But we wouldn’t know the physics of the real world, we would only know the simulated physics. If the glitched exhibited common and predicatable behavior, then the glitches would be normal to us.
The solid of a substance will sink in a liquid of the same substance…except water! Fun fact, huh?
If the glitches were very rare and unpredictable, then there would probably be some dispute over whether the glitches were actually occurring… perhaps leaving some believing, some not, forming organizations of like-thinking members.
But, of course, in our world, the real world, there really aren’t miracles, so you don’t have to worry.
(And I see that Defective Detective is dissing my tamagochi.)
I think it’s complete idiocy to believe that you’re anything other than a large analog organic neural computer. If you’re going to make a claim that generalizing the Church-Turing thesis is complete idiocy, I’d like to see some other evidence besides “But I feel so unlike a computer!”.
If the universe is a simulation, it follows that there is an external intelligent agent or agents that created the universe and could, in theory, control it. Sort of like a God, but not necessarily a Judeo-Christian style God.
Given the absence of any evidence that such an entity exists, and given that there’s no real way to test the theory, I’m inclined to go with Occam’s razor and assume that we’re not in a simulation.
Nonsense. The bandwidth of the human sensory system is very low. Even with our fairly primitive modern computers we can already create visual simulations that are nearly indistinguishable from reality. The fact that you personally have trouble imagining such a simulation means nothing.
I think he’s talking about the processing that leads to emotions, thought, conciousness, self, etc., not the raw sensory imput. It’s the old question of how can subjective experience be the result of unconcious interaction of matter. While most people accept that it must happen, because apparently that’s what our brains do, some people (e.g. Penrose) are skeptical that a digital algorithmic computer can replicate the process.
Yes, but Penrose is decidedly in the minority on the matter. I think that most scientists would agree that, even though we don’t know the precise mechanism behind consciousness, it does arise from the neural activity in our brains. And if one pile of atoms (a human brain) can produce emotions and thoughts, then it’s not unreasonable to postulate that another pile of atoms (a computer running a simulation) could eventually do the same thing.
Now there may be all sorts of unknown roadblocks that would stand in the way of such an achievement. Maybe some day we’ll find out that it’s impossible after all. But it’s certainly not so implausible as to deserve terms like “complete idiocy” and “sheer stupidity”.
You seem to have rather a romantic view of things. The things you list can be replicated with drugs or direct electrical stimulation of the brain, and if they can’t be today, it’s in the cards for tomorrow.
I see no reason to believe that the brain is anything but a computer, and if one computer can create the things you list, what’s stopping another computer from doing so?
Ed Fredkin, who was head of MIT’s Project MAC, told our class about this idea in early 1969. That time and space are quantized is one argument for. He said that if there were indeed miracles in the past, they could represent bugs, and the reduction in miracles represents improvement in simulation quality.
He’s written up in a chapter of a book called Three Scientists and Their Gods. Amazon link.
Supposing for the sake of argument that we create a simulation which contains intelligent beings. Do you think those beings would immediately realize that they must be in a simulation because their feelings don’t feel real, somehow? I don’t think so. Because those feelings would be the only feelings they ever knew. Their feelings would feel extremely real to them.
The whole brain in vat thing I find a bit ridiculous. I inclined to believe the following link then a god, a brain vat, or virtual people theory… Although Second Life makes you think, but I can’t get around the fact that it’s an animation created by humans - blood shed there I don’t believe equates to our own blood shed, ya know? Then the argument there is, are we fictional? How would we know? I guess we couldn’t, we just aren’t big enough and smart enough, yet, to know. It’s completely philosphical and in IMO territory, in which my opinion is… It’s one thing to equate what we call life to The Matrix, and Second Life, but quite another to defend it in a serious manner. It’s fun, but no way dude.
I think a more immediate concern is that if we create a simulation, how would we know it contained intelligent beings? How do we know we have not done so already? What proof of sentience, intelligence, conscience do we need and would we look for?
To be fair to Penrose, he doesn’t claim that brains function supernaturally, or that you couldn’t construct a “conciousness machine” that might actually be better at it than organic brains. He just doubts that you could do it with a computer. However, his book The Emperor’s New Mind doesn’t address the idea of modeling a brain at the synapse level, rather than trying to duplicate intelligence from first principles. So I am curious what Penrose’s response to that would be.