Who are you?

This is a discussion on Who are you? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; If we were why would our simulation have no bugs at all? Every piece of software has a bug in ...

  1. #31
    ___
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    806
    If we were why would our simulation have no bugs at all? Every piece of software has a bug in it from what I have read. So one that large has to have a hole and it would have been exploited by now.
    "When I die I want to pass peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did, not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

  2. #32
    Banned frenchfry164's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,552
    Hehe, maybe deja-vu is the bugs in the simulation

    edit: If this crap was true, you wouldn't realize the bugs, because your mind developed around them.

  3. #33
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    The question whether we are living in a simulation or a 'real' world has absolutely no meaning at all. The two cases are equivalent.
    As long as there is no way to communicate with the 'outer world', it doesn't exist.

    Besides, his argument is weak. When he talks about civilizations, he implicitly assumes that the outer universe has the same properties as ours. A computer simulating a universe must be larger than the universe.

    Also, a computer simulation assumes that everything about the universe is well known, but according to modern physics this is impossible. Let me quote Stephen Hawking:
    We cannot even suppose that the particle has a position and velocity that are known to God but hidden to us. Such "hidden variable" theories predict results that are not in agreement with observation.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  4. #34
    The Defective GRAPE Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    949
    I'm glad I took the blue pill.
    Do not make direct eye contact with me.

  5. #35
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    The weakest part of his argument is the actual computing power required.
    Suppose we have a civilization A at the 'outermost' level of reality. As A becomes more and more technologically advanced, they will eventually begin to simulate another civilization (according to Bostrom). Lets call this civilization B.

    As B progresses they will eventually have computers that are able to simulate other civilzations.
    But if the B computers can preform N operations per second, the A computers must perform N+M operations per second. If the computers in B are powerful enough to simulate another civilization C then the computers in A need to be much more powerful.

    This soon gets out of hand. Especially since Nick Bostrom proposes that "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.".

    Everyone that has played games with an emulator knows that emulation takes lots of computing power.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  6. #36
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Although he is correct when he states:
    Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
    His second proposition:
    2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
    needs to be rephrased:
    2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are capable of running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  7. #37
    The Defective GRAPE Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    949
    Originally posted by frenchfry164
    If this crap was true, you wouldn't realize the bugs, because your mind developed around them.
    I was actually thinking about this recently - what if there was some weird thing, physically impossible, right in front of our noses, however, we don't even think it to be so? Like if a bullet was fired, but stopped in mid-air. I'm not saying it would be something so obvious, but something smaller possibly?
    Do not make direct eye contact with me.

  8. #38
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    Bubba, no one's forcing you to read this thread.

    Sand-drax, I think you misunderstand his three propositions. The author shows that at least one of those three must be true. Either our species never reaches a posthuman level, posthumans almost never run simulations, or we are likely in a simulation ourselves.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  9. #39
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    Oh, and about bugs.

    A civilization advanced enough to simulate human conciousness might be so advanced so that significant bugs rarely ever show up in their programming.

    Couldn't the posthumans just pause the simulation if there's a problem, patch the system, rewind, and resume?

    There is another paper on that site talking about the likely glitches in such a simulation.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  10. #40
    Unleashed
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    1,765
    Originally posted by Sang-drax
    Everyone that has played games with an emulator knows that emulation takes lots of computing power.
    For accurate, bug-free, stable emulation, yes, it cannot be ran on ghetto PCs. The most powerful PC hardware(read: CPU) out there right now is actually not powerful enough to emulate a few certain games. Sanfransisco Rush for instance, when emulated, runs at ~20 frames per second on a 3ghz P4.
    The world is waiting. I must leave you now.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    As B progresses they will eventually have computers that are able to simulate other civilzations.
    But if the B computers can preform N operations per second, the A computers must perform N+M operations per second. If the computers in B are powerful enough to simulate another civilization C then the computers in A need to be much more powerful.
    While this is true in the long run, it is only required there is 1 or 2 levels of simulation running simulations for it to become far more likey that we are ourselves in a simulation as opposed to not being in one.

    A computer simulating a universe must be larger than the universe.
    yes, but as he stated in the paper it is not necessary to simulate the entire universe, just enough so that those in the simulation arent aware of any differences. So it is only required that they simulate a very small fraction of the universe.

    Also, a computer simulation assumes that everything about the universe is well known, but according to modern physics this is impossible.
    Thats not true. For a *perfect* simulation, yes, everything about the universe must be known. But what they would be trying to achieve is only 'close enough' simulation so that those in the simulation arent aware of any irregularities. So problems like heissenburg arent necessarily a problem to run a convincing simulation.
    Last edited by *ClownPimp*; 12-23-2003 at 09:29 PM.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  12. #42
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Originally posted by joshdick
    Sand-drax, I think you misunderstand his three propositions. The author shows that at least one of those three must be true. Either our species never reaches a posthuman level, posthumans almost never run simulations, or we are likely in a simulation ourselves.
    Yes, and that is true (of course).
    But the title of his Brief, popular synopsis is "Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High" which is quite misleading.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  13. #43
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Everyone that has played games with an emulator knows that emulation takes lots of computing power.
    Because most emulators will emulate on the fly - same reason that interpreters are so slow. But if the emulator parses the code and converts it to an x86 binary, loads it and runs it - the game will fly.

  14. #44
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Originally posted by Bubba
    Because most emulators will emulate on the fly - same reason that interpreters are so slow. But if the emulator parses the code and converts it to an x86 binary, loads it and runs it - the game will fly.
    My point was that the outermost computer must be able to simulate every civilization possible -- a close to infinite amount. Thus, it isn't possible to recursively simulate civilizations.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  15. #45
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Originally posted by Bubba
    Because most emulators will emulate on the fly - same reason that interpreters are so slow. But if the emulator parses the code and converts it to an x86 binary, loads it and runs it - the game will fly.
    On a different topic: this isn't as easy as you (seem to) think.
    The SNES and x86, for example, has completely different instruction sets and architechture. It is very, very hard to take SNES asm and convert it to x86 asm and run it with the desired effect.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21