Will the PP protect us from Ray Kurzweil?

[Lone Wolf]

To extend upon the "Rapture for Nerds" idea, much of this Singularity talk sounds like the same sort of folklore and mythology that you find in all cultures.  We don't see it as mythology because it is perfectly aligned with our values and expectations of life (or at least the values and expectations of those who share Kurzweil's vision), but the woman above might just laugh when we explained to her what we were talking about before informing us that we were deeply mistaken.  She might then begin explaining to us how her tribe's deity actually does do some of the same stuff that Kurzweil is talking about.

I completely agree.  (And I say this as someone who does believe that machine intelligence will reach a point of self-perpetuation!)

Witness, too, the ritualistic nature of Kurzweil's daily vitamin regimen (which is down to "only" 150 supplements per day.)  As a big "hedger of bets" by nature, I don't fault him for a moment.  This is just where a very smart man's search for meaning led him.

The thing that's interesting about the Singularity is that it would (by definition) answer questions that currently puzzle us.  Until we know the answers to these questions, we don't even know what it will look like.  There's the horrifying possibility that these supra-intelligent mammoth computers will simply spit out: "Error.  Problem still too hard.  Beep."  You have to reach the Singularity in order to know for sure how viable ideas like mind uploading will be.  (How complex is the human brain's behavior really?)

On the other side of things, we have real contention for real resources today and many hills to climb before we reach the promised land of virtual eternities playing simulated reality games with long-lost loved ones.  Fortunately, we're smart, flexible, and damn resilient.  It's hardly a lock for Malthus either.

Either way, the future is going to be fascinating.  My prediction: singularity, yes... but, sadly, experienced by somebody else!

[MediumTex]

My prediction: singularity, yes... but, sadly, experienced by somebody else!

I'm going to go with the following: singularity, yes...but lasting only a few seconds before circuit breaker is thrown, and while humanity is looking around for a 1.21 gigawatt circuit breaker we forget how to properly install it in the Singularity machines.

Singularity says "doh!"

[l82start]

And also I recently learned that someone studying quantum physics came up with a very convincing theory that the universe is a computer simulation. If that is true then there is always the possibility the programmer will get bored and turn off the machine.

Personally, I find the simulation hypothesis very interesting.  The basic premise is that any sufficiently advanced society would be interested in running simulations, or "playing God," as it were.  Thus, the likelihood that we are all living inside a simulation is much greater than we think.  It is exponentially more likely that we are living in a simulation, rather than in the real parent universe of such simulations.  When you think about it more, it is even possible that we are living in a simulation of a simulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

[Gosso]

My prediction: singularity, yes... but, sadly, experienced by somebody else!

I'm going to go with the following: singularity, yes...but lasting only a few seconds before circuit breaker is thrown, and while humanity is looking around for a 1.21 gigawatt circuit breaker we forget how to properly install it in the Singularity machines.

Singularity says "doh!"

Uh oh, you shouldn't have said that...

[MediumTex]

I will either be that or a god-like artificial intelligence that lives on eternally in an underground array of supercomputers powered by the heat from the earth's core.  (Or perhaps a PlayStation 2 plugged into a hamster wheel if money's tight.)

Or you might be like Captain Pike, desperately hoping for a ride back to Talos IV:

[Storm]

It almost seems to me that our knowledge of the possibility that we are involved in a simulation means that we probably aren't.

In the end, I think you're right.  The simulation argument can be discredited by Occam's Razor - the most likely hypothesis is probably true.  We are probably just sacks of meat that will one day cease to exist...

[lazyboy]

Quote from: MediumTex on Today at 11:07:18 AM
I was walking from the bathroom into the bedroom last night and I thought to myself "What will I be after I die?"

My head is always full of this sort of stuff, so it wasn't all that unusual.  What was unusual was that the thought above was followed by this thought: "The same thing you were before you were born."

Aha!

Also, I think, the same as what you truly are here and now!

[MachineGhost]

There was a time in my life when I believed that "C.H.I.P.S.", "The Dukes of Hazzard" and "The A Team" were really outstanding TV programming.  When I look at these shows now I see a lot of things that I missed the first time around.

"Leverage" on TNT is a pretty good thinking man's replacement for "The A Team".  But come on, all the gratuitious violence, humor and morality was fun!  They just don't make shows or movies like that anymore.  Everything is so bloody serious now.

Could you really have appreciated "Knight Rider" as a kid as you could now?  Perspective is relative.

MG

[MachineGhost]

It almost seems to me that our knowledge of the possibility that we are involved in a simulation means that we probably aren't.

Reductio ad absurdum.

MG

[Tortoise]

It almost seems to me that our knowledge of the possibility that we are involved in a simulation means that we probably aren't.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Another possibility is that the simulator is not separate from the simulation, but is actually a part of it.

