Digital Philosophy

[Arising_uk]

I'm pretty sure I'm just a disembodied brain, vatted up, with 'the world' (including all of you) bein' fed into my consciousness by way of electrode.

Could be worse.

I agree, apart from the electrodes and disembodiment with the feed being the CNS and the 'vat' the meat.

[attofishpi]

Hello Henry,

Its as unlikely as the technological singularity having already occurred.

So you choose (1) from Bostrum's argument then?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Moreso (3) i think.

I read the article some years back, i even emailed the poor chap...never received a reply. I havent read the article again, but i think it was the same one. I was a little puzzled that he had not suggested that we would 'evolve' into such a 'simulation' as a matter of necessity in relation to the progression of entropy.
From memory he seemed to suggest we would immerse ourselves within such a simulation yet provided no reason as to why, other than that something along the lines that if technology permits, which no doubt it will, we would do so.

[Arising_uk]

Moreso (3) i think.

but you told Henry Quirk you thought this unlikely to have happened yet?

I read the article some years back, i even emailed the poor chap...never received a reply. I havent read the article again, but i think it was the same one. I was a little puzzled that he had not suggested that we would 'evolve' into such a 'simulation' as a matter of necessity in relation to the progression of entropy.

Because that was not what he was discussing.

From memory he seemed to suggest we would immerse ourselves within such a simulation yet provided no reason as to why, other than that something along the lines that if technology permits, which no doubt it will, we would do so.

Not what he was proposing.

[Duncan Butlin]

I believe the human brain has already hit the limits of complexity of a computational entity -- the female brain slightly exceeding it, and the male not quite making it. Thus an electronic entity achieving the limit too, at the singularity, is not very interesting -- we'll pretty much be equals, though I hate using the word.

[Arising_uk]

Nice to hear from you DB, hope you are hale and hearty. Does this mean you are talking to me now?

[Duncan Butlin]

Ah, there you've caught me on two counts: I couldn't remember if I was meant to be talking to you or not, and no, I am not hale -- I'm locked up in the mental hospital in Chichester again. I am, however, hearty: I really think that this time round there is hope of a cure. How are you, now that we are talking again?

[Arising_uk]

Ah, there you've caught me on two counts: I couldn't remember if I was meant to be talking to you or not, and no, I am not hale -- I'm locked up in the mental hospital in Chichester again. I am, however, hearty: I really think that this time round there is hope of a cure. How are you, now that we are talking again?

Well thank you, although I find myself saddened that you are in such straights again. What happened? Feel free not to answer if this is to impertinent. I wish you well in your endeavour.

[Duncan Butlin]

Thanks for the sympathy. I tend to over-shoot and go manic, after I come out of medication-induced depression. I get too excited and start making mistakes in manners and appropriate behaviour. The day before I was sectioned I filled a whole page writing out the F word, over and over again, and I sent some almost meaningless e-mails. Unfortunately, once you’ve gone beyond a certain level of exhilaration, you cannot doubt yourself and realise that you are going mad. I am hoping to persuade the psychiatrist that I don’t need medication after I’ve come back down, and, unmedicated, I should avoid going into a depression again.

[attofishpi]

Moreso (3) i think.

but you told Henry Quirk you thought this unlikely to have happened yet?

I read the article some years back, i even emailed the poor chap...never received a reply. I havent read the article again, but i think it was the same one. I was a little puzzled that he had not suggested that we would 'evolve' into such a 'simulation' as a matter of necessity in relation to the progression of entropy.

Because that was not what he was discussing.

From memory he seemed to suggest we would immerse ourselves within such a simulation yet provided no reason as to why, other than that something along the lines that if technology permits, which no doubt it will, we would do so.

Not what he was proposing.

With re to Henry Q. comment, i was stating that the likelihood of us being in a reality simulated via direct impulses to our brain is on par with the likelihood that the technological singularity having already happened. Im not so definitive on it being 'unlikely' since my experience over the years with our 'God' makes me open to all options.

Just read the Bostrom article...ok, so i think my head is turning inside out.

Am i correct in stating that he is implying that some distant computational simulation may be run, where perhaps 'our' lives have been simulated as ancestors of said simulators?

and quote..
"The possibility expressed by alternative (3) is the conceptually most intriguing one. If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe where the computer is situated that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the physics of the world that we observe. While the world we see is in some sense “real”, it is not located at the fundamental level of reality."

...in the above (3) since all is just a simulation then there is no probability of DOOM prior to post humanism since it (post humanism) has already occurred?

So you rebutted my OP since he is making no assertion that our reality will eventuate in a simulation since, as he states, it has something close to zero probability..?

[Duncan Butlin]

Attofishpi --- what do you think to my idea that there is an inherent limit to the complexity of a computational entity, and that the human brain has hit it?

[attofishpi]

Attofishpi --- what do you think to my idea that there is an inherent limit to the complexity of a computational entity, and that the human brain has hit it?

Hi Duncan

Im certain i am not qualified to answer this one, but as a layman i would agree that there is a limit, but would have to disagree that the human brain is it.

I would suggest that some augmentation by way of an implant that could assist the human brain with number crunching such as for the likes of statistical analysis on the fly would likely improve upon ones 'limits' (just for starters).

[Greylorn Ell]

For those of you who really like crackpot computational physics based metaphysics.

Its modern, fits our current milieu, gives you a 'God' and a 'Soul' if you want one, and its bloody funny when you think about it. Pah! to the QM wavers and Relativity loons.

My favourite site for weird and interesting papers, i.e. Fredkins.

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org

AUK!

Thank you for this excellent reference. Wish I'd discovered Ed Fredkin a decade ago, as I commented to him--- would have saved me the effort to reinvent one of his wheels.

It doesn't seem right to call him a crackpot, because that belittles a man who has clearly given considerable attention to the workings of reality.

It is to Fredkin's considerable credit that he has clearly studied the principles of functional and mathematical physics and found that they do not properly explain the workings of reality. Although I don't agree with his current correction, it is turned in the right direction. I have a feeling that were he and I to spend a few weeks together, or a few years in some form of communication, my theories and his would merge into an effective explanation for all things known that is also predictive of things not yet discovered.

My biggest quibble with Fredkin is that he is clearly a believer in some variety of conventional monotheism, and that will prevent he and I from communication. But so what?

Anyone who claims to be interested in the core of reality should treat Fredkin's essays (above my book) as required reading. Others are simply blowing the smoke from bullpucky cigarettes.

Once again, thank you for the reference.
GL

[Greylorn Ell]

I believe the human brain has already hit the limits of complexity of a computational entity -- the female brain slightly exceeding it, and the male not quite making it. Thus an electronic entity achieving the limit too, at the singularity, is not very interesting -- we'll pretty much be equals, though I hate using the word.

I'm sorry that you're pussy-whipped. That condition can be fixed.