5 ms·

He lost me right in the second paragraph: > Because computation is sort of subjective, just a set of relations that can be usefully interpreted as representing

He lost me right in the second paragraph: > Because computation is sort of subjective, just a set of relations that can be usefully interpreted as representing a function, this seems to imply that the function you identify with can be interpreted as being simulated by any sufficiently complex set of relations. Can anyone explain? I'm already struggling with the premise: Why should computation be subjective in the first place?

tgv 6y ago
And why would "sort of" subjectivity be sufficient for simulation? The only interpretation is that the author uses the word subjective to mean "a set of relations". It doesn't sound like math, more like pseudo-philosophical sci-fi. It also seems to assume that simulation of physical processes can be highly accurate and efficient, and that the function that represents "I" doesn't interact with the environment.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Exactly what I was going to quote, with a big fat 'wot?' to follow. Edit: I think we're being trolled by a text generator, see my other comment.
db48x 6y ago
He states it in the previous sentence: > If you think experience is simulatable, [and] you buy computational or “patternist” theories of identity… Basically, the inner experience of any sapient computation (aka "person") is subjective.
- codethief 6y ago
  I would counter that by saying that: 1) this has nothing to do with computation. 2) my subjective experience is objectively there. No one questions what I am thinking. (That is, no one else looks inside my brain and claims: This is not what your thinking!) My thoughts might be my own personal view and differ from other people's thoughts but their existence is not up for debate.
  - db48x 6y ago
    This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. In the novel, many people have had their minds uploaded into regular electrical computers as well, though they're generally not able to run in real time. That's not a counter, because it's just what I said. We all have a subjective inner experience. The premise of the novel is that this subjective inner experience is both necessary and sufficient for immortality. The story is an exploration of solipsism, though most of the characters in it choose to take people with them rather than to exist in immortal isolation.
    - codethief 6y ago
      No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. This still doesn't explain why computation should be subjective.
      - db48x 6y ago
        Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.
        codethief 6y ago
        > Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. No, you're interpreting them as such. Computation is objective. The only thing is that obviously your outputs depend on your inputs.
        6y ago
Udik 6y ago
Just by chance, I happened to try to explain the dust theory to a completely uninterested subject today over lunch :) I tried to make it as brief as possible like this: some people believe mathematical truths are necessary and therefore that they exist independently of us discovering them. For example, the entire set of theorems that can be proven from a given set of axioms is already there in the axioms themselves- our calculations are a process of discovery, not of creation. Or to make another example, all the decimal digits of PI "exist", independently of us running the calculations that make them knowable to us. But suppose we had a function that produces the succession of discrete states of a self-conscious mind (for example, a detailed description of the state of each neuron at any given microsecond). How does the act of actually calculating the values of the function- discovering them- affect the self-perception of that mind? Does it really care if someone is running the calculation? There is a fun anecdote in Permutation City: the story of an old misanthrope who, nearing death, orders the creation of a digital copy of himself immersed in a simulated world; however, having no desire to communicate with the outside world, he asks for the simulation not to have any inputs or outputs. The algorithm is built, but once it's passed through an automated code optimizer, the optimizer spits out nothing: because a calculation that makes its results known to no-one is empty!
- codethief 6y ago
  Thank you, that's the first intelligible explanation I've read here on this thread!
  - athriren 6y ago
    yeah, i was struggling too. egan’s books are too much for me because i feel like i need a highlighter and a graphing calculator, but i totally admire them and wish i was smarter.
    - scbrg 6y ago
      I had the same feeling when reading some of them. In fact, you can just gloss over some of the parts that go to deep into maths or physics land. I did so, primarily with the Orthogonal Trilogy. You can enjoy the books even if some of the details are a bit too much. Yeah, you have to live with feeling a bit stupid... but you don't have to tell anyone :-)
sdenton4 6y ago
If you're living inside the simulation, there's a lot of flex in how the computations running the simulation get carried out that you would never notice. It's effectively saying there's a separation between the implementation of the simulation and the experience of living inside the simulation. In the book, this is illustrated by computing some time-steps out of order. (This, it turns out, isn't a very realistic example, but is illustrative of the idea.) Someone inside the simulation doesn't realize they've been computed 'out of order.' It also doesn't matter how fast you run the simulation: the simulator clock and the simulated clock can be completely decoupled. You can run it on a single machine verrrrrrry slowly, or in a gigantic data center, and anyone inside the simulation would never know the difference. So what is the simulation then? It's the collection of states, regardless of how and in what order they are computed. The Dust Theory is taking this to a kind of logical extreme: Sometimes these states just naturally arise in random configurations of particles, because the universe is vast. It doesn't matter what /order/ they arise in (as we already saw), just that all of the states randomly arise at one time or another. "What if simulation by galactic bogosort?" It's also similar to the Library of Babel, but for computation instead of books. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel) And it has the same problem as the Library of Babel; typos are unavoidable when there's no intention. (hell, typos are unavoidable even when there IS intention...) So then we need to assert that the 'real' simulation is the one that just happens to have all of the 'right' random states, not to be confused with all of the untold billions of other almost-right states. (and then you can ask, if you've followed things THIS far, is it even necessary for the 'right' states to arise, given that they must eventually due to the law of large numbers, alongside all of these slightly-wrong versions? Or is it enough for the simulation to be mathematically possible, so that we can assert that the right states exist?)
vladTheInhaler 6y ago
If I understand correctly, it's not that the computation itself is subjective, but that the interpretation of the results is. Like how things are represented in lambda calculus - is this really an integer, or is it just a blob of function applications that has an interpretation consistent with being an integer? That part is subjective. Edit: to be more explicit, the parallel is "is that really a mind, or is it just a blob of molecules that has an interpretation consistent with being a mind?"
- goldenkey 6y ago
  The Model vs The Map
  - davidivadavid 6y ago
    Syntax vs semantics?
- lifeformed 6y ago
  What's a real integer anyways, if not just a specific series of relationships between different entities?

