Breath

Does the software generate the human observer as well?

Damo

the model is self-consistent, or can be made so in an ad hoc fashion, just like Goddidit or Intelligent Design... I don't think it explains any facts better than other models, and it doesn't appear to be falsifiable... but yes, I.D. has the same problem as the traditional cosmological argument, if the universe has to have a cause, then what caused that cause?

mindovermyth

I think it was "The thirteenth floor".

Worldtraveller

Well, if you turn the question around just a little bit...

You run a computer simulation using the basic idea of evolution: i.e. you write a snippet of code whose only purpose is to reproduce more smippets of code. Memory and CPU resources are limited, hence natural selection.

Guess what? We've done this, it works. There is quite a fascinating article on this in the secweb library here.

Turns out, we can use the principles of evolution to design all kinds fo things. The only thing different in the way it's applied for us is that instead of 'natural' selection, we define the criteria we want to use as the goal. Using this process, we have come evolved computer circuits far more efficient than than anything a human designer could come up with, micro satellites, and a host of other fascinating technologies.

And what else?? Take the micro satellites as an example (goggle for some good articles). When the engineers look at them, it appears as if they shouldn't work. There are extraneous parts, bits that are obviously useless and could be removed, etc. Just like we expect to see from evolution. Yet, even with the extraneous parts, the design is more elegant than anything a designer would have come up with.

So really, as far as our computer simulations have ben able to show us, the process of evolution seems to trump design....every time.

Cheers,
Lane

RBH

See my sig:RBH

lifewish

You know, I think that's the most interesting (and amusing ) answer to that old philosophical question that I've ever seen. Kudos.

Malintent

"The 13th floor"

Good movie. As it turns out, not only did the simulation create the same simulation, but the main characters in the movie were in fact part of the identical simulation in a level yet above them. Implying that there was an infinite regression of simulations.

NWT

1) Proposition: Our Universe is Real – whether it was created by a supernatural being or a quantum fluctuation in a primordial cauldron of extreme energy or as the result of the collision of two branes.
2) Fact: Humans have developed computers that can simulate artificial ecosystems, evolution, neural networks, artificial life.
3) Fact: Humans have developed rudimentary quantum computers and in all probability will develop sophisticated quantum computational devices in the near future. (for those who believe evolution and/or intelligence involves quantum computation)
4) Fact: These improvements in computation have occurred at a Geometric Rate.
5) Fact: Human civilization has developed in a mere instant of time, compared to the age of the universe, and computer development has occurred in a small fraction of that instant.
6) Fact: Our knowledge of biological and information processing systems, gives no indication that we cannot expect to develop artificial intelligences similar to our own and artificial ecosystems of similar complexity to our own.
7) Supposition: Presumably these advanced developments will occur in a trivial length of time – say a matter of a few thousands of years.
8) Supposition: Presumably once machines capable of producing these artificial environments are built, everybody will want one, i.e. the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese would each try to make a better one.
9) Supposition: Presumably to make the development of the artificial ecosystems interesting, they would be run at a much higher speed than real time – i.e. a billion years of evolution in 1 month.
10) Supposition: Other alien or human civilizations on other of the likely trillions of worlds in the universe would do the same.
11) Conclusion: Artificial intelligent organisms equivalent to humans, living in complex artificial universes & ecosystems equivalent to our own, will outnumber real universes by a factor of 1000’s of trillions to one.
12) Conclusion: The original Proposition is highly improbable and therefore likely we have no idea what a real universe looks like.

Is their flaws in this logic?

Damo

the tail end of 3 could be phrased better... at first glance it seemed like you were saying our biological intelligence was based on quantum-level phenemnon (as far as I'm aware it's all molecular-level, specifically neurons), but as the general proposition that intelligent life that is technologically inclined... and doesn't wipe itself out via nuclear weapons or whatnot... will develop quantum computers... sure...

I will buy the proposition that the universe is probably filled with intelligent life that has in turn created many many more virtual universes within our own universe... in fact it could be an answer to Fermi's Paradox...

:Cheeky:

and if even a noticeable fraction of those virtual universes are designed to simmulate the real one, and we could not tell the difference between being part of that virtual universe and the real universe, then yes, by probabilistic argumentation, it is more likely than not that we are in a virtual universe

but... a) it's untestable, b) it still begs the question of why the top-level universe exists at all... it can be rejected therefore either as outside the scope of science or by Occam's Razor, we can say it is easier to assume we are in the real universe than that we are in a virtual universe with who knows how many layers of universes above us

I've seen this deferred to as the simmulation argument for Deism (e.g. here)

and as with Deism, I have to take an agnostic stance: it can't be tested scientifically, it's a metaphysical question whose answer has very little to no relevance on how I live my life... propose a meaningful way to test this hypothesis and I'm all for testing it, out of scientific curiousity if for nothing else... but as it stands now... if our cosmogenesis was from colliding branes, a quantum fluctuation or the booting up of a supercomputer simmulation... it really makes no real difference to me... especially if there is no way to escape from said computer simmulation...

another gripe is that it is very chauvinistic towards our own current technology level... kind of like Paley's watchmaker argument for God is now dated because we no longer thing of watches as the newest and greatest technology... this argument is going to be dated when computers are no longer the newest and greatest thing... my gut instinct is to question any purported 'meaning of life' type ideas that rely on analogies to whatever technology happens to be big in the culture at that particular moment

NWT

Roger Penrose is a strong proponent of Quantum Computation by microtubules that exist in each cell and Johnjoe McFadden is a strong proponent of Quantum Computation in Evolutionary Development as well as in Intelligence.

It is rather presumptuous to say that this theory is untestable - it may be possible - but I can't think of how at the moment (I also have no idea how to test string theory). I don't see that Occam's Razor applies in this case - it is certainly as simple an idea as the highly improbable & complicated (check out Brian Greene on this point) birth of our universe by current inflationary theory.

The logic of the theory is on the level of Fermi's Paradox (which as we have realized, it would solve) - a conjecture based on logic, reason and a fair number of well established facts. Compare this with the theory that God ( please define, before spouting that one off) created the universe - which has no logic, no basis in the evidence, exeedingly improbable simply on statistical arguments. I also contend that the logic of the artificial life theory, so far overwhelms the logic of the current Intelligent Design Theory, that it should replace the Intelligent Design Theory. Wouldn't it be cool to hijack the title and apply it to the Artificial Life Theory?

Well I certainly agree with that - We humans are driven by curiousity to understand our universe - and the scientific method is all about making models of reality that explain observations - it is only at the most fundamental level that this possible fact of artificial life would come into play - but it is certainly an area of great interest to many people. And in terms of dealing with the transient nature of our lives and the reality of our deaths, I think most people are interested in what that is all about. The huge attraction of religions, based on far more flimsy arguments, exemplifies that fact.