4 ms·

A simulated being in a simulated world is just as real in its world as we are in ours. If we can bridge the simulated world to our world then we can interact w

A simulated being in a simulated world is just as real in its world as we are in ours. If we can bridge the simulated world to our world then we can interact with it. Being in different worlds does not imply that it can never reach conciousness (among other properties). To imply that is invoking magic. Anything from our world can be simulated.

coldtea 11y ago
>A simulated being in a simulated world is just as real in its world as we are in ours. To be literally "as real in its world (as we in ours)" several things need to happen: 1) its world should be an 1-1 simulated mapping of our world. Perhaps not to its whole extend (e.g. not the whole universe), but to ANY extend that affects the final result. 2) its world should have randomness equivalent to the quality of randomness (not sure if it's perfect) that our world has. As for "Anything from our world can be simulated" -- that's a bold claim, provided that we haven't simulated ANYTHING at all yet, to the degree of interactions and complexity that exist in our world. When we simulate the behavior of water in a fluids physics simulation, or the behavior of planets etc, it's amazing how much stuff we leave out. Our simulations are to a full-blown simulation what South Park cut-outs are to a photograph. Besides, this notion reminds me of the naive 19th century ideas, that they could predict the course of the universe if only they had the details (motion, momentum, weight, etc) of all objects and the capacity to calculate their interactions. QM put a hole in that.
- TickleSteve 11y ago
  Regarding 1) There is no requirement for the simulated world to be a 1:1 mapping of our world. It can be completely different, a simplified subset or whatever it likes; this does not change the premise that to the inhabitants of that world, it is real. Its not our world, but that has no relevance to anything, there is no rule that says it has to be a 1:1 mapping. As for 2) likewise, randomness isn't a requirement, you're arbitrarily picking one quality and saying that quality has to be identical for it to be real. why? I don't believe that for a second. I'm fully aware of the simplifications of simulation... being simplified compared to an external universe does not change the premise of it being real to its inhabitants. Quantum Mechanics does not say that the universe is not mechanistic, just that there is a random element (that in itself may ultimately be modelled).
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >There is no requirement for the simulated world to be a 1:1 mapping of our world It has, if it has to be "moisture" and also to be "just as real". Else, you can define as "moisture" any parameter in the simulation (since it can be "whatever it likes"). E.g. the property of being "alive" in Conways Game of Life. In what sense will that be a simulation of "moisture" and "just as real" inside the simulation as moisture is to us?
    - TickleSteve 11y ago
      you're mixing your frames of reference.... The simulated 'moisture' would exist within the simulated universe using simulated water and simulated fabric (for example). Within the simulation, that fabric would be just as moist as a piece of cloth left out in the rain in our universe. you can't mix your frames of reference.

coldtea 11y ago

>A simulated being in a simulated world is just as real in its world as we are in ours. To be literally "as real in its world (as we in ours)" several things need to happen: 1) its world should be an 1-1 simulated mapping of our world. Perhaps not to its whole extend (e.g. not the whole universe), but to ANY extend that affects the final result. 2) its world should have randomness equivalent to the quality of randomness (not sure if it's perfect) that our world has. As for "Anything from our world can be simulated" -- that's a bold claim, provided that we haven't simulated ANYTHING at all yet, to the degree of interactions and complexity that exist in our world. When we simulate the behavior of water in a fluids physics simulation, or the behavior of planets etc, it's amazing how much stuff we leave out. Our simulations are to a full-blown simulation what South Park cut-outs are to a photograph. Besides, this notion reminds me of the naive 19th century ideas, that they could predict the course of the universe if only they had the details (motion, momentum, weight, etc) of all objects and the capacity to calculate their interactions. QM put a hole in that.

TickleSteve 11y ago
Regarding 1) There is no requirement for the simulated world to be a 1:1 mapping of our world. It can be completely different, a simplified subset or whatever it likes; this does not change the premise that to the inhabitants of that world, it is real. Its not our world, but that has no relevance to anything, there is no rule that says it has to be a 1:1 mapping. As for 2) likewise, randomness isn't a requirement, you're arbitrarily picking one quality and saying that quality has to be identical for it to be real. why? I don't believe that for a second. I'm fully aware of the simplifications of simulation... being simplified compared to an external universe does not change the premise of it being real to its inhabitants. Quantum Mechanics does not say that the universe is not mechanistic, just that there is a random element (that in itself may ultimately be modelled).
- coldtea 11y ago
  >There is no requirement for the simulated world to be a 1:1 mapping of our world It has, if it has to be "moisture" and also to be "just as real". Else, you can define as "moisture" any parameter in the simulation (since it can be "whatever it likes"). E.g. the property of being "alive" in Conways Game of Life. In what sense will that be a simulation of "moisture" and "just as real" inside the simulation as moisture is to us?
  - TickleSteve 11y ago
    you're mixing your frames of reference.... The simulated 'moisture' would exist within the simulated universe using simulated water and simulated fabric (for example). Within the simulation, that fabric would be just as moist as a piece of cloth left out in the rain in our universe. you can't mix your frames of reference.