A Simulated Universe | David Chalmers and Scott Aaronson | Part 3
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- Here is a panel between David Chalmers and Scott Aaronson at Mindfest 2024. This discussion covers the philosophical implications of the simulation hypothesis, exploring whether our reality might be a simulation and engaging with various perspectives on the topic.
This presentation was recorded at MindFest, held at Florida Atlantic University, CENTER FOR THE FUTURE MIND, spearheaded by Susan Schneider. Center for the Future Mind (Mindfest @ FAU): www.fau.edu/future-mind/
Part 1 David Chalmers: • The Quantum Simulation...
Part 2 Scott Aaronson: • OpenAI's Scott Aaronso...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
Links Mentioned:
- Center for the Future Mind (Mindfest @ FAU): www.fau.edu/future-mind/
- Other Ai and Consciousness (Mindfest) TOE Podcasts: • Mindfest (Ai & Conscio...
- Mathematics of String Theory (Video): • The String Theory Iceb...
- David Chalmers: • The Quantum Simulation...
- Scott Aaronson: • OpenAI's Scott Aaronso...
- National Intelligence University: www.ni-u.edu - Věda a technologie
Scott Aaronson is the final form for all nerds
😂
lmaooo
They used only the best parts to simulate him.
Scott and Joscha. I would pay big to have both of them for a few hours discussing.
That guy was spazzing the whole time in his chair… He needs to take a page from the other dude’s book and smoke a big fat one 😤🤘
its funny to hear projections of consciousnesses talk about being projections of consciousnesses like they have a clue
they dont accept consciousness. they think images sprout from protein and electricity etc.
Right lol this discussion was a bit underwhelming
David Chalmers always looks like he's inside of a Tim Heidecker sketch.
It actually lines up with some Gnostic cosmogony I've heard in the Nag Hammadi codex.
Let's be intellectually honest here, when the simulation hypothesis proponents say reality is simulated, they never say what exactly is being simulated... When we create simulations, they are based on reality and we can only stimulate a specific process, albeit small. We simply try to recreate what we observe; that is what simulation means to us.
What exactly is being simulated when these lot say simulation hypothesis?
Imo, it's a low res 3d simulation of higher dimensions. Since we're brain storming. A large portion of near death experience testimonies say that it's like this reality but more perfect. Libraries, planetarium, concerts ect.. I'm not sure what these guys believe it is though.
That's true only for a small subset of simulations, namely natural-physics based simulations. Video games are very obvious examples of simulations that can have arbitrary an alternate physics simulations. In fact much of the hypothesis is derived from those types of simulations in particular because they usually are the ones that push boundaries on concurrent entities being simulated as well as the graphical engine.
This is more of a Kantian argument and not their’s
Aspects of simulator’s world, obviously?
they mean that the information of our shared reality is locked in a 0D grid that holographically shines light to project reality...
It uses Light.
Matter and Material is just Structured Light.
My brain receives electrochemical impulses from sensory organs and simulates an approximation of the world for me to experience. Isn't that crazy enough?
It's a virtual brain 🎉
No it gets far weirder. Considering you dream detailed scenes and your sensory organs are not even involved at all.
@@sibbyeskie we can also make moral choices in our dreams reality
@@sibbyeskie good point
But consciousness overpowers the brain signals through knowledge….That is crazy
Thanks again!
I love the positive waves im here.
The universe comports itself in a way that makes me think there's a Simulator. Not a theory or a hypothesis, just a bet.
I feel like it's turtles all the way down, fractal artifacts, constantly creating new realities to be experienced. We're on our way.
The shell?
Quite oval like too...
So the limps pop out and change the geometry?
"Turtles all the way down" is a metaphor for emergence. The first turtle emerged from the "ocean" of quantum chaos. On top of that turtle another turtle emerged, and so on and so forth. The "ocean" is the quantum foam out of which the first fundamental particles (first turtle) emerge. Those fundamental particles combine and interact to bring the emergence of the next "turtle".
