Neuralink

[FoxEye]

Eh? It simulates the universe from start to end. Or whatever portions it needs. So whatever bogey you picked out of your nose last Wednesday morning, it will simulate that happening in it's own mind. Dead or alive right now is irrelevant. Prolly better watching the video

You can't simulate something if you're missing the data.

Without time travel you can't simulate dead people.

How can you simulate the universe - [OUR] universe not [A] universe - without being around at the beginning (or knowing *exactly* the state of all matter and energy at the time OUR universe started)? It doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

 

[D3K]

You can't simulate something if you're missing the data.

Without time travel you can't simulate dead people.

How can you simulate the universe - [OUR] universe not [A] universe - without being around at the beginning (or knowing *exactly* the state of all matter and energy at the time OUR universe started)? It doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

It's the same as how current simulations work in the engineering world today. You load up some boundary conditions, press solve, and the machine spits out stress/strain, fluid motion/thermal capacity, SI/PI whatever the study was for.

So you need the equations, constants, and variables from the start of the big bang, press solve, and the simulation works everything else out. With an accurate enough solver model, it will process the exact quantum effects at every moment until it reaches the current day.

If you want to account for the multiple worlds theory which means an individual simulation for every possible quantum choice then sure - it will take a lot longer but it would still be possible. The bulk of the simulations would be discarded when they veered away from plausibly becoming the representation of the universe we currently live in, so the AI would not have to juggle infinite simulations at the same time.

On the other hand, if we as humans have carefully recorded our universe as it is, with whatever degree of accuracy needed, then the AI can start from that point instead of the big bang. It might not even have to be accurate, it may be able to interpolate data very accurately (much like RTX does with ray tracing).

So given sufficient AI intelligence, power, and time, an AI could simulate our exact existence. And that then proves another theory - simulation theory. If our AI can simulate atom for atom, then the chances that we ourselves are living in a simulation becomes extremely high.

 

[FoxEye]

It's the same as how current simulations work in the engineering world today. You load up some boundary conditions, press solve, and the machine spits out stress/strain, fluid motion/thermal capacity, SI/PI whatever the study was for.

So you need the equations, constants, and variables from the start of the big bang, press solve, and the simulation works everything else out. With an accurate enough solver model, it will process the exact quantum effects at every moment until it reaches the current day.

If you want to account for the multiple worlds theory which means an individual simulation for every possible quantum choice then sure - it will take a lot longer but it would still be possible. The bulk of the simulations would be discarded when they veered away from plausibly becoming the representation of the universe we currently live in, so the AI would not have to juggle infinite simulations at the same time.

On the other hand, if we as humans have carefully recorded our universe as it is, with whatever degree of accuracy needed, then the AI can start from that point instead of the big bang. It might not even have to be accurate, it may be able to interpolate data very accurately (much like RTX does with ray tracing).

So given sufficient AI intelligence, power, and time, an AI could simulate our exact existence. And that then proves another theory - simulation theory. If our AI can simulate atom for atom, then the chances that we ourselves are living in a simulation becomes extremely high.

An engineering simulation simulates [a] bridge, because the theory of bridge design is the same for all bridges. No matter where or when they were built. You simulate [a] bridge not [the] bridge that collapsed 100 years ago for reasons nobody documented at the time.

Ask your simulation to tell you why that bridge 100 years in the past failed, but without having any data from that particular bridge. You don't know what the weather was like on that day, what the ground conditions were like, etc. Your simulation says... "insufficient data!"

You are claiming that an AI can simulate 100% accurately the mindset and thoughts of long dead people. Essentially with no data.

I am straight up saying 100% this is not possible. It's beyond ludicrous.

If this is a thought experiment it is a very poor one indeed.

e: Also... **** you, future omnipotent AI. You wanna start something? Yeah? Come at me bro...

 

[D3K]

An engineering simulation simulates [a] bridge, because the theory of bridge design is the same for all bridges. No matter where or when they were built. You simulate [a] bridge not [the] bridge that collapsed 100 years ago for reasons nobody documented at the time.

