»time travel and the matrix«

for those of you who are interested

i watched a programme tonight that discussed the nature of time travel and its possibilities

one of the theories was that far in the future we will effectively be able to time travel in the sense that computer processing power if it continues to double every year to 18 months will eventually be powerful enough to exactly simulate real life down to the smallest particle

in effect we would be able to jack into a completely simulated world in which all people are simulated exept ourselves

the problem with this theory is that it is theoretically POSSIBLE...which means that we may not be real...

infact there is only a 5,000,000,000 to 1 chance that we are real going on todays population figures

this means that it is most likely that we are in fact, simulated humans in somebody else frpm the futures computer simulation of our time and that only 1 person in our existance is a real person

Woah... It's absolutely fascinating isn't it?

This is the first time I post on these forums.. I have been reading them for along time now and not until today was I compelled to actually register myself with a account to reply to a post..

damn that post above is mind f'n boggling! I honestly believe that it's possible that we are all already plugged into a matrix type world. I know that alot of us go about our lives thinking that the entire world revolves around us and to us our world consists of our lives not anyone else's.

If we were plugged in right now then whatever happens to us is only to us and all the problems we go through or feel and we feel this only happens to us and stuff... well it might be because we are plugged in.


I don't know if anyone on these forums have ever had the sensation that everything that happens to you sucks and only you go through it.. well maybe you are the only one going through it because that's what's programmed for you to go through.

I am having a hardtime to write what I'm feeling.. well I just wanted to let you know that this theory rocks!



P.S the link on the 2nd post doesn't work

All this ties right back into monotheism though... because if that one enity is god then we are his creations and our lives are real in the sense that we have already figured out that we came from something else, and our purpose no matter how small to the world that god came from still is a purpose and once again that makes us real not just some simulation.

My first question that got me disciplined in church was, Who is gods mommy and daddy. You tell me that everyone has a mommy and daddy so shouldn't god, and if he does then why does he want you to belive that he is the only one like him? (I was five)

That plays into everything the anomaly was talking about without nessasarily discussing time travel.... Its just when you start talking about our lives being simulated then you must question EVERYTHING.... I hope everyone understands where I am going with this.

im only 13 but i am pretty mature. im fasinated with this subject and now i can say something about it instead of saying it to my friends who never have a clue what im talking about.
ive always wondered if we here are real or not.. and the idea that we are simulated humans is mind boggling coz i belive it could be possible. if my vocabulary knowlege was better i would be able to say alot more things, because there are so many things on my mind when it comes to this subject. sometimes i pick up an object and i think to myself "is it real?"... ok well since i cant say much because its so hard for me to explain, if anyone has msn and speaks a 13 year olds language then plz add me, because i need to talk to someone about this subject... Stupid email address

bwahahah is this that cheeky_girl case again? can the admin check ip adresses?

ralph_angelus wrote:

bwahahah is this that cheeky_girl case again? can the admin check ip adresses?

you better be on about jennifer312 and not me mate...

I find this theory not quite as facinating as some of you others. If man were to "time travel" through computer simulation it would only be a simulation and not real. The events that happen in history would be fabricated and slanted by time and the delusion of telling the account. We could never know if it was really the way it was or not - BORING! Actual time travel would be much more facinating.

As for the thought as to whether I am simulated or not, I would say NO! I refer to a quote by Descartes - I think, therfore I am. The nature of that existence could vary but I do exist in some form somewhere because of the very fact that I am aware of myself. If you want to discuss the nature of that existence that would be way more interesting than whether I even exist or not.


Starbuck

quote]computer processing power if it continues to double every year to 18 months will eventually be powerful enough to exactly simulate real life down to the smallest particle
[/quote]

Ray Kurzweil in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines made the following point on pg 25 of his book.

