Then the ultimate question is—if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:
1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or
this study doesn't make any sense. if the host doesn't want the guest to know that he is actually being run in VirtualBox, he can prevent this from happening by simply rolling back the simulation and making necessary edits in case the guest had found out or it could be done in real time by an AI software. remember The Matrix? The Deja Vu scene? For us it would be the same. Only there is no Neo to spot any signs of change. I thought that was kind of obvious. That's why the theory is not testable.
If there are active measures to conceal it, of course we won't find it. That would be assuming that whatever is running the simulation cares to hide it. There's also the possibility that it wants to be discovered.
There's even a chance that whatever is "running" the simulation doesn't understand that it doing so, isn't conscious at all, or otherwise undertakes actions for entirely different reasons than we (the simulated) do.
Is the simulation hypothesis unlikely? Well, yes. That aside, it's fun to think about and doubly interesting now that's there's a way to test it.
1 - if we don't know if we are real or simulated, we can't trust or senses.
2 - (...) -> we conclude "i think therefore i am".
3 - the only thing we are sure is that we think but not if it's artificial or not
4 - that means we have to find out what the thought is to advance any further.
5 - if thinking is processing information, then what is the program?
the answer to this is as incomprehensive as the beginning of the universe... we are infinitely smaller then the infinite and yet infinitely bigger than nothing. therefore we can't understand neither of them.
unless, of course, someone deletes our answers when we are getting close to the end but that was already said above by someone else...
either way it's pretty absurd thinking that there is another universe, and we are just a simulation, if we can't even figure out how ours was created. if we are a simulation, then who created our creators?
I think the most logical thing to do is to accept that it is impossible to understand our origin and live with it. although it also means that live has no reason...
Life does have a reason beyond it's origins. It doesn't have to be religious, or anything like that. You can simply live in a way that either pleases yourself or that pleases those around you. We may be a simulation, but that doesn't mean that while we're in here we can't let ourselves fall into being human. We can still be what we were programmed to be.
An argument I heard once for this being a simulation, is when you would go about programming a simulation, in order to make finding the results you want easier, the programmers would set some rules/limits that can't be broken to reduce the randomness of the events that happen. (Speed of Light anyone?)
I've also heard that absolute cold is a similar limit that reinforces this theory.
Without a constant speed of light, there's no grounds for relativistic weirdness in physics. I'm not sure what exactly becomes more convenient with this added constraint -- maybe out of bounds problems?
Well, temperature is something of a bulk property. It involves groups of particles, rather than single bodies, atoms, or molecules.
0 K can't be found in this universe because even a single cold proton is subject to gravitational and EM influence from the surrounding entire universe. That universe will nudge the particle about, warming it.
Both of these apparent boundaries seem to cause, or at least emphasize, rather than inhibit, new phenomena.
It seems to me that any accurate, large scale universe simulation is impossible as a matter of principle. The amount of energy it would take to run, having to simulate every particle in the universe realistically and simultaneously for trillions of years, would be as much or nearly as much energy/matter as there is in the universe. Otherwise the creation of such a simulation would violate things like the law of the conservation of energy in thermodynamics. So that the universe exists at all means that there is no simulation being run, meaning that if any "ancestor" universe exists it also cannot simultaneously exist AND run "our" universe, but we exist so it can't exist, or at least we are not a simulation.
We're talking about another universe you doofus. It may have way more energy available than ours.
Why would it necessarily need to be a large-scale simulation? If one wanted to study something specific (the evolution of societies) and one could run a realistic enough simulation of -that-, one presumably would only need to give the appearance of their being something more out there in the universe (esp. if one wanted the conditions to be similar to one's own universe in order to simulate something like one's own civilization).
"Cogito ergo sum" - "I think therefore I am"
And since I exist, I am assuming everybody else exist as well.
discrete calculations of 1s and 0s in transistors are not capable of harboring sapient life with free will, mental processes may emulate the calculations of computers but they must involve random quantum fluctuations for the being to be truly sapient
transferring control over civilization to electronic beings would be like genociding ourselves and creating simulations of sapient beings to replace us, it would be a huge mistake
intredasting but not strictly proven, we know very little about such things
I think in generally we need to diversify the different forms of life that exist. However there is always a threat of one such form of life being vastly superior, expanding uncontrollably and eradicating all the others.
