A Plethora Of Theories

[Claude Whitacre]

I mistakenly deleted a thread I started on the idea that we may be living in a simulated universe...and that we may be simulations ourselves. I apologize for deleting that thread. But I want to share a list of equally likely theories.... Please give these the great consideration that they deserve

 

1) Our galaxy is really an atom in a vastly larger real universe.

2) Our universe is a living being, and our galaxy is simply a microbe that is also alive.

3) Our universe is a living brain. And we are just figments of its imagination.

4) There are beings living among us that are in a different dimension. They can see us...but we can't see them. Except maybe cats can see them, because cats are always staring at nothing.

5) Our entire lives are simply a dream. A dream dreamed by someone else.

6) The person reading this is the only person that is really alive and conscious. Everything else on this planet is put here for this one person's entertainment. 

7) Every atom in our body is another miniature solar system, and this goes on forever...smaller and smaller....

8) There is another Earth, one the other side of the Sun, where we are perfectly duplicated...except our genders are reversed.

9) Mirrors really are separate universes that are simply reversed from ours. And when the person in the mirror sees us, they are thinking the same thing about us.

10) Our planet is really an exhibit in a galactic zoo. The rest of the universe is projected simply to make us feel like we are back in nature. 

11) We have all been trapped in a 5 minute time loop, living the last 5 minutes again and again, for the last billion years.

Enjoy.

[Lanfear63]

Finally, now we are getting somewhere..

[Frank D]

More interesting is the use of plethora as a collective name for theories. We should apply this creative thinking to other members.

Let's see..

A wisecrack of Whattos

A pundle of Marks

A manifestation of Shanes

A donsy of Riffles

Oh, and

A load of old Claudes

[Dan Riffle]

1 hour ago, Frank D said:

A load of old Claudes

 

I'm pretty sure its a failure of Whitacres. 

[Tagiscom]

Sorry Claude the notion of pin galaxys is pretty insane.

That would mean that the atoms in atomic explosions and in Cern, that are totally destroyed, or get close to that, are killing countless life forms and trillions of galaxys.

 

A creator of everything, or some bored aliens aren't going to risk that construct.

[marciayudkin]

Quote

the idea that we may be living in a simulated universe...and that we may be simulations ourselves

You may want to take a look at the work of Rene Descartes, who took this sort of worry seriously several hundred years ago.  Basically he asked, "How do I know I don't exist only in the mind of some evil demon and not really in the material world?"  Philosophers have been debating his treatment of the question ever since.

[Claude Whitacre]

9 hours ago, marciayudkin said:

You may want to take a look at the work of Rene Descartes, who took this sort of worry seriously several hundred years ago.  Basically he asked, "How do I know I don't exist only in the mind of some evil demon and not really in the material world?"  Philosophers have been debating his treatment of the question ever since.

It reminds me of the quote “Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.” 

My strong suspicion is that when we first saw shadows on a cave wall from the fire...we wondered if our shadows were living people. Some people thought realistic statues of humans (or their gods) held real power, and were really alive. Some people used to look at a great realistic painting and think it was another world that they could travel to. When we first looked into a mirror, some of us wondered if the people in the mirror were real like us....windows into a reverse universe.  Like when natives first saw a photo of themselves and ran in terror...thinking the photo captured their soul.

And now..we wonder if we are in a simulated universe. Why? Because right at this moment we see realistic 2D simulations. It's just a contemporary reference point.

To me, these aren't debates. These points of view require two things;

1) A lack of knowledge of how the mirror, shadow, simulation works...and what it really is.

2) A vivid imagination.  

[Lanfear63]

30 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

And now..we wonder if we are in a simulated universe. Why? Because right at this moment we see realistic 2D simulations. It's just a contemporary reference point.

Unless you have Empirical evidence which makes it just not just a flight of fancy or something currently in vogue.

In the case of the simulation theory you have a respected scientist who has found error checking binary code and the simulation theory came from that. It needs an explanation, either the theory is correct, or perhaps it the natural order of how the universe works. It's existence has not been debunked yet, I see no evidence for that.Therefore, you should not apply your explanation as it being fanciful or trendy without these things being cleared up first

In the case of the dubbed, "Mandela Effect" We have a whole bunch of songs that have changed in their singing on the original recordings which contradict the original and current lyrics. We have a lot of media, store names, many different things. As an example, take "The Home Depot", that's it's official name and according to history always has been. You can pull up a photo from 1970, it's inception year, and see that name in a square block above the store. Equally, people have found a number of genuine photographs where the store name is just "Home Depot" on the front. No lack of space that does not allow for the "The" prefix. As well as that, photographs of the name without  the "The" prefix on the shopping carts have been found. They are not that way now.