tgv 6y ago

And why would "sort of" subjectivity be sufficient for simulation? The only interpretation is that the author uses the word subjective to mean "a set of relations". It doesn't sound like math, more like pseudo-philosophical sci-fi. It also seems to assume that simulation of physical processes can be highly accurate and efficient, and that the function that represents "I" doesn't interact with the environment.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Exactly what I was going to quote, with a big fat 'wot?' to follow. Edit: I think we're being trolled by a text generator, see my other comment.

db48x 6y ago

He states it in the previous sentence: > If you think experience is simulatable, [and] you buy computational or “patternist” theories of identity… Basically, the inner experience of any sapient computation (aka "person") is subjective.

codethief 6y ago
I would counter that by saying that: 1) this has nothing to do with computation. 2) my subjective experience is objectively there. No one questions what I am thinking. (That is, no one else looks inside my brain and claims: This is not what your thinking!) My thoughts might be my own personal view and differ from other people's thoughts but their existence is not up for debate.
- db48x 6y ago
  This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. In the novel, many people have had their minds uploaded into regular electrical computers as well, though they're generally not able to run in real time. That's not a counter, because it's just what I said. We all have a subjective inner experience. The premise of the novel is that this subjective inner experience is both necessary and sufficient for immortality. The story is an exploration of solipsism, though most of the characters in it choose to take people with them rather than to exist in immortal isolation.
  - codethief 6y ago
    No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. This still doesn't explain why computation should be subjective.
    - db48x 6y ago
      Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.
      - codethief 6y ago
        > Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. No, you're interpreting them as such. Computation is objective. The only thing is that obviously your outputs depend on your inputs.
        6y ago

Udik 6y ago

Just by chance, I happened to try to explain the dust theory to a completely uninterested subject today over lunch :) I tried to make it as brief as possible like this: some people believe mathematical truths are necessary and therefore that they exist independently of us discovering them. For example, the entire set of theorems that can be proven from a given set of axioms is already there in the axioms themselves- our calculations are a process of discovery, not of creation. Or to make another example, all the decimal digits of PI "exist", independently of us running the calculations that make them knowable to us. But suppose we had a function that produces the succession of discrete states of a self-conscious mind (for example, a detailed description of the state of each neuron at any given microsecond). How does the act of actually calculating the values of the function- discovering them- affect the self-perception of that mind? Does it really care if someone is running the calculation? There is a fun anecdote in Permutation City: the story of an old misanthrope who, nearing death, orders the creation of a digital copy of himself immersed in a simulated world; however, having no desire to communicate with the outside world, he asks for the simulation not to have any inputs or outputs. The algorithm is built, but once it's passed through an automated code optimizer, the optimizer spits out nothing: because a calculation that makes its results known to no-one is empty!

codethief 6y ago
Thank you, that's the first intelligible explanation I've read here on this thread!
- athriren 6y ago
  yeah, i was struggling too. egan’s books are too much for me because i feel like i need a highlighter and a graphing calculator, but i totally admire them and wish i was smarter.
  - scbrg 6y ago
    I had the same feeling when reading some of them. In fact, you can just gloss over some of the parts that go to deep into maths or physics land. I did so, primarily with the Orthogonal Trilogy. You can enjoy the books even if some of the details are a bit too much. Yeah, you have to live with feeling a bit stupid... but you don't have to tell anyone :-)

sdenton4 6y ago

If you're living inside the simulation, there's a lot of flex in how the computations running the simulation get carried out that you would never notice. It's effectively saying there's a separation between the implementation of the simulation and the experience of living inside the simulation. In the book, this is illustrated by computing some time-steps out of order. (This, it turns out, isn't a very realistic example, but is illustrative of the idea.) Someone inside the simulation doesn't realize they've been computed 'out of order.' It also doesn't matter how fast you run the simulation: the simulator clock and the simulated clock can be completely decoupled. You can run it on a single machine verrrrrrry slowly, or in a gigantic data center, and anyone inside the simulation would never know the difference. So what is the simulation then? It's the collection of states, regardless of how and in what order they are computed. The Dust Theory is taking this to a kind of logical extreme: Sometimes these states just naturally arise in random configurations of particles, because the universe is vast. It doesn't matter what /order/ they arise in (as we already saw), just that all of the states randomly arise at one time or another. "What if simulation by galactic bogosort?" It's also similar to the Library of Babel, but for computation instead of books. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel) And it has the same problem as the Library of Babel; typos are unavoidable when there's no intention. (hell, typos are unavoidable even when there IS intention...) So then we need to assert that the 'real' simulation is the one that just happens to have all of the 'right' random states, not to be confused with all of the untold billions of other almost-right states. (and then you can ask, if you've followed things THIS far, is it even necessary for the 'right' states to arise, given that they must eventually due to the law of large numbers, alongside all of these slightly-wrong versions? Or is it enough for the simulation to be mathematically possible, so that we can assert that the right states exist?)

vladTheInhaler 6y ago

If I understand correctly, it's not that the computation itself is subjective, but that the interpretation of the results is. Like how things are represented in lambda calculus - is this really an integer, or is it just a blob of function applications that has an interpretation consistent with being an integer? That part is subjective. Edit: to be more explicit, the parallel is "is that really a mind, or is it just a blob of molecules that has an interpretation consistent with being a mind?"

goldenkey 6y ago
The Model vs The Map
- davidivadavid 6y ago
  Syntax vs semantics?
lifeformed 6y ago
What's a real integer anyways, if not just a specific series of relationships between different entities?