What about a cyborg with a human brain? Something that's mostly robot, but controlled by organics. It would be cool if they could transfer people to android type bodies like 'ghost in the shell' I'd totally sign on for that! Not sure though about getting a fully technolyzed body with only a human head though, (that wasn't explained in too great detail).
are these just markov chain generations?
Is this the real life?
Or is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
Proof that if you are going to fail, you might as well fail superlatively.
this thread has been on this board for about 5.5 years. why move it now?
hey if you get satisfied with this how can you be called science lover .
there is no certanity that homo sapiens want more than they got in every field if they want more if they want to store their memories in full hd from their mind to hard disk where is the problem real track deployment videography should be an alternative
Except an atom is not the smallest unit, so that's as arbitrary as saying "the universe is made out of 2 halves, so 2 bits should be enough for everyone!"
I think it would be separated that the PCs for citizen and the PCs for (Technical) Workers.
People not need such a High Speck Computers for their daily laisures.
It can be required the thread for this board?
It may be fundamental to mention that the ultimate entropy of the Universe is bound by the area of the de Sitter horizon in Planck units. The radius of the horizon is about 1060 Planck lengths so the area is 10120 Planck areas. The largest entropy that our Universe may carry is therefore about 10120 bits.
Thread for those who are inclined to research and learn about the economy of this civilization we find ourselves born into. Principally the stock market.
Yelp Inc. (YELP) has successfully grown to dominate a niche on the internet, a cross between the yellow pages and social networking.
2013 was a major bull market but tech appears to have stalled somewhat. It is feasible there may still be growth for tech stocks like YELP, some basic research on YELP is a good place to start this thread, it shows some of the resources I use for looking up basic info on a company.
latest annual report (10-K)
So, what is this?
This is a forum to discuss science is it not? And what more utilitarian science is there than the science of obtaining capital?
In March and April the tech sector stalled and many bubbles burst, this may have dragged down a few innocent companies with it, that may now be excessively undervalued and bounce when investors realize the error.
FEYE is a possibility, also GOOGL. I've had a little looke at FEYE prompted by a thread in /biz/ that may still be up
> David DeWalt, FireEye chairman and CEO, says he's focused on growing the business and discusses how the market digested the company's quarterly numbers.
> DeWalt's optimism didn't satisfy Brian Kelly of Brian Kelly Capital who had recently sold a losing position in FireEye.
Who is right?
> FireEye Reports Financial Results for First Quarter 2014
I use it to gain power in general, power gives you more options whatever your motivations. You might want to become biologically immortal, you might want to help alleviate suffering, but you can't do any of this without wealth or power.
Knowledge is useless if not wielded by the wise, and I am aware there is more to it than that. There is a kind of information economy, you need information about information to determine the chances of it being useful in the practical sense which presents an interesting dilemma, since now you also need information about information about information about information, there are some parallels with calculus, this sounds like borderline autism but I am not obsessed with this or anything, it is just an observation I have made, when it gets to this point I usually just rely on good old human common sense and approximations to make the best decision. For instance if I am looking up penny stocks and I come across a dodgy company dumping millions of shares on the market with red flags everywhere when I go to their site, I know there is no longer much point in me spending more time on this, I go to the next one. If I next find a biotech startup and there are no red flags I have to decide whether it is worth trying to understand the drug they are trying to develop myself, I have to try and determine how long it would take and the opportunity cost of spending time on it or researching more companies. Through these means I can figure out how to make reasonably effective use of my time, how to valuate companies, risk and returns and the opportunity cost of various options.
What if I told you that economics is a pseudoscience, and that all the phenomena you're trying to model in such painstaking detail are random chaotic herd behavior?
I'm a cock sucking retarded mouth breather, where do I go to learn caclus and shit?
Waht's th SICP of math? What would you recommend, besides killing myself. I already know about khanacademy.
Btw I'm not learning lisp or reading SICP.
Try Khan Academy, d00d. From pre-algebra all the way up through calculus. Khan is the Man. It's free, too--free as in beer, as well as in speech.
"The ships logs from the voyages of Captain Cook have yielded a new discovery: the gradual weakening of Earth’s magnetic field is a relatively recent phenomenon. The discovery has led experts to question whether the Earth is on track towards a polarity reversal."