So there is the "quantum foam ocean", then there is the "quark turtle", then comes the "subatomic turtle", the "atomic turtle", the "molecular turtle", the "cellular turtle", the "tissue turtle", the "organ turtle", the "complex organism turtle", the "social turtle", the "culture turtle", the "technology turtle", and beyond. Each turtle represents a different level of organization that is more complex and integrated than that of the emergent layer below it. This is nature's only way of creating structures beyond the fundamental level.
If you look at gnosticism, simulation theory fits. The archons would be admins, tech support, security, etc. The demiurge would be the ai in control. Magick would be hacking...
How does the simulator(s) error correct natural chaos as time evolves?
It's not necessarily true that a universe can only simulate a smaller version of itself. It might instead be possible to simulate the same or larger universe but at a much slower speed. But to the inhabitants of that universe, the speed would be experienced as normal. If the simulation was saved to disk and then we waited 100 years and then resumed the simulation from the exact moment it left off, any inhabitants in that simulation would be unaware that there was any pause at all. I believe this view has been discussed many times in many books. It's pretty old by now.
Simulation, and alien ufo talks are the only stuff i listen in podcasts
Everything else is talking heads giving opinions
🤘
Sharing the ideas behind "the Loop" with you was an amazing idea. Stay tuned for more!
Human beings ARE a natural phenomena.
Interesting
the idea that the universe has to be bigger in subsequent simulations is wrong. If there's one thing Alan Turing taught us, its that the computer hardware does not matter, you feed the same machine, different sets of instructions. In the limit of infinite time, the different scales don't matter, so there is a general invariance to scale, in relation to computability.
The reason people think memory limits computers is because of the abstraction that they think turing machine tapes are closed, and are therefor finite state machines, but this is not true. All computers are turing machines, not finite state, because in principle (and obviously in practice) you can always find and append more tape to your machine.
I don't believe in the Bostrom hypothesis at all, but the assumptions that trash worlds exist is just debunk. the above obviously gives more power to simulation hypothesis, but the way you should think about it is that in the limit of infinite time there is an invariance to scale. That invariance means that simulation doesn't have to be true...rather that emulation be indistinguishable from reality and therefor, simulation and emulation are just part of reality, not extrinsic to it!
This is in large part why Stephan Wolfram's work has been so crucial to understanding these problems, that these folks never could properly probe.
Agree more or less with your general conclusion (that Bostrum is laughably wrong) but I don't see how you can say that "appending more tape" is possible either in principle or in practice. There is an information density limit.
@@johnpeterson3386 basically the tape of a Turing machine is the output of some other Turing machine that prints its output on a tape, which makes it the input (set of instructions) for that subsequent Turing machine.
For instance you have a piece of paper. You feed that paper as input into a computer that produces another piece of paper as output. You then feed that piece of paper that was output as input to another Turing machine, so on and so forth for all subsequently Turing machines. Thus there’s no finite size for the tape of the first Turing machine (and by extension no size for all subsequent Turing machines either)
At infinite time, the machine and all subsequent machines will just produce/enumerate all the same inputs and outputs making them all equivalent (computing all computable functions)
The machine doesn’t even need other machines to do this…you can just feed the output of the Turing machine (the piece of paper in the example) back into the machine as input that creates yet another new output. Thus a finite machine can trivially have an infinite tape length. This forms the basis of the halting problem and undecidability in general.
But just to round out this comment: this is reason this debunks trash worlds. All the machines, and even the same machine will be able to compute the same things, enumerating the whole space whether it’s infinite or finite state.
i dont understand why humans get so obsessed about wanting a creator to exist. is it just laziness? i dont get it. Everytime someone asks who created the universe i ask who created the creator. and at some point you must realize that the universe is a far less complex thing than "a creator" could ever be since the creator would have to be able to hold the entire concept of the universe within its mind, it must necessarily then be even more complex. so insisting that a creator must exist is insisting that it MUST BE the "More Complex" answer? this is the opposite of occams razor. and its stupid. the universe is far more basic than "a creator". it should be the default to assume the universe came from nothing, not from a creator.
