificial in the whole universe. Human is a complex adaptive system that resulted from the evolution of other complex adaptive systems and so on, so any "artifact" made by human is just another reorganization of matter, energy and information that occurred due to the evolution of multiple CAS. Saying "I created Artificial intelligence" translates to "another CAS emerged". Nothing artificial about it (nothing artificial about anything).elmerfaddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453723943452032887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-1261464744353246232007-09-06T17:30:00.000-05:002007-09-06T17:30:00.000-05:00easy, one other thing just occurred to me:A large ...easy, one other thing just occurred to me:<BR/><BR/>A large amount of time has passed since the Big Bang. (Yes, this just occurred to me.)<BR/><BR/>But what this means is that the "programmers" could have started our simulation out on their old crappy computer hardware, and then added processors and storage every thousand years or so as their own technology improves to keep up with our expanding simulated universe...<BR/><BR/>This (in addition to my previous comment) could help mitigate the compression issue you raised.Johnny GoTimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16311186674721089763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-45446813201665670732007-09-06T17:19:00.000-05:002007-09-06T17:19:00.000-05:00Hey easyrider, this isn't a cop-out but please see...Hey easyrider, this isn't a cop-out but please see my response to aaron's comment. It boils down to this:<BR/><BR/>If we <I>are</I> a simulation, our universe will be missing many details/concepts that are present in the universe of the "programmers". Meaning that compression isn't an issue.<BR/><BR/>-JJohnny GoTimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16311186674721089763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-6250982984560249812007-09-06T14:24:00.000-05:002007-09-06T14:24:00.000-05:00For the sake of argument, if it doesn't affect the...For the sake of argument, if it doesn't affect the way we choose to live our lives, what does it matter to us? However, for the sake of argument...<BR/><BR/>AI, despite being 'A', is still 'I'. Therefore, a simulated universe would still have to withstand constant observation. It has to look real at all times and in all places. remember the simulation in this example assumes that we are multiple AIs, not just one. Therefore, a realistic simulation could not (I would argue) afford to lose any information to compression. So, with the information ratio of the simulated universe compared to the actual universe needing to be 1:1 to be plausible, one would have to have fit an entire universe within an infinitesimal fraction of another one (the simulated one within the real one). Unless the universe possesses Buddhist physical properties, this is not possible.easyriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02452616050533658365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-71163816822590703332007-09-06T13:52:00.000-05:002007-09-06T13:52:00.000-05:00I have the largest gripe with the creation of the ...<I>I have the largest gripe with the creation of the self-aware-intelligent AI systems. While I think the creation of AI is possible in "some" regard, I'm not sure that this level of complexity is attainable.</I><BR/>One thing I should have been more clear about is that any simulation is not a completely accurate representation of the "programmer's" universe. In other words, if you and I create a simulation, then it certainly will omit many concepts that occur in our universe but are outside the scope of the simulation...For example, suppose objects in our simulation don't have mass. Obviously that's a huge departure from our universe, but it's totally distinct from the issue of whether or not our AI guys are intelligent. And to them, whatever world we've simulated for them will seem reasonable and consistent - because their entire notion of "reasonable" and "consistent" will be built on the rules of their simulated universe...<BR/><BR/>So to come back to your gripe: certainly the simulation won't be a 100% accurate portrayal of our own universe, but it <I>will</I> be logical and reasonable from the perspective of our AI guys.<BR/><BR/>By the same token, if you and I are a simulation, well, our universe is logical and reasonable to us because it's all we know. The "real" world programmers who wrote the simulation may have all sorts of complexity in their universe that we simply have no way to imagine, because the basic rules of our universe don't allow for them!<BR/><BR/>And by this point, you're probably annoyed at how unprovable this all is...And you're right! The argument is not a proof, it's just a "thing that makes you go hmm." <BR/><BR/>In fact, you might say it's a matter of faith...show me a more-concrete proof for the existence of God.Johnny GoTimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16311186674721089763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412187380156391136.post-53154650817592150422007-09-06T10:18:00.000-05:002007-09-06T10:18:00.000-05:00Its definitely an interesting theory, though not t...Its definitely an interesting theory, though not the first time I've been exposed to it.<BR/>I've heard about it relating back to sociology or philosophy but even still I'm sure the greeks and whoever else had their own versions.<BR/> <BR/>Sometimes its just aliens with our brains hooked up to these diodes instead of a real computer generated "simulation" but the idea is always the same.<BR/><BR/>I have the largest gripe with the creation of the self-aware-intelligent AI systems. While I think the creation of AI is possible in "some" regard, I'm not sure that this level of complexity is attainable. That being said even if there was some kind of possibility of this being true as a software dev you should know that the program only does what its been "programmed" to do. Removing the ability for the AI to create these alternate AI systems would solve this dilemma pretty quick.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm too much of a skeptic for these kinds of arguments ... or maybe I'm too vain ;) who wants to admit they're just a simulation in a simulation in a ... <BR/><BR/>-2AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com