4 ms·

How long before we have interactive full fidelity generated game / films ?

by mdale 4y ago

ModernMech 4y ago
How do you know you aren't already experiencing one?
- maxbond 4y ago
  I find the term "not even wrong" to be unnecessarily patronizing, and I don't mean to invoke that connotation, but this is the sort of hypothesis it was meant to criticize. There is no amount of evidence which could disprove this hypothesis, but there's no good reason to believe it either (and I do find the statistical argument that's sometimes presented to be unconvincing as it's built upon a tower of arbitrary assumptions which are designed to reach the conclusion that we're living in a simulation). It's a technical veneer over solipsism. I don't find it a helpful thought experiment; I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly. And taking a sort of variation of Pascal's wager, I don't see what I lose by living that way if it does turn out that we're brains in jars. If other people find this to be a helpful I'm interested to hear about it.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    You start with "Not even wrong" but end with: Might as well assume its false because the alternative is pointless. Which are basically opposite views. Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxbond 4y ago
      When I disclaimed the patronizing nature of "not even wrong," making a value judgement on whether it is worth consideration was one of the things I wanted to avoid. I'm not really interested in telling someone what they shouldn't consider, and whether or not it is worth it I've spent some time thinking about it over the years. I do think that this question isn't really able to produce useful insights, and I wanted to state my view on that, but I don't want to apply a moral judgement on the act of considering the question. I probably would've been better off steering clear of that term. What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly. I reject the dichotomy. This universe is the one we have. Engaging with it wholeheartedly is the right way to go. That doesn't mean it cannot be a simulated one. If it is a simulation, we might exploit that fact. Finding glitches can lead us to a deeper understanding of things around us. Gaining root on the machine our universe runs on is the ultimate sandbox escape. In my book that thought is invigorating and worth engaging with wholeheartedly.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I don't really understand what "glitch in reality" would mean. I think if we were literally in a software system, and encountered a literal bug, we would simply interpret it as a law of physics. We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to, but the observed behavior of the universe _is_ our specification. I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either. Is what you're getting at doing experiments, learning how the world works, and exploiting these observations for our benefit or to apprehend something beautiful? Like science, engineering, and art? Is the value that it's a metaphor for these things updated for a modern life experience that might involve, say, exploring games for bugs that are useful for speedrunning or duplicating items? If this is a useful framing for you, I'm here to understand, but I currently don't see it. To me this seems like solipsism and radical skepticism with a science fiction twist, and I personally find those ideas to inhibit my ability to understand and engage with the world.
      - krisoft 4y ago
        > we would simply interpret it as a law of physics. And that would be in some sense sensible and perfectly correct. > We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to, Nah. I disagree. If you are playing a game and you fall through a wall you can call that a glitch without seeing the game's specification. It is because that experience is not in line with the rest of the system. Imagine if we find that a specific reaction between high-energy particles goes measurably differently in one bounded patch of the universe. We find this randomly. Then an army of physicist descends on it. They measure a lot. Perform experiments. They characterise the effect to a high degree. Map out the precise boundaries. Map out what exactly happens on the boundary, and so on and so on. ... Is this just physics? Yes! Would this effect feel like a "glitch"? Also yes! > I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either. Transcending the laws of our Universe. Being able to change them. Rewriting the very fabric of reality. Becoming god or gods. Peaking behind the curtain and finding a brand new playground beyond it. Being able to change PI to be actually 42. > To me this seems like solipsism I think you are hang up on some specific flavour of how the universe could be a simulation. Maybe try to think of other possible ways?

How long before we have interactive full fidelity generated game / films ?

by mdale 4y ago

How long before we have interactive full fidelity generated game / films ?

ModernMech 4y ago

How do you know you aren't already experiencing one?

maxbond 4y ago
I find the term "not even wrong" to be unnecessarily patronizing, and I don't mean to invoke that connotation, but this is the sort of hypothesis it was meant to criticize. There is no amount of evidence which could disprove this hypothesis, but there's no good reason to believe it either (and I do find the statistical argument that's sometimes presented to be unconvincing as it's built upon a tower of arbitrary assumptions which are designed to reach the conclusion that we're living in a simulation). It's a technical veneer over solipsism. I don't find it a helpful thought experiment; I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly. And taking a sort of variation of Pascal's wager, I don't see what I lose by living that way if it does turn out that we're brains in jars. If other people find this to be a helpful I'm interested to hear about it.
- bawolff 4y ago
  You start with "Not even wrong" but end with: Might as well assume its false because the alternative is pointless. Which are basically opposite views. Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxbond 4y ago
    When I disclaimed the patronizing nature of "not even wrong," making a value judgement on whether it is worth consideration was one of the things I wanted to avoid. I'm not really interested in telling someone what they shouldn't consider, and whether or not it is worth it I've spent some time thinking about it over the years. I do think that this question isn't really able to produce useful insights, and I wanted to state my view on that, but I don't want to apply a moral judgement on the act of considering the question. I probably would've been better off steering clear of that term. What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > I find it to be much more invigorating and useful to assume the world is real and worth engaging with wholeheartedly. I reject the dichotomy. This universe is the one we have. Engaging with it wholeheartedly is the right way to go. That doesn't mean it cannot be a simulated one. If it is a simulation, we might exploit that fact. Finding glitches can lead us to a deeper understanding of things around us. Gaining root on the machine our universe runs on is the ultimate sandbox escape. In my book that thought is invigorating and worth engaging with wholeheartedly.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I don't really understand what "glitch in reality" would mean. I think if we were literally in a software system, and encountered a literal bug, we would simply interpret it as a law of physics. We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to, but the observed behavior of the universe _is_ our specification. I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either. Is what you're getting at doing experiments, learning how the world works, and exploiting these observations for our benefit or to apprehend something beautiful? Like science, engineering, and art? Is the value that it's a metaphor for these things updated for a modern life experience that might involve, say, exploring games for bugs that are useful for speedrunning or duplicating items? If this is a useful framing for you, I'm here to understand, but I currently don't see it. To me this seems like solipsism and radical skepticism with a science fiction twist, and I personally find those ideas to inhibit my ability to understand and engage with the world.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > we would simply interpret it as a law of physics. And that would be in some sense sensible and perfectly correct. > We would only recognize it as a "glitch" if we had a specification to compare it to, Nah. I disagree. If you are playing a game and you fall through a wall you can call that a glitch without seeing the game's specification. It is because that experience is not in line with the rest of the system. Imagine if we find that a specific reaction between high-energy particles goes measurably differently in one bounded patch of the universe. We find this randomly. Then an army of physicist descends on it. They measure a lot. Perform experiments. They characterise the effect to a high degree. Map out the precise boundaries. Map out what exactly happens on the boundary, and so on and so on. ... Is this just physics? Yes! Would this effect feel like a "glitch"? Also yes! > I don't understand what "gaining root" would mean either. Transcending the laws of our Universe. Being able to change them. Rewriting the very fabric of reality. Becoming god or gods. Peaking behind the curtain and finding a brand new playground beyond it. Being able to change PI to be actually 42. > To me this seems like solipsism I think you are hang up on some specific flavour of how the universe could be a simulation. Maybe try to think of other possible ways?