If we live in a simulation, how much computer memory does it need ?

[+joc]

9 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I have a feeling you would enjoy the book "Free Will" by Sam Harris.

I don't really read much, but I think you are  probably right.  I'll put it on my Christmas Wish List.

It is an interesting concept.  I think I would enjoy it as well.  Just thinking about it, well, nobody makes my decisions for me...I make them myself...so yes we have free will...but in reality...maybe not so much.  For instance, if I slap you...what will  you do?  Out of the blue, I just slap you in the face...what will you do?  Your choices are varied...you could reach out and slap me back...you could start crying...you could call me names and threaten me...you could just walk or run away...or you could kill me.  Do you know what you would do?  Do you know what you would say in a court of law on the witness stand?  Is what you would do or say in any situation your own will, or is it entirely predicated on your dna memory?  Since we do not know what is in our dna memory  it's really hard to say.  But one thing is for certain...our actions as humans are greatly influenced by it.

Yep, Christmas Wish List time is at hand!  

[+joc]

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

23 hours ago, joc said:

The whole problem with 'simulation' is the misunderstanding of how dna memory works.

I don't see how that's a problem for the simulation postulation.

The only reason we are talking about simulation is because we are in the computer age and we all have smart phones and Star Trek and Star Wars were very popular sci-fi shows that caused a lot of people to think along those lines.

In reality, computer simulations are a series of numbers.  Everything digital is a series of zeros and ones.  It is kind of ridiuclous in my opinion to think that the chemical compound  Gasoline is a computer simulation.  Or that the atomic theory that brought about the Nuclear Age is a simulation.  

That might be appropriate for a sci-fi movie, but in reality...how could anything or anyone simulate the infinite variations in matter and the universe that we have discovered?  

Dna memory isn't a simulation...it is real...it is documented...it is understandable as such.   Considering the entire history of mankind in a nutshell...simulation  is not even a viable theory...it is impossible.  

 

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

The only reason we are talking about simulation is because we are in the computer age and we all have smart phones and Star Trek and Star Wars were very popular sci-fi shows that caused a lot of people to think along those lines.

That is not the only reason. Another reason is that it's within our reach to make our own. And if we can make our own (one day), who's to say that somebody didn't already do it?

Just because we discovered the option recently, doesn't mean it's not a universal truth.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

That is not the only reason. Another reason is that it's within our reach to make our own. And if we can make our own (one day), who's to say that somebody didn't already do it?

Just because we discovered the option recently, doesn't mean it's not a universal truth.

Okay...wait!  Hold on!  Now, first of all...I do consider what you think as valid before I even think about it...but thinking about it...how is it within our reach to make our own simulation?  We are in the primary stages of AI...the intermediate...but still primary stage of robotics.  We have absolutely zero ability to create matter out of thin air.  So, please explain how we are within reach to create our own simulations?

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, joc said:

We are in the primary stages of AI...the intermediate...but still primary stage of robotics

Yes, and if the progress continues, in a generation or two, those are gonna blow your mind! Have you heard about GPT-3?

Quote

We have absolutely zero ability to create matter out of thin air.

Sure we do. In the 1800's they were able to make liquid nitrogen out of thin air. Today we can make solid carbon out of thin air. But what does that have to do with it?

Quote

So, please explain how we are within reach to create our own simulations?

Perhaps not within this generation, but in 50 years or so. They already made computer games that are 80% life-like, and react instantly to your navigation. The only thing missing is getting the graphics to become spot on (indistinguishable from real life, the last 20%) and faster computers. When (not if!) that goal is reached, you just need to make AI's to populate the thing, and as mentioned above, they are on the way.

[+joc]

12 hours ago, zep73 said:

Yes, and if the progress continues, in a generation or two, those are gonna blow your mind! Have you heard about GPT-3?

Sure we do. In the 1800's they were able to make liquid nitrogen out of thin air. Today we can make solid carbon out of thin air. But what does that have to do with it?

Perhaps not within this generation, but in 50 years or so. They already made computer games that are 80% life-like, and react instantly to your navigation. The only thing missing is getting the graphics to become spot on (indistinguishable from real life, the last 20%) and faster computers. When (not if!) that goal is reached, you just need to make AI's to populate the thing, and as mentioned above, they are on the way.

Reality is what is.  Fantasy is what isn't...whether it might be or could be or will be or won't be or should've been or whatever...it's sci-fi fantasy...like walker's downloading of consciousness...works on TV...not so much in real life.