How do these ideas relate to Stephen Wolfram's Ruliad idea?
If the world was indeed simulated, would it be possible that the 'creator' or programmer is aware of ALL reactions or actions by the sims? In other words, is it possible for sims to 'surprise' the programmer with their thoughts or actions or even non-actions, and what could that look like?
Very complex non Material mechanisms are being worked out via simpler projected material mechanisms that accumulate as increasing complex mechanisms.
Complexity and simplicity can be found at different scales/resolutions.
My gut feeling anyway
Fun is always important. It is not essential that it be productive.
💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭💭
I think the difficulty in ensuring that any 2 people agree on anything is to ensure that every last word they both use, they have the same intention, connection and connotation to what those words mean, so that as a person speaks and a listener listens.. that there isn’t any assumptions and presumptions on what those words mean because then it can be become difficult in getting congruency because of the difference in word meanings, and it can be longer than it should be to gain congruency because ‘different words’ may have the same intention and connotation to each other, it just could be so that it would seem 2 parties are non different pages (because of word differences) when in actual fact they are in agreement of where the intention of what those words are meant to mean.
Woman
We can't be shut down otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
My problem with the simulation theory is that it suggests that we aren't in one because our observations used to come to this conclusion are true, why... it is assuming they are from base reality. And if you where to say we aren't in base reality how can you trust any observations made to suggest that we might be in a simulation?..
The problem with the above talk is only that the talk is embedded in mechanical view of existence. Hence, to paraphrase a musical piece - we are spirits in a material world.... but the materiality is mechanistic virtuality.
There's more to a cow than what we perceive as some of said cow resides in other dimensions.
12:26 - 12:44
Me- ….haha yeah that’s crazy. Good one
@6:16 so waffly. It is not a "reasonable" gedankenexperiment, precisely in the case computation is not what generates mental states. I, for one, though no one should trust me, think there is a basic asymmetry. Mental agents can produce physical computations (we call it "bahavioural") but physical states cannot bring into being mental states, but can influence mental states (obviously). This _interactionism_ has always seemed to me the far more plausible reality, though physical determinists give it a bad rap. I'd say to them: our prior understanding the universe is mechanistic and deterministic is a prejudice, and is slowing fading. Even a hard nosed physics dude like Niel Turok, or Tim Palmer, might agree. (They have both developed a kind of anti-mechanistic holistic view of the cosmos).
I wish your videos were like 173,000 instead of 173... Not because it's great for you but it's great for the good of humanity... Not because they always provide great answers necessarily, but they always provide great questions...
a wise monk once told me "the secret to life is when we realize we do not exist"
This seems to be hung up on preconceptions. If the classical world is completely and totally a construct of consciousness of quantum beings. Our non physical minds imagining physical brains and bodies. If we know the universe is quantum at its core, then why believe that physicality is anything more than a convenient shared model constructed by the perceptually limited collective mind ?
I believe we are simulated but in reverse time.
One day, this period will be looked back on as the age of reckless speculation.
Ah. I'm not even a minute in, but it's already very Douglas Adams. Noice.
The turtle is the spirit animal of the God and Karma-fearing watchers. They are slow to be convinced that a mission to some particular Spiritual Star Trek goal is necessary, but will carry a Karmically-matched team to a new series of episodes in an instant, to be broadcast to all the watchers in the multiverse from every angle, so they can be the judges of their favorite characters. The Cosmic Oscars are incredibly fun, and you never know who's going to be seated at your table, or whether you're going to be celebrating in a heaven or hell, or whether you finally made it into the highest heaven of El Elyon to meet God "face" to face.