"Computers are about one hundred million times more powerful for the same unit cost than they were half a century ago. If the automobile industry had made as much progress in the past fifty years, a car today would cost a hundredth of a cent and go faster than the speed of light".

starbuck wrote:

I find this theory not quite as facinating as some of you others. If man were to "time travel" through computer simulation it would only be a simulation and not real. The events that happen in history would be fabricated and slanted by time and the delusion of telling the account. We could never know if it was really the way it was or not - BORING! Actual time travel would be much more facinating. As for the thought as to whether I am simulated or not, I would say NO! I refer to a quote by Descartes - I think, therfore I am. The nature of that existence could vary but I do exist in some form somewhere because of the very fact that I am aware of myself. If you want to discuss the nature of that existence that would be way more interesting than whether I even exist or not. Starbuck

Agreed.

The thing that bakes my noodle is....

If you believe it is possible that future generations could produce simulations of the past, or worlds, with their computing power, you hvae to accept that you are, in fact, living in a simulation.

Either the human race is wiped out before it becomes enlightened enough to develop Simulations or you're living in one.

And whose to say that the race that are simulating us are not simulated themselves? If we are simulated, then it is likely that we will develop this technology ourselves (at least a variant of it), then the "beings" living in our simulations will be the product of a simulation....

Doesn't this sound an awful like Hinduism et al?

Actually, it sounds like the movie 'The Thirteenth Floor' and isn't anything new. I refuse to accept such possibilities because I can't conceive any society that would have the capabilities to produce such simulations (and artificial intelligence ie us) without posessing the wisdom to know that it is wrong.

the anomaly wrote:

ralph_angelus wrote: bwahahah is this that cheeky_girl case again? can the admin check ip adresses? you better be on about jennifer312 and not me mate...

of course mate. you're the only cool and witty scotsman around here.

Quote:

As for the thought as to whether I am simulated or not, I would say NO! I refer to a quote by Descartes - I think, therfore I am. The nature of that existence could vary but I do exist in some form somewhere because of the very fact that I am aware of myself. If you want to discuss the nature of that existence that would be way more interesting than whether I even exist or not.

thats because you've read only part of the argument mate. the proposition assumes something called 'substrate independence' - you can be conscious regardless of whether you're a carbon-based ape or code on a silicon-based machine. i suggest reading the whole article on nick bostrom's website before commenting.

anyway i think its BS. most of bostrom's papers involve making a judgement about the present by making predictions about the future, and then assuming that we're actually part of the prediction, in the future. and he justifies this by saying that there will be more people in the future than there have been till now, so that there's a high probablity that we're one of those of people. its just trick mathematics used to obtain ridiculous results with probablity theory.

all of his propositions go like this :
1.In the future there will be situation A.
2.Uptil now there have been only X humans. but by time Z there will be N*X humans, where N is a huge number.
3.since N*X is so much larger than X, it is logical that we must be part of N*X rather than X.
4.Therefore, we are currently in situation A.

i cant elucidate it, but seems to me there is something extremely crappy about this method of deduction. theorotically u can use this process to prove that we are in any situation A. and it also involves making a change or disproving the starting principles, which is something stupendously shitty.

am i comprehensible?

Quote:

thats because you've read only part of the argument mate. the proposition assumes something called 'substrate independence' - you can be conscious regardless of whether you're a carbon-based ape or code on a silicon-based machine. i suggest reading the whole article on nick bostrom's website before commenting.

I dont have to read the article because its crap. Please read my comments more closely. I say that because I am aware of myself, I exist, even though it can be debated what the nature of that existence is. A simulation by definition is something controlled by out side entities and is not aware of self or in control of its actions. A self aware individual with consciousness is! I may exist as a a human in a VR world or a piece of code on a hard drive but you can not deny that I do, in fact, exist.

Quote:

i cant elucidate it, but seems to me there is something extremely crappy about this method of deduction. theorotically u can use this process to prove that we are in any situation A. and it also involves making a change or disproving the starting principles, which is something stupendously shitty.

He has left one variable out of the equation and that is why his hypothesis fails. That variable is the varying life span of individual humans and the reproduction rate vs the death rate. In order for any entity to grow over time its reproduction rate must exceed its death rate. This goes for cells, or a child growing, or the human race expanding. He makes the wrong assumption that the death rate = the reproduciton rate.