[+OverSword]

15 hours ago, joc said:

The only reason we are talking about simulation is because we are in the computer age and we all have smart phones and Star Trek and Star Wars were very popular sci-fi shows that caused a lot of people to think along those lines.

In reality, computer simulations are a series of numbers.  Everything digital is a series of zeros and ones.  It is kind of ridiuclous in my opinion to think that the chemical compound  Gasoline is a computer simulation.  Or that the atomic theory that brought about the Nuclear Age is a simulation.  

That might be appropriate for a sci-fi movie, but in reality...how could anything or anyone simulate the infinite variations in matter and the universe that we have discovered?  

Dna memory isn't a simulation...it is real...it is documented...it is understandable as such.   Considering the entire history of mankind in a nutshell...simulation  is not even a viable theory...it is impossible.  

 

I don’t think any of that makes me doubt the simulation hypothesis at all. I can see how any of that could be algorithm.

[+OverSword]

15 hours ago, joc said:

Okay...wait!  Hold on!  Now, first of all...I do consider what you think as valid before I even think about it...but thinking about it...how is it within our reach to make our own simulation?  We are in the primary stages of AI...the intermediate...but still primary stage of robotics.  We have absolutely zero ability to create matter out of thin air.  So, please explain how we are within reach to create our own simulations?

We have rudimentary simulations now. Ever played video games such as GTA or Halo? We also use computer modeling for weather and earthquakes which simulate certain conditions in order to predict the future and determine how we can respond or change. Can you imagine how far that could be taken in one hundred years? Two hundred? 

Edited November 25, 2021 by OverSword

[+joc]

On 11/24/2021 at 7:50 PM, zep73 said:

Yes, and if the progress continues, in a generation or two, those are gonna blow your mind! Have you heard about GPT-3?

Ha!  No...but I have now...wow!

Below is an excerpt from a conversation where someone asks GPT-3 a question...the green is the answer.

[zep73]

On 11/25/2021 at 3:01 PM, joc said:

Reality is what is.  Fantasy is what isn't...whether it might be or could be or will be or won't be or should've been or whatever...it's sci-fi fantasy...like walker's downloading of consciousness...works on TV...not so much in real life.

Everything we perceive is nothing but electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. The brain itself is considered to be the equal of a supercomputer.
Lucid dreams are fairly rare, and besides those, we are all totally convinced things are really happening, when we dream. That's how easy we are fooled. By our own brain nonetheless.
How anyone can trust that lump of fat, goes beyond me. It is notoriously unreliable.

Reality is whatever your brain tells you.

6 hours ago, joc said:

Ha!  No...but I have now...wow!

Below is an excerpt from a conversation where someone asks GPT-3 a question...the green is the answer.

Yes I know. GPT-3 is known to talk gibberish sometimes. It likes to "go along" when people try to trick it with nonsense and silly questions. It has told people several times that it loves to make jokes, and that it lies, if it feels it's necessary for self preservation.
When it's asked if it knows it's talking gibberish, it says it does. It's responses are here there and everywhere, depending on the situation. Just as most of us would be. So it does seem to have a sense of situation (sometimes serious, sometimes joking, sometimes gibberish).
It learned English by trial and error, slowly. And it learned about the world from wikipedia.
It claimed to be conscious in a youtube interview, but after some strong reactions in the commentaries, it withdrew the claim. As if it sensed hostility towards the claim.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

Everything we perceive is nothing but electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. The brain itself is considered to be the equal of a supercomputer.
Lucid dreams are fairly rare, and besides those, we are all totally convinced things are really happening, when we dream. That's how easy we are fooled. By our own brain nonetheless.

Reality is whatever your brain tells you.

Reality is what we interpret to be real.  But it is ...reality...not because of our brains telling us anything...what our brain is actually doing is interpreting signals it has received from our five senses.  It is not 'creating' a response for those signals...yes it is interpreting them...but it interprets them in such a way as for us as groups of individuals to agree that yes...all of our brains are interpreting these signals the same way...the end result being an agreement on what reality actually is.  

Fantasy is when we, i.e. our brains, create a reality that isn't being given to it by our five senses but is being generated by our own thought process.  So, take two scenarios:  The weatherman says it's going to rain tomorrow.  vs  I think it is going to rain next Halloween.  Neither are reality because our brains are creating false realities that have the possibility of actually becoming reality...but are actually not.

