4 ms·
I think GoL unit cells http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Unit_cell http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Unit_cell like this demonstrate an important point. That there's
by jamesrcole 14y ago
I think GoL unit cells http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Unit_cell http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Unit_cell like this demonstrate an important point. That there's certain limitations to our knowledge of reality.
Imagine an intelligent being in a GoL board, made of a huge pattern of cells (just like we're made of a huge number of atoms).
Even though when we look at a GoL board, we know it's made up of cells and that everything operates according to a fixed number of rules, this intelligent being wouldn't just be able to know this. It's perceptual system would be made of these elements (perhaps it somehow uses spaceships to find out about what is out there). Remember that you can't just "see" reality - you need inputs and to infer what's out there on the basis of them. The sort of view of its reality it could infer would be much more coarsely grained than at the level of individual cells, just as our unaided view of reality is much more coarsely grained than the level of individual atoms.
That intelligent GoL being could observe the way things behave and, on the basis of this, theorise the GoL rules - that everything was a bunch of cells, and that if there's an empty cell and it has three neighbours then that cell will be 'on' in the next moment, and so forth.
And if it existed in a 'standard' Game of Life board, it would have theorised correctly. But if it lived in a Game of Life board where each of the cells it has posited is actually one of these unit cells like in the linked page, then there would be a deeper reality than it realises (and of course there could be 'deeper levels' within that).
There's no way that GoL being could tell.
- jerf 14y agoGeneralized: There's no way to know which Turing Complete substrate we are "truly" running on. We can examine the parameters of our system and hypothesize which rules are the most parsimonious to produce the system we live in in the Occam's Razor sense, but we can't prove it.
- d2vid 14y agoHow about triggering a buffer overflow? Assuming the Turing Complete substrate doesn't have infinite memory, maybe we can break out ;)
- mikeash 14y agoJust be careful you don't overwrite the stack canary and end up getting the whole universe terminated.
- jerf 14y agoThe idea has been explored in "the literature", which in this case is a really fancy-pants way of saying "science fiction". In the general case, since we can't figure out what the consequences of a crash are, I don't think I'd recommend it, but if we can get specifics, who knows? One easily-linked example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/
- jokermatt999 14y agoYou would likely enjoy Permutation City by Greg Egan if you haven't read it yet. It touches on the idea of viewing a simulation from the inside.