Simulated Reality

This is the place to discuss Salvia divinorum, splendins, and the other psychoactive salvias.
Post Reply
User avatar
kedabra
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Simulated Reality -

Post by kedabra » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:01 am

This wikipedia page is alot of fun, recommended reading for salvianauts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

User avatar
i-jinx
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by i-jinx » Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:46 pm

Monks with abacuses! Nooo!

That would be seriously humiliating. I want to be the product of a big shiny supercomputer.

Considering this possibility doesn't really help us out when it comes to the big mystery. Instead of answering the question: How did we get here? It recurses the question. Maybe one level, or maybe many, if the realities are nested. (I have watched Thirteenth Floor since you first recommended it.)

Like the proposition that we were designed by aliens... We still don't know who designed the aliens. Or who designed the aliens that designed the aliens...

In order to generate a simulation that expresses randomness, some form of random number generation would be needed. The monks would maybe have to use D&D dice sets. If they wanted to simulate quantum uncertainty, they would have to employ additional monks to roll the dice in secret, and insert the numbers while their employers weren't looking.

In such a manner, novelty could continue to infect the nested simulations, so long as the builders at each level made a point of inserting inherited randomness, following an unbroken line from the top level. Without this infection, the simulations wouldn't work, they would just be dressed-up algorithms.

I sometimes wonder if the gnostic idea of the "Sonship" will ever apply to the virtual realities that humans are now cobbling together. Might we one day encounter VR entities, designed and maintained by us, yet able to access and communicate spiritual truths that we ourselves, cannot?

User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by burningmouth » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:58 am

OK, that was different.
I didn’t know where to post this experience. The simulation thread seemed appropriate.

After coming out of this trip, Swim realized just how much the experience relies on the content inside his consciousness. It was obvious having just experienced the visuals, that the content is based on the memories of his life.

There were people and voices in the trip. These people were representations of his own life story. The voices were spoken in the English language, just like in his real life.

In other words, the trip was a simulation of Swim’s everyday, physical life. When Swim was riding along the moving, cartoonish visual, his awareness was totally locked onto/into the simulation. Mentally, he was no longer connected to the physical world. Physically, he was connected. There is no getting around that. Had Swim been able to stay inside the trip/simulation, his physical body would still be in the everyday, physical world. If the physical body died, there would be consequences that would have to play out (discovery of the body, burial, etc).

And who are these simulated people that are conjured up? They seem to be nothing more than mental algorithms. My major question would be, “are these ‘people simulations’ anything more than mental memories that are activated by some type of program?

This leads me to another question. Can outside intelligences manipulate our minds so that they can ‘step into’ the simulation and carry on a dialogue with us while we are tripping? It seems like the perfect meeting place; more hospitable than out in the physical world.

While I can see how our minds can contain simulated worlds, I have a hard time believing that the physical world is a simulation. The physical world is so vast, it boggles the mind that it could all be a simulation. The idea that some remote planet revolving around a star a billion billion miles from here is part of a giant simulation is very hard to conceptualize. Of course, I guess it’s possible that the planet only exists as a latent embryo that only materializes once our measuring tools/senses zoom in on it

I was thinking about what it means to be a ‘being’. What exactly is awareness? I got the idea that a being is all the billions of neurons firing off. Awareness is nothing more than billions of neurons focusing in on themselves as a whole. We really do seem like complex machines. Why are we machines? Who created us? Why are we inside a simulation? Why am I so cheap that I need to park next to a Starbucks in order to go online?

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:13 pm

Elementary arithmetic contains already all emulations. It is the 'block-universe' of the mindscape. I don't think the physical universe can be a simulation, because the physical universe is a projection of infinities of simulations in which we are. If we are machine, then the physical universe, nor consciousness are machine.

It is really like in Plotinus. God and Matter are beyond the being.
The material world is arithmetic as seen by the numbers from inside. The amazing things is that from inside it is really big, bigger than anything that numbers can conceive. They cannot even named that.

If you like the "simulation argument" (or Matrix, or the thirteen floor, or SIMULACRON III), you might like to read the 8 steps of the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), which can lead to an "intellectual illumination", that is the understanding that if we are machine, reality is not like the Aristotelians told us.
UDA is an older version of the simulation argument. The first seven step shows that if the universe is 'robust' (in some technical sense), then physics is already a branch of computer science, and emerge from the sum on many computations. QM might confirms this.
The 8th step is more "subtle" and eliminates the assumption of robustness for the universe; and it eliminates also the assumption of the existence of a universe.
If interested, don't hesitate to ask question.

User avatar
i-jinx
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by i-jinx » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:06 am

Been thinking about getting the sandbox game: Minecraft, since Teeko recommended it in another thread...

Was browsing some vids of it on YT when I came across uber-nerd creations such as these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGkkyKZVzug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqPKD...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrieh...eature=related

Anyone else think there is some profound metaphor manifesting in these practices? How long before these guys construct the equivalent of an 80's home computer using the medieval in-game tech? How long before someone builds a simulated computer in which a simulated computer can be... Err... Simulated???

Something going on here. A pattern is repeating itself. Makes me want to peer into my pc with a torch and magnifying glass. Maybe I'll spot some little cows and pigs mooching around on the circuits?