Now, my memory is it being just "Home Depot" up until 2015 where I noticed a "The" had been added. No notion of the dubbed "Mandela Effect" at the time. Just noticed. it independently.

My memory is clear on it and appears to be backed up now by some Empirical evidence in actual photographs and signage and paperwork, not to mention millions of other people's memories of it's name.

I have asked you this many times It depends what you view as Empirical evidence or any valid evidence? In the case of the Simulation Theory" it comes under the banner of scientific validation.

In the case of the dubbed "Mandela Effect" it comes under the banner of historical validation and evidence to support a historical event. 

 

[perryny]

2 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:

These points of view require two things;

1) A lack of knowledge of how the mirror, shadow, simulation works...and what it really is.

2) A vivid imagination.  

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Claude Whitacre]

18 hours ago, Lanfear63 said:

Unless you have Empirical evidence which makes it just not just a flight of fancy or something currently in vogue.

In the case of the simulation theory you have a respected scientist who has found error checking binary code and the simulation theory came from that. It needs an explanation, either the theory is correct, or perhaps it the natural order of how the universe works.

One scientist interprets a pattern as " resembling a form of computer code". One of the main principles of science is that others can see the same thing. Other physicists do not. One guy. It's not like the rest of the physicists in the world are 50/50 on it...all the other physicists think it's nonsense. 

The physicist that was in the video didn't provide empirical evidence. He provided an interpretation of what he thinks resembles  binary code.  Tyson wasn't 50/50 on it. He was trying to be polite. 

Here. "Working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry, Dr. James Gates Jr., discovered what he describes as the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code," (From an article on Gates).

"It appears to resemble a form of"...isn't conclusive. It isn't even a claim.

A cat appears to resemble a form of rabbit. 

 

Quote

It's existence has not been debunked yet, I see no evidence for that.Therefore, you should not apply your explanation as it being fanciful or trendy without these things being cleared up first

Please......I'm giving this another try. It's impossible to prove that something isn't true. Impossible. No matter how nonsensical the claim.  Saying "Nobody has debunked the idea" really means nobody has taken the idea seriously enough to spend the time trying to disprove the "theory".

Analogies never convince, but I'm still going to give it a shot. If one scientist thinks Superman is real...you can still claim that nobody has debunked the idea. And the reason is, it's impossible to show evidence of a negative result. And the reason nobody tries to debunk the idea that Superman s real...is because the idea is ridiculous. Why would anyone spend time on the subject? 

[Lanfear63]

25 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

Please......I'm giving this another try. It's impossible to prove that something isn't true. Impossible. No matter how nonsensical the claim.  Saying "Nobody has debunked the idea" really means nobody has taken the idea seriously enough to spend the time trying to disprove the "theory".

If it makes it to being a piece in Scientific American or Nature then what are we supposed to think? These are the yardstick publications of science. They don't generally publish crank stuff. anyway, like I said, to be proven by Gates. The onus is on him.

[Claude Whitacre]

55 minutes ago, Lanfear63 said:

If it makes it to being a piece in Scientific American or Nature then what are we supposed to think? These are the yardstick publications of science. They don't generally publish crank stuff. anyway, like I said, to be proven by Gates. The onus is on him.

I haven't found the subject (of binary code in reality) in Scientific American. I did find an article about the idea of..."are we a simulation?"  Tyson says that he thinks it's a bit better than 50/50 that we are. But that's taking the assumption that these virtual simulations are inevitable. Meaning conscious thinking populations of simulated people....thinking that it's inevitable. And to me, that assumption is not a serious one. 

Create a simulated universe? Sure. Create simulated people that react just like real people? Sure. Create simulated people that are conscious and are exactly like us? No. The human brain is simply too complex to recreate in digital form. Like I said before, there are more neural pathways in the average human brain than there are atoms in the universe. It's simply too complex.