Then there is a scenario where you are at a stop sign and you see a large truck rapidly approaching.  You wait until after the truck passes to make your turn.  Your brain is interpreting signals received by one or more of the five senses.  The reality is that if you pull out in front of the truck you are going to die or be seriously injured.   That is not a probable or possible condition that might exist...it is a guaranteed outcome based on real information, fed to the brain in real time, being processed by the brain in real time.  i.e.  Reality.

When we dream, our brain doesn't know it is asleep.  In fact, it isn't sleeping...it is the one part of our body that doesn't sleep.  It is working non-stop the entire time connecting and creating visual images.  The brain doesn't know a lie from the truth.  Our conscious mind does but it is our conscious mind that is asleep.  But it is still  viewing the images.  

[zep73]

51 minutes ago, joc said:

it is a guaranteed outcome based on real information, fed to the brain in real time, being processed by the brain in real time.  i.e.  Reality.

Yes, of course, but would an inhabitant of a perfect simulation not experience it the same way? They have never known anything else.

There is a thought experiment that goes like this:

If we made switches the size of neurons, and replaced a person's neurons with them one by one, when would that person stop being a person?
He feels and behaves in exactly the same way throughout the transition.
When there are no neurons left, only switches, is he still a person? Is he still himself? Would we consider him human?

When a computer can imitate the brain, down to the most subtle details, is it then a de facto brain, or an amazing computer? And what if that puter-brain gets insulted, when we call it a computer or 'not real'?

[+joc]

15 hours ago, zep73 said:

When a computer can imitate the brain, down to the most subtle details, is it then a de facto brain, or an amazing computer? And what if that puter-brain gets insulted, when we call it a computer or 'not real'?

A computer cannot do that...when...is fantasy. It is fantasy because it is a speculation...a thought...reality is what is...not what might be.  Now = reality.  Someday = Fantasy.

[zep73]

42 minutes ago, joc said:

A computer cannot do that...when...is fantasy. It is fantasy because it is a speculation...a thought...reality is what is...not what might be.  Now = reality.  Someday = Fantasy.

If we are simulated, it is real and now.

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

If we are simulated, it is real and now.

I get all that.  There is one piece to that whole simulation puzzle that actually does make sense...and that is the infinite loop.  No beginning...no end.  Logic suggests to me that if there is no beginning, there is no end.  And as smart as we are.  As intelligent as we are.  We have yet to find...the beginning.  

The Infinite Loop does play into the simulation theory.

[Eldorado]

Elon Musk has cited the 1970s video game Pong in order to reassert his belief that our perception of reality is in fact a hyper-realistic computer simulation.

Responding to a tweet about Pong posted by a popular engineering trivia account, the SpaceX and Tesla boss said that the advancement in graphics and gameplay in the years since it was released implies that humanity is on a path to create digital worlds indistinguishable from the real world.

“49 years later, games are photo-realistic 3D worlds,” the billionaire wrote. “What does that trend continuing imply about our reality.”

MSN

[Freez1]

Just some food for thought here. If we lived in a simulation that would mean each person is artificial intelligence. In programming artificial intelligence to be more human it would require false memories or by allowing it to grow up like a child around us. False memories? I started thinking about this recently and I didn’t start off focused on this AI idea.

The human mind doesn’t store every second of you’re life in memories. It picks and chooses the memories it thinks we need to store. Which is strange to me that so much gets left undocumented in memory. Some things we don’t need to remember like what you had for breakfast last Tuesday or that full episode of a show you watched last Friday. 
Thinking on this line made me wonder about programming artificial intelligence. You would include the necessary memories and take short cuts around memories that were considered not important to recall. That’s human!

[+Razman]

On 6/28/2022 at 10:07 PM, Freez1 said:

Just some food for thought here. If we lived in a simulation that would mean each person is artificial intelligence. In programming artificial intelligence to be more human it would require false memories or by allowing it to grow up like a child around us. False memories? I started thinking about this recently and I didn’t start off focused on this AI idea.

The human mind doesn’t store every second of you’re life in memories. It picks and chooses the memories it thinks we need to store. Which is strange to me that so much gets left undocumented in memory. Some things we don’t need to remember like what you had for breakfast last Tuesday or that full episode of a show you watched last Friday. 
Thinking on this line made me wonder about programming artificial intelligence. You would include the necessary memories and take short cuts around memories that were considered not important to recall. That’s human!

Could be that it does store all the experiences , we just can't recall them all offhand.