|
You can't simulate the universe! You will regret this!
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Conception begins the moment you click "start.exe". I don't think ethics will still be a problem by the time we are simulating universes (if and when, rather). I think a lot of ethics is just remnants of previous imprinting a person has experienced, though not always directly linked. There is no standard, universal, observed "book of ethics" because ethics don't really exist. I suppose there are some somewhat universal "aversion" mechanisms in us all (don't eat that rotting food because your nose detected a scent of something that it sent to your brain and your brain just knows it is bad, don't have tons of sex and babies with your early matrist/patrist influences, not because you know all the genetic problems caused with inbreeding, but you just inherently know that loving your mom will not be good for your species/will lead to problems because of a gently caress ton of complex environmental interactions the human race has had, evolutionarily speaking ) Ethics+ethics boards are more tools of control that are used to say "yes, we are holding something to a standard". What that standard is is entirely up to the people running that board. tl;dr: I don't think our own biological/mental hookups and inexplicable requirements we hold ourselves to will hold up long enough for the if/when moment of full universe simulation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Finally someone is putting those pesky ethics boards in their place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:There is no standard, universal, observed "book of ethics" because ethics don't really exist. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it "doesn't really exist".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 23:11
|
|
Earwicker posted:Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it "doesn't really exist". Not what I was saying, there's just no standard one that everyone can agree upon/hold up universally
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
The problem is that you want a "perfect" 1:1 simulation of the universe, or anything for that matter. A perfect simulation of something is just going to be that thing. A perfect simulation of a car would just be a car. Unless you mean something else by that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:Not what I was saying, there's just no standard one that everyone can agree upon/hold up universally Sure, and that's true of all kinds of things that exist. While there's no universally accepted set of ethical standards, that doesn't negate the possibility of ethics having an impact the potential for these simulations to exist. The ethical system in question wouldn't need to be agreed upon universally, it would only need to be agreed upon by the set of persons who have both the intent and capability to create a 1:1 simulation, which - if they ever exist - are likely to be a very small portion of "everyone".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Sure, and that's true of all kinds of things that exist. While there's no universally accepted set of ethical standards, that doesn't negate the possibility of ethics having an impact the potential for these simulations to exist. The ethical system in question wouldn't need to be agreed upon universally, it would only need to be agreed upon by the set of persons who have both the intent and capability to create a 1:1 simulation, which - if they ever exist - are likely to be a very small portion of "everyone". It's 0 people and will always be 0 people, so they trivially agree on every single possible set of ethical standards!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Same reason everyone wants to make an MMO but can't
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The way I feel about logical arguments like that (that have really outlandish conclusions) is that the proper response to them is "there is probably something wrong with this logic that I haven't figured out yet" rather than "the conclusion of this logic is correct." Well, It's been a thing since at least Descartes proclamation of "Cogito Ergo Sum". First Principles, I think, Therefore I must exist. Everything else might possibly be some sort of Matrix like experiment. All of my experiences might be the result of some evil scientist loving with my brain. Some of those other people might not be real people, and some of them might be other brains in jars stuck with me. It's impossible to tell the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
There would be all kinds of evidence if we were in a simulation... Horrific things would happen to random innocent people. (Have you ever seen a lets play of the sims where this did not happen?) There would be some overhead cutting like an arbitrary maximum speed for everything, a minimum distance and time unit (server ticks) Also unobserved stuff would not be rendered causing extreme wierdness when looking at things not normally looked at. All in all it would be pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Running a 1:1 simulation of the universe is a tremendous ethically quandary. You would be recreating a breathtakingly impossible-to-comprehend amount of unnecessary harm and suffering. Image today how many people suffer in food insecure poverty, and are ravaged by war and disease. How many throughout history and into the future? On other worlds? Think about how lovely yet real to experience it is for you (assuming you are in a simulation) then recreating that 1:1 would be a hard thing to swallow if you step back and consider those consequences. You would be bringing to life consciousness that will suffer and die in your simulation, and in horrifying ways. You would be absolutely remiss in undertaking such an experiment and an ethics review board should rightfully deny your attempt. Would you hold them morally culpable for suffering on Earth today? I wouldn't. Hell, if you gave me a button that starts a universe like ours, in good and bad, right now, I'd prolly press it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
The key difference here is creating a real universe or a simulated one. In a simulation you have total power over what can and will happen by adjusting the parameters, so creating a universe like this - even with lots of nice things - that is also jam packed with pure misery, is a kind of wilful cruelty. Obviously if you're mimicking your own universe in your simulation and you want it as "realistic" as possible, you'd want suffering to be part of it. But isn't it hosed up to literally create suffering just so your simulation is more accurate, and purely for your own benefit/amusement? A godlike being setting off the Big Bang with a button is a different scenario, and obviously not accountable for what random sentient lifeforms that crop up billions of years later get up to. A less obvious moral question is whether it's hosed up to create people who think they are real but aren't, and can be terminated at a moment's notice. Would it be morally wrong to create a robot that believes it is human and lives among humans, but isn't? Even if to all extents and purposes it looks and acts like a real person? Does their being a fake, or the fact they could discover the deception, have any moral relevance at all? What if it was being studied 24/7 by a megacorp in a Truman Show like deal? Some people think yes, some people think no. Mostly it hinges on a kind of projected assumption on what that robot would want - would, if it were given the choice, rather know that it was real or not? If it would, then it's kinda hosed up. If not, then maybe it's OK? And even then maybe not. A similar variety of argument crops up when discussing why murder is wrong. If you killed somebody instantly, painlessly, and nobody knew they existed so couldn't get sad about it - what's even wrong about that? They cease to exist, but that doesn't seem like a moral wrong in itself. "More people alive" is hardly a moral good. So you have to fall back on deontological arguments about the inherent wrongness of murder, or apply the flimsy logic that they didn't want to die, probably, if you could chat to their ghost or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