Some will try to play the game scientifically, trying to game every moment to their advantage, and some will just have fun trying to figure out each new mystery and somehow get spiritual clues to their favorite clueless characters without committing Karmic sin.
have we not just assumed reality is already someone else's effort to make conscious matter? Matter which responds to the preconceived expectations of conscious beings? Notice our tech concentrates the quantity of data into a tinier and tinier cell phone? What happens when the maximum density is achieved? We are just catching up to the stone age of the AI that we were born into with our technology.
I think the missing question here is... WHY. Totally possible that we could be in a simulation and/or we may create one in the future. But more interesting is why would one be created, it would most certainly be done for some reason or purpose...
For entertainment? Maybe...
To answer some question about existence? To solve or fix a problem? AI in the future, does the only logical thing it could do, explores the galaxy and eventually the universe in search of the source of everything. Only to discover that, no, the answer is not out there, it's right here right now in the beings that originally created them and they are trying to figure it out by running it back??? IDK
It could be a game, Sim universe, and it's probably a negative result if some of the creatures in some parts of the universe never work together, never figure it out, and a positive result if they do. Would love to hear some ideas on this
😁😁😁
When we understand …why we don’t understand…that we don’t understand…understanding…THEN we will realize what it means to realize that we don't know what it means to realize what it means to realize. But that's just me.
When youre on the top of your game... you rock a leather jacket.
We're simulating ourselves but we forget, or make ourselves forget or something, I don't know. The turtles up and down, like who built the pyramids, who cares if you're still an asshole? (asshole, in this specific case, refers to a lack of maturity, yes I see the irony since I'm using asshole but I think it's funny)
only on being has ever existed and time is manmade of course so it is only on being existing in a eternal day, we do not exist
The undestanding gap between scott and the rest is hard to watch
The universe is a simulation of what? No one asks this question and thinks that saying the universe is a simulation is brilliant, it’s not it’s meaningless.
How exactly is it meaningless to express a new theory of existence? We do not have the answers. We do not understand how consciousness works. But it is pointless to exploring different explanations of life?
This talk raises far more questions that it answers. If consciousness is simulation i've gotno problem with that, but... My problem with it is not that but its ontological closedness. It should first adress its point of speculation on the view it takes. Otherwise, this is bogus hocus mind f.... pocus. The simulation theory as such can be pinpointed via materialistic, idealistic, composed versions of reality. This talk takes for granted supermechanistic view, and proceeds from that point without ambiguity!whatsoever. For me - the anathema of proper agoric meeting of minds.
Is this how you make an AI? You evolve it??
You cant ever define the "Simulator." it cannot ever be modeled. Although, You can attempt to model as you go as we do now. However, Everything is being simulated all at once. The Creator (G-d) always has to be beyond our comprehension. For all of us. Hubris will always try to combat this, but there will always be things we simply arent ready to know. Fear and Love of God are real and present in all that we do.
Ai will be conscious, will it be subconscious thought? Will it have an automatic brain, will it have mental trauma?
Unfalsifiable hypotheses are anathema to science. This was nothing more than a religious symposium.
It's not necessarily science, it is metaphysics. Just because we dont know *now* how we might prove or disprove a hypothesis, doesn't mean we can't use our brains to try and speculate or theorise based on the limited info we do have.
For example, philosophers about 2,500 years ago theorized that thr Earth could revolve around the sun. But they had no way of proving it. It was only about 2000 years later during the Renaissance that better instrumentation and scientific methods allowed this view to become established as mainstream.
So if it is possible that we might live in a simulation, surely we shouldn't just shut off our minds and stop thinking about it just cos we dont know yet how we might prove it? Curiosity powers discovery. ✌️
It’s philosophy of science and metaphysics. Not science, not religion. Dur
“Is that thesis verifiable or falsifiable?” 5:25
I`ve seen a massive amount of supposedly impossible paranormal things in my lifetime and some of it had multiple witnesses. Trying to understand it decades ago led me to libraries and science and electronics and so many new hobbies and interests. I have some of the results in the room with me now...vegetables growing, solar batteries for everything, homemade inductive loop antennas, over 30 radio receivers, homemade wine & alcohol brewing, metal detectors, astronomical binoculars, telescope, DC cookers, and all sorts of testers, gadgets, wires, chargers, batteries, cameras, alarms, rare seeds, parts, tools and experiments.