Ask your simulation to tell you why that bridge 100 years in the past failed, but without having any data from that particular bridge. You don't know what the weather was like on that day, what the ground conditions were like, etc. Your simulation says... "insufficient data!"

You are claiming that an AI can simulate 100% accurately the mindset and thoughts of long dead people. Essentially with no data.

I am straight up saying 100% this is not possible. It's beyond ludicrous.

If this is a thought experiment it is a very poor one indeed.

Translation: "I can't imagine it therefore it's impossible"
Not sure why you're clinging on to your point about dead people, aside from you not getting this concept at all. Dead people are irrelevant to the idea.

All of the concepts in my previous post (except roko's basilisk) exist as plausable scientific ideas that have a non-zero chance of coming into existence. These have had commentary by leading scientific scholars to that effect. Non-zero contradicts your "100% not possible" idea.

Sure there are many predecessors required to make it happen : AI advancement, resources to construct the hardware for an AI of that magnitude, the power available to fuel such an entity, all knowledge of the big bang boundary conditions, etc.

Worth enlightening yourself before making such strong claims as ludicrous or impossible. I at least expected some follow up questions before you defaulted to that stance. They are hard concepts to grasp, but fun to toy with. And there is a very small chance they will ever come close to affecting us in our lifetimes. The power the AI needs may have to come from an entire solar system, or multiple solar systems, and that means climbing up the kardashev scale.

Grab some youtube videos on topics such as singularity and simulation theory and see where it gets you. Then come back to Roko's Basilisk vid and watch it with a bit more context. I do not believe any of it will happen. But I acknowledge it is feasible given sufficient advancement.

 

[FoxEye]

It's not hard to grasp. It's fiction.

The only way you can rewind time is to know with 100% certainty the state of all energy and matter in the entire universe.

If you can possibly know this - and think for a second how it would even be possible to know this - then in theory you can both rewind time and also know the future.

You need - quite literally - to know the state of all energy and matter in existence.

You cannot read the minds of the dead based on incomplete data. I should have thought this was self-evident, but apparently the laws of physics don't apply to AI McGuffins.

Also, lols at YouTube being a source of anything other than nutjob CT theories. No thanks, I've had better education on the toilet.

e: Quick correction. Not only would you need to know the state of all matter and energy in the universe, but also have a complete understanding of all the laws of reality. Because the data without the laws is also meaningless.

e2: Just about the only situation where such complete data would be known to any entity, is the scenario where our reality is already a simulation. Other than that, observing the universe from inside the universe, it is virtually impossible to be able to know the state of all matter and energy therein.

 

[dowie]

You can't simulate something if you're missing the data.

Without time travel you can't simulate dead people.

How can you simulate the universe - [OUR] universe not [A] universe - without being around at the beginning (or knowing *exactly* the state of all matter and energy at the time OUR universe started)? It doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

Pretty much, like there are infinite possible universes... (or perhaps there are a very large number that we might as well treat as infinite, given there is perhpas a finite amount of matter, energy...) I'm not sure it would be feasible to simulate even one when existing within it... let alone simulate infinite (or many) possible ones - how would it know which one the current one is? Because even if it were to match the current one over that vast search space then there are still many non deterministic events happening all over that current universe every tiny fraction of time... leading to even more... Thats assuming simulating one is even possible.

I certainly don't think that the ability to simulate the universe is a requirement of any singularity nor do I know if such a thing is possible let alone being able to simulate many many universes and search among them.

Forget the simulation of an entire universe even from a model of how matter, energy works and working forward from the big bang - suppose reality is simulated by just a simple straight line within the positive x and y axes...

Well there are infinite possible straight lines in theory but for the sake of argument lets say that there are a finite number drawn within a certain degree of accuracy and one of those represents our current reality at this point in time... well I can simulate these many "realities" by drawing out every possible straight line from the vertical one x = 0 to the horizontal y = 0... I still don't know which one is the current reality..