Subhu Man posted:There would be all kinds of evidence if we were in a simulation... I typed up a serious post, but then the laugh hit me, well played
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Jeza posted:But isn't it hosed up to literally create suffering just so your simulation is more accurate, and purely for your own benefit/amusement? probably, but if you are a being who is powerful enough to create universes, who's going to judge you for it? the little beings you created? you've already programmed them to find ways of feeling guilty about their suffering even when it's not their own fault. either they suffer because they did something bad, or they must have secretly thought about doing something bad, or they're too attached to their material desires - which after all, are just part of a simulation. so really, they have only themselves to blame. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:probably, but if you are a being who is powerful enough to create universes, who's going to judge you for it? the little beings you created? you've already programmed them to find ways of feeling guilty about their suffering even when it's not their own fault. either they suffer because they did something bad, or they must have secretly thought about doing something bad, or they're too attached to their material desires - which after all, are just part of a simulation. so really, they have only themselves to blame. It depends whether you believe ethics is an entirely artificial construct, an imposed structure/guideline from some deity, or even an objective thing that exists in the universe, like its physical laws, that can be uncovered and understood. You don't really need to be judged by an outside observer in order for morality to have a binding effect on your actions. Do we believe a hyper advanced civilisation would be more or less ethical than we are? Would they still apply ethical thought to their actions at all, or would their code of ethics be entirely unrecognisable to us? It's an interesting thing to think about but there's not much we can assume about it. I think as an argument against simulations, "but it's morally wrong" is too weak by far. I set much more store in questioning what possible use they could have to a being able to recreate universes at will, and other more pragmatic concerns. Also as a side point I don't think people existing in a totally prepared simulation can really be blamed for suffering they bring upon themselves. After all, their actions and feelings could not have been otherwise. Without meaningful free will or choice it's all just linear cause and effect. If I was a god and created a person with sledgehammers for arms on a porcelain planet filled with porcelain people, who unfortunately has terrible hand-eye co-ordination and a very sensitive heart, if she causes a tonne of suffering wherever she goes, she can't really be blamed. It couldn't really be otherwise because I made her that way. Because I'm a horrible god.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Also as a side point I don't think people existing in a totally prepared simulation can really be blamed for suffering they bring upon themselves. After all, their actions and feelings could not have been otherwise. Without meaningful free will or choice it's all just linear cause and effect. If you simply make them believe they have free will then they will most likely blame themselves (or one another) for their own suffering. Even if that free will is complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
I think having to "program" people will be unnecessary. If you create the beginning of the universe 1:1, and also determinism is real, then people will emerge naturally, assuming the rules for the universe itself are accurate (and also primordial ooze was real and that's where we came from)
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
How does it make sense to even think we live in a simulation? Do you think any time you simulate a pendulum swinging back and forth that there's actually a pendulum somewhere oscillating? Simulations perform mathematical operations that predict the outcome of an action to within some precision. Simulations do not construct anything other than binary representations of the world. It seems much more plausible to me to conjecture something Matrix-like, where you're being fed stimuli (like a video game). A simulation seems much more deterministic and autonomous to me, but perhaps this is just different interpretation of what simulation means. Unless when people say simulation they really do mean that we exist in some higher plane and we're just experiencing stimuli, it seems absurd to me to even consider that we exist solely "inside a simulation."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
man in the eyeball hat posted:How does it make sense to even think we live in a simulation? Do you think any time you simulate a pendulum swinging back and forth that there's actually a pendulum somewhere oscillating? Simulations perform mathematical operations that predict the outcome of an action to within some precision. Simulations do not construct anything other than binary representations of the world. You don't need a physical pendulum spinning no. But if you want a perfect(/full) simulation, you need at least an identical number of particles out there in the real existence to have some information-state that codes for the pendulum. We don't need this in any of our simulations (be they scientific or video games) because ours are dirt simple by comparison and all the computer power in the world combined would probably not be enough to real-simulate a melting ice cube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
I get the argument for needing so many particles. Is the concept of universe simulation then that we exist in a scale model of the physical universe as opposed to a computer simulation? I'm saying that in the latter case, computer simulation, there's nothing that experiences the simulation, and so the entire concept of us having any experiences goes against the idea of a computer just crunching numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
man in the eyeball hat posted:I get the argument for needing so many particles. Is the concept of universe simulation then that we exist in a scale model of the physical universe as opposed to a computer simulation? I'm saying that in the latter case, computer simulation, there's nothing that experiences the simulation, and so the entire concept of us having any experiences goes against the idea of a computer just crunching numbers. I mean I could just be wrong here, and maybe I don't fully understand your point, but how can you fully simulate consciousness without creating consciousness?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
This gets into a slightly different argument about "What is consciousness?" but, if we accept that the universe is deterministic (i.e. free will doesn't exist and we are purely the result of a highly intricate chemical reaction, not deterministic in the "HUP is actually false" sense) then we would simulate everything from first principles and "consciousness" or "intelligent behavior" would be an emergent property. You simulate consciousness the same way you simulate everything else: by building a model and simulating the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:11 |
|
man in the eyeball hat posted:You simulate consciousness the same way you simulate everything else: by building a model and simulating the drat thing. This, intangible ideas such as "consciousness" emerge naturally from tangible things. The same way that touchdowns/football/sports in general will emerge, but not be tangible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 22:57
|
|