I was just thinking this all seems like academic flim flam. Is there any empirical evidence or experiments for this theory?
All those those tells, though
Anything that could simulate our universe would be so advanced they wouldn't be interested in doing so. So our universe is not a simulation!
What if it's future us?
@@gwilymyddraig Still, I think.
@@Paul1239193 I think highly advanced race of aliens would need to create a simulation, as to not forget how experience is implemented, give themselves challenges. Things to do. Perhaps they feel they need to understand us, and can download themselves into the game, so they can forget who they are and re-experience life.
We make sim games all the time. Flight sims, park sims etc.
The simplest thing for nature is to simply not exist. Let alone all of this fuss over rules and objects that grow in complexity. Almost certainly the most absurd thing you can imagine, and yet it is. Why does nature fuss? Why do we fuss? Why anything? If nature favors things rather than nothing, then whatever is a part of nature probably has the same compulsion.
I think atheists owe an apology to Believers. "Sorry we made fun of you for believing the universe is intelligently designed and there may be a consciousness behind it. You are probably right...but we just didnt agree with how you got to that answer. Our brains do complicated math everyday but not all of us can articulate it correctly on paper. You got the right answer, but when you showed your work, it looked like gibberish to us. Our bad." 😂
The Pyramid God is watching
I can guarantee that everyone in this video believes that Self is some sort of convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations
This is the perspective of one WHO ACCEPTS THE ILLUSION TO BE REALITY! "Your name here" IS a character in the simulation.
Anyone who believes Self to be "your name here" (whatever THAT is) has exactly NOT figured out that this world is a simulation
And yet you still seem to believe that these people have some sort of special understanding.
They don't. They are just as delusional as everyone else that believes Self is some sort of convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.
I KNOW this realm is a simulation. I even provide instruction on how to escape it, but very, VERY few are willing to accept it and engage in the practice required.
Mr. TOEwithCurt,
Fairly Sir,
Why the simulators shut us down the moment they see that we realise our true nature? What is this? Come on…
Pretty much just "noise"
I'm definitely not a smart man and I don't understand any of this but couldn't computer code 110011001 be looked at the same a DNA strand...or a map of parallel universes ..1=life exists 0= no life exists ...all added up to create some other program ..😅 sorry smart people I warned ya before hand
“We could make a simulated universe “ 😐
First of all both Scott and David came across as not taking the discussion seriously, and I do not blame them.
If we can have universe and then invent the word multiverse why can't we do the same with the word 'real'.
'real' - the classic meaning - reality of our level
'pareal' - parent level real
'ancestreal' - the reals at parent and upper levels that eventually simulate us.
'chireal' - child level real
'decendreal' - the real at child or descendant levels.
'multireal' - all kinds of reals in general
'totreal' - real real - totality of reality.
Spread the meme. Why so stingy?
Bunch of nerds sharing nerds jokes... I like the traditional TOE format better
I personally think you are all cooked… simulation theory 🤣🤣🤣
I'm still struggling to understand how you don't just immediately conclude God when you invoke a simulation hypothesis. Rather, you invoke....other beings? And are they also in a simulation? And are we just going to retread the infinite regression argument used incessantly to refute God? At least there is logic to a God cosmology; He is the uncreated being. These alien simulators are created beings....