And it takes a brain that is that complex for us to be conscious and self aware. Most mammals aren't self aware, and their brains are just simpler versions of ours (mostly). Human babies aren't even self aware until they are a year and a half old.  Recently I read an article in Scientific American that said for a computer (present day) to be self aware, it would have to be the size of the planet Jupiter. Of course, even that was a wild guess. We have little to base this on.

 

Tyson also goes on to discuss the difference between us and apes. We are 98% genetically identical to apes. What if there is a species that is 2% more developed genetically than we are? Could they create a virtual universe?  Tyson includes this idea in his "This is possible" scenario. Lots of "If" and "Then that may be possible" in these ideas.

It's a flight of imagination. It is just a question, not a claim.

Scientific American won't publish articles on known myths. But they will publish articles on highly speculative science claims and ideas. These are the ideas that get the headlines. They sell magazines. They are novel and spur debate.

This idea of "binary code in reality" is a highly speculative way to interpret another highly speculative idea. And even String Theory is considered speculative. Gates may have a real answer. But so far, nobody has seen it except him.

[perryny]

Hey Claude,  I think you have a very clear understanding of my point of view on this subject. Probably clearer than I do.

I would sincerely like to understand better what I'm missing from your side.

We both agree, I think, that sometime soon, smart computers will be able to create a simulated person who will be very hard to distinguish from a real human (if programmed that way). It will be an incredibly good digital actor.

I want to understand what's missing from the digital actor that we humans possess, that the smart computer can't program. 

I know you say it's consciousness and being self-aware. But when I look for those things now, I do not know what they are or if they are there.

Are these things "things", or are they just words we have to describe something we made up as an answer to a question we can't help but ask?

If consciousness cannot be created by just flooding a being with a constant, never-ending barrage of words and images and physical sensations and a compulsion to act and react (or not), and questions to ask and an option to choose...

Then what is missing that the computer can't code? How are we creating this? Are we creating it, or is it coming from somewhere else?

I know these aren't really fair questions (or maybe they are and you know the answer), but they are the questions I've been asking myself a lot lately.

And of the answers I consider, all seem far more fanciful than, "yeah, I could see a computer doing that." 

[whateverpedia]

I see that the drugs haven't worn off yet.

[Claude Whitacre]

6 hours ago, perryny said:

Hey Claude,  I think you have a very clear understanding of my point of view on this subject. Probably clearer than I do.

I would sincerely like to understand better what I'm missing from your side.

We both agree, I think, that sometime soon, smart computers will be able to create a simulated person who will be very hard to distinguish from a real human (if programmed that way). It will be an incredibly good digital actor.

I want to understand what's missing from the digital actor that we humans possess, that the smart computer can't program. 

I know you say it's consciousness and being self-aware. But when I look for those things now, I do not know what they are or if they are there.

I get it. 

It's a matter of complexity of design. What we can do now (and probably in the near future) is create digital representations of humans. We can even program them to act a certain way. But even the best digital representation is only a rough estimate of the exterior of a human...in two dimensions. 

And even if eventually we get the ability to create a perfect image of a human, it's still just an image. It's like comparing a well drawn map of the world...with the actual world. The map can never be anywhere as complex as the thing it represents. 

Here is where the image is different from a simulated conscious person. Simulations..at their very best, are simply representations of the outside of the person. All the complexity is on the inside. A computer image doesn't have anything beneath the image. No organs, no brain, no real muscles and bone that have to react the same way they do in real life.

Let's take the brain. It's the seat of consciousness, self awareness, and everything we think and feel. And it's impossibly complex. And we need that complexity to be self aware. Remember, I said that the human brain has more neural pathways than there are atoms in the universe. We are talking about recreating something that is impossible to create by simple programming. 

Think of every neural pathway as a circuit. Each circuit has to be designed, if you are going to recreate a human brain. We are talking about circuits on an atomic level....at numbers so big, they are essentially meaningless to discuss. And...computers can think far faster than we do...but they can't do very much. Our brains are not just doing the conscious thinking..they are also managing emotions, instincts, healing, moving, and every unconscious action. They are also interacting with the world around us through all our senses. Rational thinking is just a very small part of what a brain does.

But what is consciousness? What is self awareness? I'm better at describing self awareness, so I will. It's that thought you are having right now that there is something inside you that is understanding what you are reading. We have a feeling that we are separate from our biology. We know that we are separate from other people, that we are mortal. We are aware that we are alive. And that awareness is just the very tip of the iceberg of what is going on constantly inside your brain.  Trillions of neural circuits opening and closing every second...just to provide us the end product, which is our thought. 