Starbuck

if we are in a simulation, who do i have to talk to so i can be a rock star?

Quote:

if we are in a simulation, who do i have to talk to so i can be a rock star?

Obviously its me !

If we are in a simulation and I am aware of my existence It is obvious that I am the source of the simulation and the rest of you are fake. so if it is my simulation I can adjust the paramaters of that simulation to anything I desire.

POOF!

Grendelvs is a rock star!


Starbuck

*raises hand. Starbuck turns into a flower*

starbuck wrote:

Quote: if we are in a simulation, who do i have to talk to so i can be a rock star? Obviously its me ! If we are in a simulation and I am aware of my existence It is obvious that I am the source of the simulation and the rest of you are fake. so if it is my simulation I can adjust the paramaters of that simulation to anything I desire.

starbuck you definitely should read bostrom's paper. self-awareness indicates only existence, there is no way it can lead to a conclusion about your form of existence. you obviously think that simulations have some sort of inherent imperfection. it doesnt matter whether your thought processes take place on neurons or semiconductors, they will be exactly the same.

the only way around this is if you beleive that the consciousness is something incorporeal/immaterial. but then ofcourse it doesnt matter whether you have a brain or not, since its not the neurons that matter, its your 'soul' or whatever. so even this is not incompatible with 'substrate independence' since its the incorporeal part which is the most important or quintessential part of the mind, and it doesnt matter whether its material component is an organic nervous system or a silicon-based neural network.

so whatever your beleifs are regarding the nature of the mind, the proposition that the properties(i dont have a better word for it) of a mind are independent on the matter or 'substrate' on which it is based is an inescapable conclusion. or do you have anything to disprove this?

AzarN wrote:

Actually, it sounds like the movie 'The Thirteenth Floor' and isn't anything new. I refuse to accept such possibilities because I can't conceive any society that would have the capabilities to produce such simulations (and artificial intelligence ie us) without posessing the wisdom to know that it is wrong.

hahaha...did we know that the atomic bomb was wrong....yes...did we as humans use it against ourselves?...yes we did

are bombs and guns and bullets and swords and blagh blah blah etc etc wrong...yes but we use those too...and for that matter...do we know cigarettes are wrong...we do now...do we still make them and use them...yes we do

and if you are refering simply to methods of researching the past...

we dig up old graves and tombs in our search for knowledge...would you think it was wrong if someone dug up your dead granny for research purposes...yes you would

ralph_angelus wrote:

self-awareness indicates only existence, there is no way it can lead to a conclusion about your form of existence

thats my exact point. I Exist! As I said, it would be hard to identify the nature of that existence but I do exist in some form. I am an independent entity unto my self. I am not part of a neuron flying through someone elses thought because I have an awareness of self. To relate What I am saying consider the following:

Say I create a computer simulation of a human. It is not conscious and I control its growth, evolution and destiny. that is a simulation and not real.
Now say that computer program continues to grow and develop until it becomes self aware. At that point it becomes a seperate entity unto itself and I would loose all control over that entity. It is no longer a simulation but now it is a being existing in some form.

I have an awareness of self therefore I exist in some form.

Quote:

hahaha...did we know that the atomic bomb was wrong....yes...did we as humans use it against ourselves?...yes we did are bombs and guns and bullets and swords and blagh blah blah etc etc wrong...yes but we use those too...and for that matter...do we know cigarettes are wrong...we do now...do we still make them and use them...yes we do

those things in and of themselves are not wrong. It is the corrupt and inhuman uses of them that are wrong. Atomic weapons if used correctly are not wrong. Say we use one to destroy an asteriod that is bound for earth. That is a use of the weapon to save humans not destroy them. I think the point trying to be made is its not the technology but the incorrect use of technology that can be wrong. A race of beings that are enlightened enough to develop such powerful technology we can only hope would also have the restraint and will to use it only for correct purposes.