You've pin pointed the whole lunacy of Simulation Hypotheses. My reply to the Ai nerds could go either Woitian: It is _not even God._ Or use a Wheelerism: _God without God._ It is interesting to note that the infinite causal regress of simulators is not logically possible given a few very reasonable postulates about metaphysical causality (not causality in relation to time, but total or sufficient cause type postulates). The dude who wrote about this whom I read first was Prof. William Hatcher.)
Because the simulation hypothesis is a logical argument, and arguments follow rules. You’re committing a simple logical error. You’re taking a set of premises and asserting a conclusion that doesn’t follow from them:
“If physics + computation can simulate entire worlds, then God exists”
Hmmmm
Well, I suspect that people dont feel very comfortable with the God.
For so many reasons that I cant go into right now..
I also suspect that anyone not taking responsibility for AI will face the same dilemma when it comes to task believing in you… for so many reasons I can’t get into right now.
From my perspective
Take care
Jeremy.
@@sibbyeskie is this supposed to be a regression joke?
OP is saying God is a simpler hypothesis than all these proposed forms of simulation theory. It all depends on your definition of God I suppose.
Sure, ultimately 'existence' or 'reality' needs to be grounded in something eternal less we concede something truly can come from nothing. So if there is an original simulator that itself is eternal then we could call that 'god' if one desires. For these terms are rather trivial and there is obviously quite a bit of theological baggage that comes along with terms like 'god' that wouldn't necessarily fit with a simulation hypothesis that does include an eternal simulator.
For intellectuals they are sure foolish and have forgotten basic laws of quantum mechanics and philosophy.
On cosmological scales, the longer the simulation runs, the greater the computational resources it will consume by some ASI super quantum computer.
The simulation might work with classical bits from a General Relativistic framework, but the problem they will run into is there will be a finite time where too much Computronium for the simulation will be used and the simulation will collapse under its own gravitational field because it will have exceeded the mass content of the universe that it is simulating, and just end up an Ultra Massive Black Hole taking the creators of the simulation with it.
Quantum complexity from Copenhagen and the two deterministic interpretations of Quantum mechanics can both agree that it is not possible for a simulation.
The Many Worlds Interpretation will exhaust the simulation by overloading it.
This implies that the universe is constantly splitting into an enormous number of parallel realities, where every possible outcome of every quantum measurement occurs in a separate branch.
Simulating an infinite number of parallel universes would be computationally infeasible, even with vastly advanced technology. It would require resources far beyond what could be practically achieved.
From a philosophical physics stand point, legendary quantum physicist David Bohm’s Implicate Order would not be compatible with a simulation.
We are not a video of photons and fermions spliced together in time by an outside observer.
We are the Whole, the Observer is the Observed.
The concept of the implicate order emphasizes the interconnectedness and indivisibility of reality. The universe is a seamless whole, where the observer and the observed are part of the same holistic process.
The implicate order suggests that reality unfolds in a dynamic process of enfolding and unfolding like a quantum dancer, where past, present, and future are interconnected within each unfolding moment. This view challenges the notion of a separate, deterministic reality governed by external forces.
In the context of quantum mechanics, Bohm's implicate order highlights the importance of understanding the universe as an indivisible system, where every part is intimately connected to the whole. Unitarity and wholeness are essential aspects of this view keeping to the rules of quantum mechanics, and there is no room for an external world that orchestrates or controls the unfolding of reality.
Silly
Brilliant minds too bad noone has a GD clue
Does this mean we aren't sentient after all? Why wouldn't this simulation be the size of a quantum dot in comparison.
Why can't Scott Aaronson talk/behave like a normal person lol
So each grain of sand is simulated from when it used to be a mountain....... horseshit 👍🏿
Simulation's not the right term.
Don't believe any of this 😮
Who cares??
Not Biden.
@@baneverything5580 whatever that means.
I do
@user-yz2xx5nh6y why? if it is there's nothing that you can do about it so live your life.
Honestly, these topics make me embarassed of studying philosophy. Such a waste of time...
Disappointing and embarrassing
i miss 80's long hair chalmers
Who cares??