Our brain is what is doing the thinking. To recreate our thoughts..our awareness..we would have to recreate a brain at the atomic level. And we don't have the intelligence or materials to do that.

Now, while complex animal have emotions, instincts, and thoughts...almost none of them are self aware. It's a matter of complexity in the brain. And no computer program can be as complex as a human brain. There isn't enough material on Earth to create the necessary connections....to create what we are inside.

Computer simulations are essentially well drawn cartoons. And while that describes a few of us...Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

6 hours ago, perryny said:

Are these things "things", or are they just words we have to describe something we made up as an answer to a question we can't help but ask?

"Consciousness" and "Mind" are  just words we use to describe what the brain does. And we are just "consciously aware" of the end product of everything the brain does..our thoughts and feelings (Which are just subconscious thoughts)

If consciousness cannot be created by just flooding a being with a constant, never-ending barrage of words and images and physical sensations and a compulsion to act and react (or not), and questions to ask and an option to choose...

Maybe you could create a simulation of consciousness by feeding the simulation "thoughts", but someone would have to create the thoughts and feed them. And that takes a fully realized human brain. So we are back to needing a complete brain. And if it's in the simulation...a complete simulated brain.

Then what is missing that the computer can't code? How are we creating this? Are we creating it, or is it coming from somewhere else?

Are we creating our own mind? Our own self awareness? Our brain is. We're interpreting a small portion of what the brain does as self awareness and consciousness.

Is it coming from somewhere else?  The answer is really easy. But it's hard to answer without stepping on toes.No. It isn't coming from somewhere else. We know that because we know how the brain reacts to stimulation, disease, damage, and poor development. If our minds were separate from our brains, none of this would affect how we think. But Alzheimer disease slowly destroys the brain, and we can see the results as they happen. Our mind is what the brain does.

Why can't a computer code a real simulation of a human brain? (which would then be essentially conscious?)  Like I said...it would take a computer the size of the planet Jupiter. And that's just to simulate the cognitive abilities of the brain. And most of what we are is not the rational thought process. We are biological and our thought process is chemical, not electronic.

 

Could a super advanced race create a virtual person who can be fully aware and function like we do? Maybe. But that is far far far far far far from anything we would be capable of.

And assuming there are advanced races creating our world and us for their entertainment..or for study...is fantasy. Even if it is true. It's fantasy, not based on any reality we know.

[Lanfear63]

1 hour ago, Claude Whitacre said:

It's a matter of complexity of design. What we can do now (and probably in the near future) is create digital representations of humans. We can even program them to act a certain way. But even the best digital representation is only a rough estimate of the exterior of a human...in two dimensions. 

And even if eventually we get the ability to create a perfect image of a human, it's still just an image. It's like comparing a well drawn map of the world...with the actual world. The map can never be anywhere as complex as the thing it represents. 

That's not strictly true. We are already well on our way to creating a mind, personality that has knowledge stored that could easily interface with humans and could easily fool them to thinking it was a real human. That's not too distant. I think, given the advancement in computer storage and processing power and robotics we are only 30 years away from having something that would be autonomously thinking and indistinguishable from the real thing. not biological though.

Stick around long enough and you could have your own, Riffle Robot catering to your every whim. That would be a real triumph for "Micro Electronics"

[Claude Whitacre]

25 minutes ago, Lanfear63 said:

That's not strictly true. We are already well on our way to creating a mind, personality that has knowledge stored that could easily interface with humans and could easily fool them to thinking it was a real human. 

No. We are on he way to having a computer that can simulate a person't answers and reactions. Like a player piano that plays music from a scroll. Having a Mind is something else entirely.

 

Maybe you can fool a person into think it's talking to another person. But if you really created a mind...you would have actually created a person.  

[ThomasBelknap]

4 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

No. We are on he way to having a computer that can simulate a person't answers and reactions. Like a player piano that plays music from a scroll. Having a Mind is something else entirely.

 

Maybe you can fool a person into think it's talking to another person. But if you really created a mind...you would have actually created a person.  

I take it you don't believe AI will come to fruition.