That, for example, is the gist of famous physicist John Archibald Wheeler's "participatory universe" theory, in which observation contributes to the creation of that which is observed.

[FarmerD]

It almost seems to me that our knowledge of the possibility that we are involved in a simulation means that we probably aren't.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Another possibility is that the simulator is not separate from the simulation, but is actually a part of it.

That, for example, is the gist of famous physicist John Archibald Wheeler's "participatory universe" theory, in which observation contributes to the creation of that which is observed.

Very deep thoughts. Here's another way of restating what you just posted: What we do right now influences the future.  For example if I am throwing a ball at a wall, we know that in the future the ball will hit the wall.  What's weird is that some quantum physicists will tell you what we do now not only influences the future but the past as well.  The only thing that really exists is the present; the past never really existed.  The past is exists only as a present memory.

[Gosso]

It almost seems to me that our knowledge of the possibility that we are involved in a simulation means that we probably aren't.

In the end, I think you're right.  The simulation argument can be discredited by Occam's Razor - the most likely hypothesis is probably true.  We are probably just sacks of meat that will one day cease to exist...

I'm not sure Occam's Razor can be applied in this situation.  Doesn't Occam's Razor assume that we know all the variables of the event or experiment?  I cannot help but think back to 500 years ago, where Occam's Razor would have been used to prove that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and that the cosmos revolved around the Earth.  But then Galileo added new information to the equation, rendering the old hypothesis incorrect.  It seems to me that Occam's Razor is continually being disproved as human knowledge increases.

[MediumTex]

For example if I am throwing a ball at a wall, we know that in the future the ball will hit the wall.  What's weird is that some quantum physicists will tell you what we do now not only influences the future but the past as well.  The only thing that really exists is the present; the past never really existed.  The past is exists only as a present memory.

The way we think of the past is a bit like the way the media presents what is going on in the present.  It's sort of in the ballpark of what might have actually happened, but it's far more filtered than we often appreciate.

The past does many things--it provides a narrative for the present, it provides context, it provides the feedstock for folklore and mythology, and it provides us with a sense of security.  The problem is that when we think of the past what we are often remembering is simply the way we recall feeling at a given point in time, as opposed to some kind of objective recollection of specific events.

[Tortoise]

Another possibility is that the simulator is not separate from the simulation, but is actually a part of it.

That, for example, is the gist of famous physicist John Archibald Wheeler's "participatory universe" theory, in which observation contributes to the creation of that which is observed.

Very deep thoughts. Here's another way of restating what you just posted: What we do right now influences the future.  For example if I am throwing a ball at a wall, we know that in the future the ball will hit the wall.  What's weird is that some quantum physicists will tell you what we do now not only influences the future but the past as well.  The only thing that really exists is the present; the past never really existed.  The past is exists only as a present memory.

What you're saying about quantum physics is actually a big part of Wheeler's "participatory universe." The theory that observation contributes to the creation of that which is observed means observation in the present can influence the past.

As an extreme example, when we use a telescope to look at distant galaxies, we are effectively observing them as they were billions of years ago--when the light entering our telescope first left those distant galaxies. If Wheeler's theory is true, it means that our observation of that galaxy actually contributes (perhaps in a very small way) to its actual creation in the first place.

An even simpler example: If my observations contribute to the creation of the things I'm observing, then the fact that I'm observing myself and this room right now would mean that I'm influencing the moments in the past that determined this planet's formation, my own conception and birth, etc.

These sorts of theories are way over my head, but they're fascinating to consider.

[MachineGhost]

An even simpler example: If my observations contribute to the creation of the things I'm observing, then the fact that I'm observing myself and this room right now would mean that I'm influencing the moments in the past that determined this planet's formation, my own conception and birth, etc.

These sorts of theories are way over my head, but they're fascinating to consider.

If time does not literally exist and the past, present and future all occur simultaneously, then the multi-verse is full of endless actions taken and not taken in infinite realities.  However, what never changes is the point of power is in the present, at least as far as the "you" is concerned.  The other "you's" would feel the same way also.  They may all be connected together at some ultimate higher level, but it is not at a "practically perceived" conscious level.

I disagree with Kurzweil's downloading of oneself into a machine (or reviving his father's corpse).  "You", the sentient conscious self-aware volitional entity, is/in the meatbag.  The machine would merely be an external AI construct holding memories.  Kurzweil is an athiest, so he is not talking about soul transferring machines, etc.. as they don't believe souls exists or animates matter.  But while I'm on this subject, I see no reason in the far, far future reincarnation/birth into non-organic hardware couldn't be theoretically possible, giving rise to conscious machines (presupposing that the sentience of AI doesn't ever become conscious).

MG