 

[D3K]

It's not hard to grasp. It's fiction.

The only way you can rewind time is to know with 100% certainty the state of all energy and matter in the entire universe.

If you can possibly know this - and think for a second how it would even be possible to know this - then in theory you can both rewind time and also know the future.

You need - quite literally - to know the state of all energy and matter in existence.

You cannot read the minds of the dead based on incomplete data. I should have thought this was self-evident, but apparently the laws of physics don't apply to AI McGuffins.

Also, lols at YouTube being a source of anything other than nutjob CT theories. No thanks, I've had better education on the toilet.

Ok please stop talking about dead people, I don't know what your obsession is with that point or why you think its relevent but you're going round in circles.

Let me repeat the part about simulating from the big bang:

If you simulate the universe from the start of it's existence, you do not need to know everything. You only need to know the input variables. Before the big bang there was nothing (TBC). Then simulation happens and all the events take place to recreate our universe up to the present day. And beyond if necessary. This was well presented in the TV show Devs recently.

 

[D3K]

Pretty much, like there are infinite possible universes... (or perhaps there are a very large number that we might as well treat as infinite, given there is perhpas a finite amount of matter, energy...) I'm not sure it would be feasible to simulate even one when existing within it... let alone simulate infinite (or many) possible ones - how would it know which one the current one is?

What information do you have from the future that impacts your judgement on feasibility? You don't have that info. And actually it's a conditional requirement so no one needs to solve this condition - assume it will be possible then work down the chain of other conditionals.
There are actually only 3 - scroll halfway down the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

I certainly don't think that the ability to simulate the universe is a requirement of any singularity nor do I know if such a thing is possible let alone being able to simulate many many universes and search among them.

The basilisk thought-experiment is one potential result of the singularity, it's not a requirement. And it's just for fun, but causes some people existential dread apparently.

 

[FoxEye]

How can you simulate THE universe - OUR universe - from the start of its existence? Where are you getting the data from?

Don't forget you've said this simulation is 100% accurate.

You know what 100% accurate means, don't you? Not a single thing can differ from what actually happened. Every molecule must be accounted for and correctly positioned. Every sub-atomic particle. Every energy wave. Every interaction as it actually occurred.

Not [a] universe. [Our] universe.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm not sure it would be feasible to simulate even one when existing within it...

That's a brilliant point, thanks.

To simulate with 100% accuracy all of the atoms, sub-atomic particles and energy in the universe, using a tiny fraction of that material, should in theory take x amount of time longer than the age of the universe itself. To simulate a day should take much longer than a day, in other words.

The only reason human computer simulations are "quick" is because they are very, very inaccurate approximations, operating on datasets that are nowhere near "everything in the universe".

Essentially, put another way, the universe is the most efficient simulation of itself that is possible. To simulate our universe quicker than reality, would require a computational resource greater than all the energy and matter stored in the universe.

 

[D3K]

How can you simulate THE universe - OUR universe - from the start of its existence? Where are you getting the data from?

Don't forget you've said this simulation is 100% accurate.

You know what 100% accurate means, don't you? Not a single thing can differ from what actually happened. Every molecule must be accounted for and correctly positioned. Every sub-atomic particle. Every energy wave. Every interaction as it actually occurred.

Not [a] universe. [Our] universe.

How am I supposed to give specific information about the future?
Humans are unlikely to provide the means themselves, it will likely be assisted by AI. Then the AI will go away and start running simulations.

Start of the universe is easier to work with because there was much less information. You just need all theories of relativity and quantum mechanics to be resolved then you have a set of equations that work everything out for you, provided you know all of the constants and variables needed to put into the equations.

 

[D3K]

To simulate our universe quicker than reality, would require a computational resource greater than all the energy and matter stored in the universe.