[Claude Whitacre]

9 minutes ago, ThomasBelknap said:

I take it you don't believe AI will come to fruition.

Sure, some day. But AI is different from creating a human being in a simulation that is self aware and believes that it is real. Intelligence is a very small fraction of what makes us a real person. 

[ThomasBelknap]

9 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

Sure, some day. But AI is different from creating a human being in a simulation that is self aware and believes that it is real. Intelligence is a very small fraction of what makes us a real person. 

You are assuming that AI doesn't become self aware.  I'd say if an AI can learn, there is a good chance it will.   

[Claude Whitacre]

19 minutes ago, ThomasBelknap said:

You are assuming that AI doesn't become self aware.  I'd say if an AI can learn, there is a good chance it will.   

I understand. If AI becomes self aware, it would have to be complex on a scale we can't create now. It's not even that AI couldn't be self aware (although I still see no reason to think it will happen) It's that AI won't be self aware...and think it's a human...and think with a human mind....with all the complexity and intricacy of the human brain.

Again....a fact that keeps screaming at me...the human brain has more neural pathways than there are atoms in the universe.  And since we don't have a human that can program a simulation of the entire universe...at an atomic level...I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be done.

The original question was about simulated humans living in a completely simulated universe. And at an atomic level. In other words, every atom in the universe would be recreated and positioned...and set in motion...the way it is now. Again, the very definition of the word impossible. 

[ThomasBelknap]

5 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

Again....a fact that keeps screaming at me...the human brain has more neural pathways than there are atoms in the universe.  And since we don't have a human that can program a simulation of the entire universe...at an atomic level...I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be done.

 

Yet, from my understanding, we utilize very little of our brain's potential.   Why is all that potential there, yet we are incapable of tapping into it?

[Dan Riffle]

17 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

the human brain has more neural pathways than there are atoms in the universe.  

 

Citation please. 

According to Scientific American, the human mind has an estimated 100 trillion connections. (This is your opening -- where you redefine "pathway").

According to Universe Today, it is estimated that the there are between 10 to the 78th to 10 to 82nd atoms in the known, observable universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms.

Does this change your mind, knowing that you've based your assumption on faulty data?

 

[Frank D]

32 minutes ago, ThomasBelknap said:

Yet, from my understanding, we utilize very little of our brain's potential.   Why is all that potential there, yet we are incapable of tapping into it?

We use pretty much all of our brain's potential, just not at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

 

[Claude Whitacre]

59 minutes ago, Dan Riffle said:

Citation please. 

According to Scientific American, the human mind has an estimated 100 trillion connections. (This is your opening -- where you redefine "pathway").

I don't remember the exact podcast. But it was said by Sam Harris, I think. Maybe it was Neal Degrasse Tyson.  I just remember the statement. 

100 trillion connections? Sounds right. But every thought, every mental task takes far more that one neural connection. "Neural pathways" can be billions of neurons firing at one time. There are only 26 letters in our alphabet. But how many different words is that?  How many different possible stories is that? There are only 10 numbers. How many possible numbers is that? It's incalculable. And every new connection doubles the number of possible pathways. You know the drill...one penny doubled every day...at the end of the month, you have all the money in the country. That's just 30 "doublings". Do that 100 trillion times and you have more pathways than atoms in the universe. A lot more.  Now the truth is that some neurons of the brain will never connect to some other neurons...but still...

 

Smarty pants.

Quote

1 hour ago, ThomasBelknap said:

 

Yet, from my understanding, we utilize very little of our brain's potential.   Why is all that potential there, yet we are incapable of tapping into it?

 

That's a popular myth. We have access to our full potential. That potential increases the more we learn. We do have an upper limit to the number of neurons in the brain. But most of them died out when we were a few years old, because they weren't needed. The reason we have "pathways" is that most surrounding neurons died because they weren't being used. The brain is pretty plastic and malleable.

 

Added after Frank butted in (and destroyed my self image); Yup. We only use a small portion of our brain at a time. But that's because the brain is highly compartmentalized. During the day we may use almost all of it, but each task or mental process uses a different part of the brain. CAT scans show us the brain activity during different type of stimulus. Small parts light up at a time, but the whole brain gets used. 

 

31 minutes ago, Frank D said:

We use pretty much all of our brain's potential, just not at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

 

Shut up Frank! I'm the know-it-all here, not you!