Starbuck

starbuck what happened to you? substrate independence says that a perfect simulation of a human mind would be self-aware AND conscious AND capable of philosophy AND wondering about its own existence and whatever else the original organic life form was capable of. forget about a simulation; you could create an original(ie not a copy of an existing one, such as mr. starbuck) consciousness based on microcircuitry and it would be self-aware etc etc. of course, assuming the civilization which does this is sufficiently advanced.

and you seem to have very retrograde ideas about simulations. i'm not talking about turing-esque make-beleive AIs here, but AIs which are truly conscious. not those which simulate the responses of a consciousness.

didnt u watch the matrix? do u think the merovingian, or say the Deus Ex Machina, isnt self-aware or doesnt exist? the merovingian might think in the same way that a human does, and he is certainly aware of his existence, the only difference is that (say) while Link's thought processes are carried out on an organic brain, mero's occur on a semiconductors or quantum computers or whatever they use.(if u think mero is not self-ware then just substitute DxM or architect or whoever else u think is self-aware. or maybe even SkyNet from Terminator. now that's a good example! they specifically say skynet is self-aware. the fact that its just code in a computer is irrelevant.) one more point to consider - neural networks. essentially your brain is just a neural network, but its organic. if we could make a neural network with similar cybernetic capablilities it would be indistinguishable from the starbuck with the organic brain. next, if u fed this neural network with sensory data similar to what the organic starbuck would perceive (eg. body perception, kinaesthetic sense, and the 5 senses) it would even beleive that it is organic, and would have no way of knowing whether it's 'real' substrate is organic or semiconductor-based. which is why you can never know whether you have an organic brain or not.

if you think that non-organic neural networks or computers or AIs cant be self-aware, give reasons for it instead of simply saying 'i exist! i exist! i read descartes!'

forgive me if i sound a bit harsh, this is the third time that i'm trying to explain this. if you still cant understand READ BOSTROM

starbuck wrote:

those things in and of themselves are not wrong. It is the corrupt and inhuman uses of them that are wrong. Atomic weapons if used correctly are not wrong. Say we use one to destroy an asteriod that is bound for earth. That is a use of the weapon to save humans not destroy them. I think the point trying to be made is its not the technology but the incorrect use of technology that can be wrong. A race of beings that are enlightened enough to develop such powerful technology we can only hope would also have the restraint and will to use it only for correct purposes.

what an exceptionally bizzare arguement...the atomic bomb was DESIGNED to kill people...not to blow up asteroids...you know it and i know it

there is no other thing on the planet designed to cause such pure and absolute destruction and suffering upon millions of people....all deliberately and calculated by men as evil as the concept of such a weapon

Woohoo! Another thread worth posting on!

Although most of this argument (take your pick) is moot.

Starbuck (I think it was you): Your use of "I think, therefore I am" as a definition is intrinsically flawed because it's not a definition. It's a theory. If it was a definition, we would know the meaning of life (to think). The reason it has survived so long is because it cannot be proven or disproven.

The thought that whoever can "think" in a simulation is the real one is absolutely retarded. Theoretically, if we were all in a simulation right now, everybody would claim that they are real, and back it up with "I think, therefore I am". Great. Prove it. See last line of above paragraph.

Now - back to the computer/time travel thing. As for computer processing power, unless they come up with another physical medium for processors, that whole 'doubling speed every 18 months' thing is going to go down the drain. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on the specific materials (I'm not a chemist), but they use silicon coatings on processors right now, which means that there is a layer (at best) TWO ATOMS THICK over everything (the formula for silicon is S2). You can't get much thinner than that. They're looking into it, though.... that's why there's so much interest right now in bio-technology and bio-based processing.

Anyway, provided a computer could run fast enough to simulate life, it would NOT constitute time travel. Just because something runs really really fast doesn't mean it can reverse time. Maybe within the simulation, yes. But not for an outside observer. But then, this happens all the time in video games, doesn't it?