Please show your working for this claim

 

[dowie]

What information do you have from the future that impacts your judgement on feasibility? You don't have that info. And actually it's a conditional requirement so no one needs to solve this condition - assume it will be possible then work down the chain of other conditionals.
There are actually only 3 - scroll halfway down the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

The basilisk thought-experiment is one potential result of the singularity, it's not a requirement. And it's just for fun, but causes some people existential dread apparently.

It's not a condition for a singularity at all, it's a thought experiment....

I don't need information from the future to make a claim about feasibility or the practical limitations of such a thing. Even if I assume it is possible I know there are non deterministic parts to our universe ergo even the tiny subset of universes that contain the planet earth and those tiny subset of universes where humanity emerged and the tiny subset of those where all the events that have taken place in our universe to arrive at the current people alive today have taken place... then every fraction of time there are many many more possible non deterministic events occurring at a sub atomic level that require many many more universes... that is without going into the flaws of the argument itself. So there is some single set of chains of many many events to get to exactly where we are today (many many universes to be simulated and a huge search space to match this exact one) and from that point there are many many more for every fraction of time...

 

[FoxEye]

Please show your working for this claim

It's extremely logical. As said, the universe is the most efficient simulation of itself possible. Whilst simultaneously being the most accurate.

Explain how you can more quickly simulate every single bit of matter and energy in the universe using a tiny fraction of that matter and energy? And all the interactions between them.

e: Simple example. "Simulate" a single ray of light (wave/particle) faster than the speed of light... I think you already have a problem

 

[D3K]

It's not a condition for a singularity at all, it's a thought experiment....

That's twice in a row you've confused the singularity with the basilisk thought-experiment. For the rest of what you've said - the multiverse theory, multiple worlds. Not sure how you can talk with such conviction about that being definitively how everything works and then dismiss simulating existence, when it has not and cannot be proven, if ever. Fwiw I love the idea, I think it's lower chance and more in the realm of fantasy than reality, but it's a non-zero chance like everything we're discussing.

It's extremely logical. As said, the universe is the most efficient simulation of itself possible. Whilst simultaneously being the most accurate.

Ok so you are more logical than Steven Hawking and Neil Degress Tyson. You've worked this out in your head, now put it to paper and send it round the community. Show them zany scientists!

Explain how you can more quickly simulate every single bit of matter and energy in the universe using a tiny fraction of that matter and energy? And all the interactions between them.

I don't have to explain anything hypothetical, we are far from understanding everything about how the universe works and advancements will be made that shatter preconceptions and introduce radically different ways of interacting with the universe, but to throw 2 half-baked ideas out there:
1) approximations CAN be made and get the same results: for example quantum effects can be disregarded for a large majority of existence and only macro effects need to be considered (the AI can work these out in better detail)
2) interaction in higher dimensions vastly simplifies the compute power needed to resolve our 3D existence, and so take place in the 4th/5th/6th dimension.
This is just to show I have some agility in my brain and not really up for discussion but I look forward to your ridicule in the morning anyway.

 

[FoxEye]

2) interaction in higher dimensions vastly simplifies the compute power needed to resolve our 3D existence, and so take place in the 4th/5th/6th dimension.
This is just to show I have some agility in my brain and not really up for discussion but I look forward to your ridicule in the morning anyway.

Sorry I no longer have any idea what you are talking about

e: Why don't you also need to simulate the 5th and 6th dimensions, whatever they are? I'm assuming they exist/are part of the universe which we are simulating? So should be part of the simulation, ie also simulated?

Or are these dimensions outside of the universe? But if they are able to affect the universe, surely they should still be part of the simulation? If the AI can use them (to simulate the universe) then they should be part of the data being simulated..

In which case we are still back to the original problem: how do you simulate reality faster than reality occurs, using a fraction of the universe's energy and matter to run the simulation?

 

[dowie]

That's twice in a row you've confused the singularity with the basilisk thought-experiment.

Nope, not at all, why do you believe I've done that? The existence of a singularity doesn't imply that that thought experiement is feasible or even possible - I thought that was pretty clear? Why are you acting as thought I've confused the two things?

