3 ms·

You can go even deeper: given that your simulation follows a set of known rules from an initial state, what does actually performing those steps even matter? I

You can go even deeper: given that your simulation follows a set of known rules from an initial state, what does actually performing those steps even matter? Is the consciousness given existence because you perform calculations on paper, or does it exist already within the fabric of reality and you're merely exposing it?

3np 5y ago
I think a common mistake is to conflate “consciousness” with “intelligence” or at least “thought”. Just because we don’t tend to recognize one without the other doesn’t mean they necessarily have a causative relationship.
tshaddox 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Just listing the steps of an algorithm is quite different than executing the steps of an algorithm. As an obvious example, with an algorithm for summing two numbers together, the difference between listing the steps and executing them is that when you execute them you are provided with the sum. I don't see any sense in which these aren't different, unless perhaps you're introducing some separate cosmological "Boltzmann brain"-style argument that all possible finite results of all halting algorithms will arise or have arisen due to random fluctuations. But in that case you've got a whole new set of assumptions to address.
- skulk 5y ago
  The idea of a fundamental difference between the result of "performed" and "un-performed" computation always leads me to imagining the null universe, where nothing gets computed ever but all math "exists" as we'd expect. It begs the question, why is the universe non-null? Allowing the mere existence of the possibility of computation to answer that question is very comforting. But yes, it requires approximately as much faith as any monotheistic religion.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Does it really? When one considers that we take seriously the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and nigh-uncountable Calabi-Yau manifold topologies of superstring theory? There is some suggestion that our experiential reality is but one infinitesimal slice of existence even among the empirically minded.
    - skulk 5y ago
      I don't think we have any real observations that rule out the Matrix theory (e.g. existence of a "creator"), so I think it does. I'm not sure how parsimony plays into this; I do think MUH[0] is the most parsimonious TOE. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...

3np 5y ago

I think a common mistake is to conflate “consciousness” with “intelligence” or at least “thought”. Just because we don’t tend to recognize one without the other doesn’t mean they necessarily have a causative relationship.

tshaddox 5y ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Just listing the steps of an algorithm is quite different than executing the steps of an algorithm. As an obvious example, with an algorithm for summing two numbers together, the difference between listing the steps and executing them is that when you execute them you are provided with the sum. I don't see any sense in which these aren't different, unless perhaps you're introducing some separate cosmological "Boltzmann brain"-style argument that all possible finite results of all halting algorithms will arise or have arisen due to random fluctuations. But in that case you've got a whole new set of assumptions to address.

skulk 5y ago
The idea of a fundamental difference between the result of "performed" and "un-performed" computation always leads me to imagining the null universe, where nothing gets computed ever but all math "exists" as we'd expect. It begs the question, why is the universe non-null? Allowing the mere existence of the possibility of computation to answer that question is very comforting. But yes, it requires approximately as much faith as any monotheistic religion.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Does it really? When one considers that we take seriously the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and nigh-uncountable Calabi-Yau manifold topologies of superstring theory? There is some suggestion that our experiential reality is but one infinitesimal slice of existence even among the empirically minded.
  - skulk 5y ago
    I don't think we have any real observations that rule out the Matrix theory (e.g. existence of a "creator"), so I think it does. I'm not sure how parsimony plays into this; I do think MUH[0] is the most parsimonious TOE. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...