5 ms·

I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Co

by mbil 7y ago

I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Couldn't we just be a bi-product of a universe created to simulate something else? I mean imagine you wanted to simulate a universe -- given enough computing resources you could simulate a universe's worth of atoms, and humans might just be an accidental artifact of the atoms globbing together in really fascinating ways.

nathancahill 7y ago
That's the theory used in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Iv 7y ago
We are just NPCs in a Philosophical Zombie FPS.
Iv 7y ago
I even think it is more likely that we are not the focus. If I wanted to study humans, I'd just create some and watch them do, I would not bother with simulating evolution, or alternatively burying fossils and creating a whole phylogenetic tree. It is very likely that what we consider important and what this simulation is supposed to be studying are going to be totally disjoint.
- amelius 7y ago
  > I would not bother with simulating evolution, But what if it were the "easy" way of creating humans?
- kromem 7y ago
  Why do you think "human" is the focus instead of "intelligent"? Maybe we were biologically evolved totally and completely differently from our creators outside of how we generally exhibit consciousness. In a sense, we could eventually even be exported into that primary universe as immortal alien life in biological or mechanical form to physically populate and interact with other species. Perhaps one of those variables tweaked between this universe and the parent one is just how empty our universe is. Running the same sort of simulation and bringing other species to life among whom we peacefully coexist could be the "win condition" for this simulation, demonstrating we are finally safe for re-introduction with a parent simulation. In general, better understanding our simulation would be a smart idea to try and understand what if any win conditions exist.
kromem 7y ago
Aren't we in the verge of creating AI? And we're kind of freaking out about if they'll kill us all? What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it." Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the full butterfly effect of actions. To evolve an AI with the wisdom of a God. Heck, maybe we even sprinkle hints into the simulation, broken up into pieces across different geographies and eras. Do multiple religions talk about the world being an illusion? About humans being made in God's image (maybe even like imaging a drive)? Maybe that's all projection and BS... ...or maybe there was something to it all along. Certainly if this simulation is recursive, the odds of it being "the" simulation we are actually in is more likely than if it is not, and I do think simulating ourselves collectively would be a smart way to develop a very wise and forgiving AI that may just decided not to vaporize us the first chance it gets. So not only are we very likely in a simulation, it's likely we are AIs and we are living through the lead up to our own creation.
- azinman2 7y ago
  No, not in terms of AGI. We’re no where near it. Don’t believe the hype.. we can just do what we previously could do, but more accurately. The truly hard problems still have no solution in sight.
  - kromem 7y ago
    Which might be why determining if we are in fact in a simulation would be helpful. If an AI created this simulation but is not actively part of it (I do think free will is an important component of the simulation), could we discover a way to import it? If so, we'd only need to be able to open a passthrough and we'd have authentic AI well beyond anything we could hope to achieve within the next few centuries at least. Along these lines, I think it's interesting to ask: "if we are in a simulation, what determines randomness?" In theory, a qubit in a superposition has two possible outcomes of equal weight. But why does it end up being one or the other? Arguably, if our own consciousness is a manifestation of that AI, we might be able to answer how to import it by better understanding how we ourselves make decisions. Where does that embodiment of free will originate as a physical event, and could we recreate that physicality artificially? Would such a setup end up producing random junk, or a cohesive output? Regardless, as others have stated in this thread, if we know we are in a simulation, we'll likely shift how we approach multiple domains, particularly in the sciences. And it's very likely that if we are currently coming to realize that we are in a simulation, that's the whole point.
albanread 7y ago
I think we search for possible explanations of our own very good luck that you outlined above; and partly this search is due to the way our own brains work; we believe there must be a reason; so make up stories.

by mbil 7y ago

nathancahill 7y ago

That's the theory used in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Iv 7y ago

We are just NPCs in a Philosophical Zombie FPS.

Iv 7y ago

I even think it is more likely that we are not the focus. If I wanted to study humans, I'd just create some and watch them do, I would not bother with simulating evolution, or alternatively burying fossils and creating a whole phylogenetic tree. It is very likely that what we consider important and what this simulation is supposed to be studying are going to be totally disjoint.

amelius 7y ago
> I would not bother with simulating evolution, But what if it were the "easy" way of creating humans?
kromem 7y ago
Why do you think "human" is the focus instead of "intelligent"? Maybe we were biologically evolved totally and completely differently from our creators outside of how we generally exhibit consciousness. In a sense, we could eventually even be exported into that primary universe as immortal alien life in biological or mechanical form to physically populate and interact with other species. Perhaps one of those variables tweaked between this universe and the parent one is just how empty our universe is. Running the same sort of simulation and bringing other species to life among whom we peacefully coexist could be the "win condition" for this simulation, demonstrating we are finally safe for re-introduction with a parent simulation. In general, better understanding our simulation would be a smart idea to try and understand what if any win conditions exist.

kromem 7y ago

Aren't we in the verge of creating AI? And we're kind of freaking out about if they'll kill us all? What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it." Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the full butterfly effect of actions. To evolve an AI with the wisdom of a God. Heck, maybe we even sprinkle hints into the simulation, broken up into pieces across different geographies and eras. Do multiple religions talk about the world being an illusion? About humans being made in God's image (maybe even like imaging a drive)? Maybe that's all projection and BS... ...or maybe there was something to it all along. Certainly if this simulation is recursive, the odds of it being "the" simulation we are actually in is more likely than if it is not, and I do think simulating ourselves collectively would be a smart way to develop a very wise and forgiving AI that may just decided not to vaporize us the first chance it gets. So not only are we very likely in a simulation, it's likely we are AIs and we are living through the lead up to our own creation.

azinman2 7y ago
No, not in terms of AGI. We’re no where near it. Don’t believe the hype.. we can just do what we previously could do, but more accurately. The truly hard problems still have no solution in sight.
- kromem 7y ago
  Which might be why determining if we are in fact in a simulation would be helpful. If an AI created this simulation but is not actively part of it (I do think free will is an important component of the simulation), could we discover a way to import it? If so, we'd only need to be able to open a passthrough and we'd have authentic AI well beyond anything we could hope to achieve within the next few centuries at least. Along these lines, I think it's interesting to ask: "if we are in a simulation, what determines randomness?" In theory, a qubit in a superposition has two possible outcomes of equal weight. But why does it end up being one or the other? Arguably, if our own consciousness is a manifestation of that AI, we might be able to answer how to import it by better understanding how we ourselves make decisions. Where does that embodiment of free will originate as a physical event, and could we recreate that physicality artificially? Would such a setup end up producing random junk, or a cohesive output? Regardless, as others have stated in this thread, if we know we are in a simulation, we'll likely shift how we approach multiple domains, particularly in the sciences. And it's very likely that if we are currently coming to realize that we are in a simulation, that's the whole point.

albanread 7y ago

I think we search for possible explanations of our own very good luck that you outlined above; and partly this search is due to the way our own brains work; we believe there must be a reason; so make up stories.