4 ms·

For the record, I am consistent because I absolutely think it is not possible we live in a simulation, because the immense resources it would take to simulate t

by swid 4y ago

For the record, I am consistent because I absolutely think it is not possible we live in a simulation, because the immense resources it would take to simulate the large, detailed, world we live in. I don’t think even the most advanced civilizations could build a computer that we live in. But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate why I think computers can contain human like intelligence in theory. Of course you will see instructions and be unable to tell why it feels alive if you just look at op codes. Then I do ask, without answering, how much can you omit and still get sentience. You can likely simulate bio chemistry alone and get consciousness. And you may be able to simulate even less than that. Though each reduction would make it easier for a simulated scientist to discover they are simulated.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate why I think computers can contain human like intelligence in theory. In what kind of theory, though? In mathematical theory you can use a googol watts. In "things you can do in this universe" theory you can't use a googol watts. I understand the argument of taking a small accurate simulation as a basis point and extrapolating to a larger simulation. But if you're stuck with exponential complexity, then that extrapolation doesn't work. The demonstration of simulating 5 particles becomes useless. Even if you can massively simplify it, if you can't eliminate the exponential cost you're screwed.
- swid 4y ago
  I agree with most of what you are saying; it absolutely applies to physical questions. Whether or not quantum computing can be practical depends on our ability to fight off decoherence in more and more qubits. But I'm more of a software guy, so it feels fair to ask if Turing completeness enough to simulate reality, and therefore human-like intelligence? If so, what shortcuts can we take to avoid simulating "everything"?

by swid 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago

> But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate why I think computers can contain human like intelligence in theory. In what kind of theory, though? In mathematical theory you can use a googol watts. In "things you can do in this universe" theory you can't use a googol watts. I understand the argument of taking a small accurate simulation as a basis point and extrapolating to a larger simulation. But if you're stuck with exponential complexity, then that extrapolation doesn't work. The demonstration of simulating 5 particles becomes useless. Even if you can massively simplify it, if you can't eliminate the exponential cost you're screwed.

swid 4y ago
I agree with most of what you are saying; it absolutely applies to physical questions. Whether or not quantum computing can be practical depends on our ability to fight off decoherence in more and more qubits. But I'm more of a software guy, so it feels fair to ask if Turing completeness enough to simulate reality, and therefore human-like intelligence? If so, what shortcuts can we take to avoid simulating "everything"?