Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 471 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#simulation#universe#real#consciousness#world#simulated#argument#believe#possible#human
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 471 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (10 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
We know it is possible because consciousness, if whatever we call "consciousness" is actually a thing, is currently being generated/run "organically" in the world we occupy. There's no reason to believe it can happen in this universe but not inside a computer in this universe.
(1) It maintains an internal model whose states are revised through interaction with constraints not fully determined by the model's own prior state. Constraints normally would mean reality (the world outside the Markov blanket), but we're talking simulation here.
(2) At least one frontier is currently open within that model — active resolution (awareness) is underway. Not dead.
(3) That frontier's resolutions recursively re-enter as inputs to the system's own subsequent frontier states. Friston's "embodied perception-action loop".
(1) & (2) could be said to apply to an inanimate object like a thermostat. (3) is the interesting one as the driver in organic life is the entropy gradient. Our "will to live" is a fight against thermodynamic decay and disorder. Maybe that could be simulated, a fight against glitching out, who knows.
This is like saying there is no reason to believe that since music comes from a radio, it has everything that can generate music.
How would a simulated universe differ from a "real" one? How would the simulation cut corners to save resources? Maybe the laws of physics are designed not just to produce interesting results, but also to be efficient to run.
Karl Friston and Steven Wolfram are sniffing around here, with cellular automata and free energy describing ways of partitioning space so it's cheaper to update
I think that most people would agree that a universe only counts as "simulated" if it was created by conscious beings intentionally.
In other words, proponents of simulation theories have basically reinvented god. But they've done something even more mind bogglingly self important: by posing God as a sysadmin of a celestial server farm, they have essentially written themselves into the role.
From a certain point of view, this kind of behavior from self proclaimed rationalists is pretty hilarious. It's also deeply human. But ultimately it's also very silly.
In ancient Greece the gods were fickle, horny warlords; in medieval times God was seen as an absolute monarch. And now, he is being posed as an overworked it professional. And that is absolutely fascinating for what it says about our culture and psychology. But it says nothing useful or testable about the universe.