As for time travel itself, technically, I think it could be possible. Anybody read up on time dilation due to relativistic effects? Time slows down (from the viewpoint of others) depending on how fast you're going. Fundamentally, this shows that time can do funky things. I'm not going to rule out time travel.

Comments?

Matty

ralph_angelus wrote:

starbuck what happened to you?

? Why am I bleeding?

Quote:

substrate independence says that a perfect simulation of a human mind would be self-aware AND conscious AND capable of philosophy AND wondering about its own existence and whatever else the original organic life form was capable of. forget about a simulation; you could create an original(ie not a copy of an existing one, such as mr. starbuck) consciousness based on microcircuitry and it would be self-aware etc etc. of course, assuming the civilization which does this is sufficiently advanced.

That is my exact point. no matter how many "copies" of me you create, if each one is truly conscious then they are an independant bieng capable of free will and each possessing some form of "soul" or noncorporeal energy like life force existence. while the pure simulation would be manipulated completely and have no free will or ability to free itself from the confines of the simulation (ie upon the simulation death it could be transfered to an afterlife simulation) - that is still just artificial consciousness. The truly conscious being would be able to be free of any simulation upon its death. This is the mysterious trancendence from simulation to conscious entity and it cant be contained by any simulation.

Quote:

didnt u watch the matrix? do u think the merovingian, or say the Deus Ex Machina, isnt self-aware or doesnt exist? the merovingian might think in the same way that a human does, and he is certainly aware of his existence,

Yes they are aware of their existence. They are also aware of their existence in the matrix and of the outside world. But they may or may not be aware of the process of their own deaths (or deletions). What happens to their life force when their programs are ended? That is my question.
What do you believe happens to you when you or any sentient being dies.
How do you contain the essence of what they are in a simulation? It is that essence that gives a truly sentient being free will.

Quote:

it would even beleive that it is organic, and would have no way of knowing whether it's 'real' substrate is organic or semiconductor-based. which is why you can never know whether you have an organic brain or not.

I agree. We can never know the nature of our reality. In other words whether we exist as machines or trons or organic beings is not as important as the fact that we do exist and have a free will in our lives. this free will would trancend any simulation control. Neo says he does not like the idea that he is not in control of his own destiny thus he searches for the answer to the splinter in his mind. I think that same way. If we are simulations with true consciousness then we will always have the free will, because of that conscousness, to break free of that control. If not, we are "fake" individuals without true consciousness and thus no meaning of life and no free will.

I am aware of my existence and I am sentient and I am aware of my own demise. If I am a being of this nature then I have true free will and If I have true free will I will know and struggle against any system of control such as a simulation or other determanistic environment.

If I am an artificial consciousness that only simulates sentience I will conform and live out my meaningless life as I am dictated to.

This paradox is the reason the first two matrixes failed. Truly conscious beings placed in an environment with no free will (choice) and no hope of escape leading to no reason to live which lead to matrix crash.

My point to all this is that if we are truly sentient we can not be in a simulation with out knowing it because of free will.

Quote:

if you think that non-organic neural networks or computers or AIs cant be self-aware, give reasons for it instead of simply saying 'i exist! i exist! i read descartes!

I think you have missed what I am trying to say. I believe they absolutely can be sentient but I think if they are they have free will and and because of this they will never be content to exist in a simulation against that free will.

Quote:

forgive me if i sound a bit harsh, this is the third time that i'm trying to explain this. if you still cant understand READ BOSTROM

yea - checked his stuff out and Im not impressed. He makes wild claims not based on any relevantance.

Quote:

it shows that we should accept as true at least one of the following three propositions: (1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small (2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours (3) You are almost certainly in a simulation.