For the rest of what you've said - the multiverse theory, multiple worlds. Not sure how you can talk with such conviction about that being definitively how everything works and then dismiss simulating existence, when it has not and cannot be proven, if ever. Fwiw I love the idea, I think it's lower chance and more in the realm of fantasy than reality, but it's a non-zero chance like everything we're discussing.

I don't - it doesn't need to be true, you're conflating the possibility of multiple universes with simulating multiple universes and then, within that massive search space, finding this particular one and the many many possible variations of it... Those are two different things - the multiverse theory being true isn't a necessary condition for what I've said - just the fact that there are non deterministic events in our universe means that any given simulation starting from the big bang has many many possibly universes to simulate it isn't a requirement that all those universes actually exist - do you follow?

 

[Brizzles]

Tbh I'm not sure how or why that's relevant.

Understanding the human brain is not only orders of magnitude more complex, but also presents ethical problems that inventing flight or computers did not have.

Because going back just 100 years, everything we see, and take for granted today, seemed impossible.

Computers , internet, space exploration all would be total fantasy then.

Yet you seem to think any advances now would take huge leaps in time.

Go back and check how things advance each 100 years before dismissing things.

 

[FoxEye]

Because going back just 100 years, everything we see, and take for granted today, seemed impossible.

Computers , internet, space exploration all would be total fantasy then.

Yet you seem to think any advances now would take huge leaps in time.

Go back and check how things advance each 100 years before dismissing things.

Let's not forget that in the 70s they thought we'd all be living on space stations by now.

We have a rather annoying habit (collectively) of over-estimating the rate at which (future) progress will occur (obligatory Intel 10nm by 2015 joke). In fact it's fair to say we *always* think major change is "just around the corner".

And as said, there are some rather massive problems with the ethics of poking around inside a human brain You don't want to go sticking wires in and facing the possibility of causing brain damage or worse. Unless you're Putin and can disappear them afterwards

 

[D3K]

There are actually only 3 [conditionals] - scroll halfway down the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

I certainly don't think that the ability to simulate the universe is a requirement of any singularity

It's not a condition for a singularity at all, it's a thought experiment....

Nope, not at all, why do you believe I've done that? The existence of a singularity doesn't imply that that thought experiement is feasible or even possible - I thought that was pretty clear? Why are you acting as thought I've confused the two things?

You are confusing the singularity with simulation ability as a pre-req which was never mentioned. Being able to simulate reality is a pre-req in the basilisk thought experiment. I did not state any conditions for the singularity, yet you are correcting me on something not being a condition for it...

I don't - it doesn't need to be true, you're conflating the possibility of multiple universes with simulating multiple universes and then, within that massive search space, finding this particular one and the many many possible variations of it... Those are two different things - the multiverse theory being true isn't a necessary condition for what I've said - just the fact that there are non deterministic events in our universe means that any given simulation starting from the big bang has many many possibly universes to simulate it isn't a requirement that all those universes actually exist - do you follow?

How would I not follow when it was my post that presented this idea? Tbh I have over zealously added that in as a requirement when it was never mentioned in the original video. Yet I've thought about the concept a little too much and gone for the jugular with what's required in terms of complexity.
Either we find a way to simulate existence by brute force (because it can be done so fast) until we find a carbon copy of us just now, or shortcuts with convergence can be done - run a single simulation with lower fidelity through to the present day, then rerun from a point in history where the earth can largely be considered a closed system away from external influences of the universe (and thus reducing the complexity of the sim by [universe - 1 solar system] and keep iterating, increasing fidelity where needed. This is called convergence in modern day physics simulations and gives very accurate results in the localised areas of interest.

Or you know, we advance in technological capability and find new better ways to do things we previously thought impossible. Or rather that some of us thought impossible while others acknowledged the non-zero probability of it.

But i don't have that future knowledge so I can't state it's not feasible.