"The field’s strength is now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years. Researchers have speculated that this ongoing change may be the prelude to a magnetic reversal, during which the north and south magnetic pole swap places."
I read Slashdot's take on it http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/13/1516234 and I thought they were awfully calm about it.
Wouldn't such an event create total chaos?
Since a magnetic field reversal has never been observed by humans and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal. Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth's normal magnetic field .
"Although the inspection of past reversals does not indicate biological extinctions, present society with its reliance of electricity and electromagnetic effects (e.g. radio, satellite communications) may be vulnerable to technological diruptions in the event of a full field reversal."
"may be"? So nobody knows what would happen? Or is it about the magnitude of a solar flare, i.e. not very serious?
The mechanism generating the Earth's magnetic field itself is not well understood, so nobody knows exactly what happens during a pole reversal. Electric and electronic equipment would probably be more sensitive to fluctuations of the field rather than the absence of a field. Lacking any information of what kind of fluctuations to expect, there's really no way to know what the effects would be.
I hope everyone will be ok except for the Earth turning into a global Van de Graaff generator. It would be both a potential extinction event and a new trend in fashion.
>turning into a global Van de Graaff generator.
That would open the door to Free Energy, at long last! :)
Okay, I'll branch this thread off the other one myself if you guys don't want to take the initiative. It may die in silence, but at least I tried. :p
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is evil". Tell WHY you think God is evil, and use logic to back it up if you have tot. If you want to say "God is good", then the same goes for you.
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.
>god is good (christian dogma), and wants the well-being of humans
>god is all knowing and all powerful
>[i]some[/i] humans do bad things
>god doesnt punish them
inb4 free will
that would make god inherently bad, because he's letting humans do bad things
>bible says retarded things
>god doesn't do anything
the bible mentions that God does punish those people
Who are you to decide what is "evil" or "horrible"?
Non-human animals torture, rape, and murder all the time. Are they evil? What about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? What about hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and volcanoes? Are they evil? Your body kills millions of microscopic organisms every day, and you don't even notice. Does that make you evil?
There are a lot of people who actually think the Nazis had the right idea about the Jews, and those people would probably call you evil. What makes you right and them wrong?
And only you get to decide who counts as "people"?
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) had built the largest particle collider on Earth smashing like crazy different particles and atoms purposely to find the Higgs boson or more commonly known as the "God particle".
Now, we don't really have any idea what might come next with the next particles they smash: maybe a black hole, another big bang, the Quantum Zeno collapse, or even a chronological collapse.
What are your thoughts?
We will initiate the Final Sanction. The end of time will come at my hand. The rupture will continue until it rips the Time Vortex apart.
What do you mean when you say "a chronological collapse," >>1? I am unfamiliar with that term and from context I can only perceive that you believe it to be a possible negative consequence.
>you clearly have minimal understanding of science
>you use words like 'crazy different particles', further underlining your ignorance
>the LHC currently IS deactivated and will be for approximately 2 years (upgrades and stuff)
>it's Higgs' boson, not higgs. get that apostrophe right goddammit
>it's not something new, accelerators have been built since the 1930s; they know their shit
>there will be none of that catastrophe bullshit you're talking about
>quantum zeno effect is a real thing, but unrelated; there's no quantum zeno collapse
now, go back to 4chan, asshole.
CERN is trying to build a time machine and take control over the world. We have to stop the d-mails from changing the past and we have to achieve a 1% variation in the time line...
The destruction of the universe is the least of your problems. Just be glad that the machine hasn't awakened the great Cthulhu like in the Steven King move "The Mist"!
This board has nothing to do with science.
figured as much.
There is a thread about scientific threads on this page. Does that count?
This page and the server it is hosted on is based on scientific principles. That is good enough for me.
>> 1 "This sentence is a lie."
Hypothesis: Putting science in a thread claiming there is no science on this page will destroy the page.
Experiement: By creating a post containing science, we either expect to see the thread deleted or else the post deleted.
Observations: Neither the thread nor this post have been deleted.
Conclusions: The hypothesis about the thread destroying the page has been proved invalid.
Dickery: I had to have written the observations on this post before the effects of this post on this page could be observed.
I can recite the quantum chromodynamic gauge invariant lagrangian in my sleep.