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:25 pm

i-jinx wrote:Been thinking about getting the sandbox game: Minecraft, since Teeko recommended it in another thread...

Was browsing some vids of it on YT when I came across uber-nerd creations such as these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGkkyKZVzug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqPKD...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrieh...eature=related
Cute :)
i-jinx wrote: Anyone else think there is some profound metaphor manifesting in these practices? How long before these guys construct the equivalent of an 80's home computer using the medieval in-game tech? How long before someone builds a simulated computer in which a simulated computer can be... Err... Simulated???

Something going on here. A pattern is repeating itself. Makes me want to peer into my pc with a torch and magnifying glass. Maybe I'll spot some little cows and pigs mooching around on the circuits?
It is more (much more) than a metaphor. Universal machine or universal numbers simulates themselves and others. That is what they do. Already a high level programming language get through 2, 3, 4 or more universal layers.
Some are more "gifted" than others for doing that: a prolog interpreter can be defined in three lines in prolog, making it the most useful tool for metaprogramming. LISP is powerful for that too.
The Mandelbrot set can also be said to simulate itself, an to simulate itself simulating itself, etc.
The heroine asks, in Galouye's "SIMULACRON III": "how can we know our own simulation level?".
Answer: by looking below our level of substitution. We should see the realities become multiple. Below our level of substitution, all universal simulation compete.
So we can test (refute) if we are in a simulation?
Yes we can. By looking at matter close enough. And QM confirms (doesn't refute) that we are in some universal simulation, or emulation (digitally exact simulation). Newton's physics would have refuted this. But Newton's physics is refuted.
Can a plant help to conceive this? This is what I ask to SWIY.

User avatar
i-jinx
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by i-jinx » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:31 am

salvialover24 wrote:By looking at matter close enough. And QM confirms (doesn't refute) that we are in some universal simulation, or emulation (digitally exact simulation).
So anyone who does the science, at any level, will always find themselves describing an apparent multiverse? Everett was just the first to notice this built-in feature?
salvialover24 wrote:Can a plant help to conceive this? This is what I ask to SWIY.
Is there reason to suspect a universal tendancy for each layer to "intrude" upon it's nested layer? Does comp have anything to say about Easter eggs? Possible? Likely? Inevitable?


Image

User avatar
kedabra
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by kedabra » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:00 am

salvialover24 wrote:Cute :)
Galouye's "SIMULACRON III": "how can we know our own simulation level?".
I'm reading this at the moment. Its great - on a par with Philip K Dick's stuff.
Answer: by looking below our level of substitution. We should see the realities become multiple. Below our level of substitution, all universal simulation compete.
So we can test (refute) if we are in a simulation?
Yes we can. By looking at matter close enough.
Can you elaborate on this? How should matter behave differently if we are in "World 1" rather than "World 3"?
Last edited by kedabra on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:59 am

i-jinx wrote:So anyone who does the science, at any level, will always find themselves describing an apparent multiverse? Everett was just the first to notice this built-in feature?
Yes. The apparent multiverse results from the fact that if we are machine describable at some level, then, below that level, all universal machine compete.
i-jinx wrote: Is there reason to suspect a universal tendancy for each layer to "intrude" upon it's nested layer? Does comp have anything to say about Easter eggs? Possible? Likely? Inevitable?
It is different. Easter eggs are intentionally put in a sofware. The multiverse results from the unavoidable infinities of universal machines in arithmetic. A bit like the little Mandelbrot sets in the Mandelbrot set. We cannot avoid them.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:21 am

kedabra wrote:I'm reading this at the moment. Its great - on a par with Philip K Dick's stuff.
It is my favorite. I love the love story in between layers of realities :)
kedabra wrote: Can you elaborate on this? How should matter behave differently if we are in "World 1" rather than "World 3"?
The point is that matter will behave the same, because, from our internal perspective, below our substitution level, there is a competition between an infinities of worlds, and infinity -1 or -2 layers gives the same infinity.

I really suggest you to read my sane04 paper(*). You can skip the introduction, and you can try to follow the steps of the reasoning. Up to step six, there is no more difficulties than in SIMULACRON III. In step seven I introduce the Universal dovetailer (UD). The universal Dovetailer is a program which creates or enumerates all programs and executes them little step by little step, coming back recurrently on the first and second and preceding programs, etc, so as to pursue the works of programs which never halts (that is the dovetailing procedure). It accesses all computational states, and this infinitely often.
Our consciousness cannot be aware of the time (= the number of steps) used by the UD to make its work. The UD recreates infinitely often the same programs, but also all variants of them, and so, it multiplies each of us into an infinities of doppelgangers.
When we look at ouselves below our substitution level we should find a trace of all those different computations, and that leads to a multiverse. To be sure it is more a multi-dreams than a multiverse. It is an open question if all those dreams glue so well as to define one multiverse. It might be a multi-multiverse or something. A UD and its running already 'exists' in the additive+multiplicative structure of arithmetic. I think that the distribution of the prime numbers already encode a universal dovetailer, and also the Mandelbrot set.

(*) Universal Dovetailer Argument Paper 2004

Post Reply