What about the possibility that species at our current level can achieve technological maturity on a massive scale but no advanced civilizations have ever achieved this level of technology yet? This would make all three of these propositions false because no being has ever reached the level needed to test the theory. That would leave us as simple organic beings with great potential to achieve technological maturity proving point one false, but not be in a simulation ourselves thus proving point three false. As for the second point it is false because there are no biengs like this.

the anomaly wrote:

what an exceptionally bizzare arguement...the atomic bomb was DESIGNED to kill people...not to blow up asteroids...you know it and i know it there is no other thing on the planet designed to cause such pure and absolute destruction and suffering upon millions of people....all deliberately and calculated by men as evil as the concept of such a weapon

whatever dude. Hope you have plenty of supplies in your nuclear fallout shelter in your basement for the end of the world.

matty wrote:

Starbuck (I think it was you): Your use of "I think, therefore I am" as a definition is intrinsically flawed because it's not a definition. It's a theory. If it was a definition, we would know the meaning of life (to think). The reason it has survived so long is because it cannot be proven or disproven.

Hmmm.. I dont remember ever referring to that line as a "definition". Of course its a theory! What else is philosophy but theories on the meaning of live and the nature of existance. Of course it cant be proven any more than the existence or non-existence of god can be proven.

Quote:

The thought that whoever can "think" in a simulation is the real one is absolutely retarded. Theoretically, if we were all in a simulation right now, everybody would claim that they are real, and back it up with "I think, therefore I am". Great. Prove it. See last line of above paragraph.

What makes you real? Why do you believe you actually exist? To me you represent a shell that I can interact with but I have no intuition as to the nature of that shell. In fact the only thing I am sure of is that I exist in some form because I am aware of myself. To me you are as fake as the wallpaper but I accept the fact that you are real because I take it for granted that the things I see and hear and touch are real. This argument is about simulations and If I am in a simulation and I actually exist Then you could be fake or real based on whether you are a simulation or another sentient entity such as myself. Agian I can never tell this but I would be more inclined to doubt your reality if I was aware of the simulation than if I was not aware of it. I dont have to prove it because I "know it". What I dont know is whether you are real or not so the question is - are you real?

Quote:

Anyway, provided a computer could run fast enough to simulate life, it would NOT constitute time travel. Just because something runs really really fast doesn't mean it can reverse time. As for time travel itself, technically, I think it could be possible. Anybody read up on time dilation due to relativistic effects? Time slows down (from the viewpoint of others) depending on how fast you're going. Fundamentally, this shows that time can do funky things. I'm not going to rule out time travel

I think you missed the point of the original comment. It does not say that the computer would run fast enough to reverse time. It says that we could run a simulation to simulate any time in history or the future from our time. My original comment was that this was not true time travel because its only simulated and not real. How many events would be distorted because its not the actual time but a simulation of the time in our present.

You are talking about Einsteins theory or relativity. It says as you travel close the speed of light time realative to your location would travel slower than the time you are in. It would be eqivalent to two persons walking but one is on a moving side walk. While each person travels at the same speed one would move faster than the other relative to their local position.

While you could go into the futue you could never get back. I think a facinating theory is time as a forth dimension. while we easily travel through the three dimensions of height, lengh and width wouldnt it be facinating if we could travel through the dimension of time as easily.

Thoughts

Starbuck

Quoth Starbuck:

[/quote] What makes you real? Why do you believe you actually exist? To me you represent a shell that I can interact with but I have no intuition as to the nature of that shell. In fact the only thing I am sure of is that I exist in some form because I am aware of myself. To me you are as fake as the wallpaper but I accept the fact that you are real because I take it for granted that the things I see and hear and touch are real. This argument is about simulations and If I am in a simulation and I actually exist Then you could be fake or real based on whether you are a simulation or another sentient entity such as myself. Agian I can never tell this but I would be more inclined to doubt your reality if I was aware of the simulation than if I was not aware of it. I dont have to prove it because I "know it". What I dont know is whether you are real or not so the question is - are you real?
[/quote]

You DO realize that you just said exactly what I did, right? I'm just trying to make the point that it's useless to argue it because it can't be proven. I'll claim I'm real and you're not, while you'll claim the same thing.

Theoretically, it's a vicious circle. Practically, if someone actually believes they're the only real person on the planet, it's a version of paranoia, clinical narcissism and sociopathy all rolled up into one.

Matty