5 ms·

Look, here's the thing. We all ought to be able to agree that you could build a digital computer out of pipes, valves, and diaphragms (the water analogues of wi

Look, here's the thing. We all ought to be able to agree that you could build a digital computer out of pipes, valves, and diaphragms (the water analogues of wires, diodes, and capacitors). Does anyone believe that a sufficiently complex plumbing system would be self-aware? That a sufficiently complex plumbing network might become confused about whether it is, in fact, pipes and water? Though, the other reason we're not living in a simulation is that reality is continuous, and numerical simulation can never overcome that barrier. But that point is more esoteric.

licked 10y ago
I agree we can build plumbing complex enough that it can convince anyone, including itself, that it is self-aware. We can philosophise about whether that's true consciousness. But that's the same directionless thought experiment as questioning whether anyone besides yourself truly exists.
- bobbington 10y ago
  No matter how complex a computer gets, nobody will ever be considered a murderer for destroying it. It has no feelings, but only simulations of feelings. You can program it to scream when you threaten to unplug the power cord, but it will never actually fear being turned off. Humans have a soul, a consciousness which no amount of material complexity can generate. I at least have never heard of any legitimate theory.
- colorint 10y ago
  You're certainly begging the question by describing the plumbing as a perceiving subject: it can convince itself, as in, it is a subject of its own experience. This isn't some directionless thought experiment; it matters a great deal exactly what digital computers are.
- laughfactory 10y ago
  I've actually thought a lot about exactly that: how can I be certain that anyone else actually exists? They could all, you could all, be NPCs populating my universe of one. The argument for this is that it takes far less computational power to render such an experience than it does to render that same experience for billions of people and all their complex interactions. But if it's one person than you simply render what they are currently experiencing. You don't render far off places, economies, environments, etc. Just focus on the individual. And perhaps it's no simulation at all, but some super realistic form of VR (via brain implant?). Perhaps if the future world is a wasteland than this may be a way for future people to experience the "good old days." Or perhaps this is how education is conducted in the future: we live some number of virtual lives before getting a crack at a real one.
xiaoma 10y ago
>"Though, the other reason we're not living in a simulation is that reality is continuous" I'm not so sure that it is. Given the existence of Planck length and Planck time and other related units, it's entirely reasonable that at the lowest levels our universe is discrete, not analogue. I'll be the first to admit that it's been nearly 20 years since I've studied this stuff and I'm far from an expert, but I'm pretty sure there's no conclusive evidence that reality is continuous rather than discrete.
- colorint 10y ago
  People believe the Planck length implies discreteness because people want the universe to be discrete, for any number of reasons (including, making symbolic and numeric methods work out). But the biggest reason to believe the universe is continuous is that it has race conditions that are indicative of analog interactions, i.e., positive feedback, rather than state-stomping.

licked 10y ago

I agree we can build plumbing complex enough that it can convince anyone, including itself, that it is self-aware. We can philosophise about whether that's true consciousness. But that's the same directionless thought experiment as questioning whether anyone besides yourself truly exists.

bobbington 10y ago
No matter how complex a computer gets, nobody will ever be considered a murderer for destroying it. It has no feelings, but only simulations of feelings. You can program it to scream when you threaten to unplug the power cord, but it will never actually fear being turned off. Humans have a soul, a consciousness which no amount of material complexity can generate. I at least have never heard of any legitimate theory.
colorint 10y ago
You're certainly begging the question by describing the plumbing as a perceiving subject: it can convince itself, as in, it is a subject of its own experience. This isn't some directionless thought experiment; it matters a great deal exactly what digital computers are.
laughfactory 10y ago
I've actually thought a lot about exactly that: how can I be certain that anyone else actually exists? They could all, you could all, be NPCs populating my universe of one. The argument for this is that it takes far less computational power to render such an experience than it does to render that same experience for billions of people and all their complex interactions. But if it's one person than you simply render what they are currently experiencing. You don't render far off places, economies, environments, etc. Just focus on the individual. And perhaps it's no simulation at all, but some super realistic form of VR (via brain implant?). Perhaps if the future world is a wasteland than this may be a way for future people to experience the "good old days." Or perhaps this is how education is conducted in the future: we live some number of virtual lives before getting a crack at a real one.

xiaoma 10y ago

>"Though, the other reason we're not living in a simulation is that reality is continuous" I'm not so sure that it is. Given the existence of Planck length and Planck time and other related units, it's entirely reasonable that at the lowest levels our universe is discrete, not analogue. I'll be the first to admit that it's been nearly 20 years since I've studied this stuff and I'm far from an expert, but I'm pretty sure there's no conclusive evidence that reality is continuous rather than discrete.

colorint 10y ago
People believe the Planck length implies discreteness because people want the universe to be discrete, for any number of reasons (including, making symbolic and numeric methods work out). But the biggest reason to believe the universe is continuous is that it has race conditions that are indicative of analog interactions, i.e., positive feedback, rather than state-stomping.