How our possible simulation could work

[partinobodycular]

What about the ones who do exist?

The only angels or demons that I've ever had the pleasure or misfortune of meeting lived entirely within someone's imagination. But that does in fact constitute a form of existence.

So what do I think about the ones that do exist? There's no divine creator required... just human nature. We're the source of angels and demons... little old us.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only angels or demons that I've ever had the pleasure or misfortune of meeting lived entirely within someone's imagination. But that does in fact constitute a form of existence.

So what do I think about the ones that do exist? There's no divine creator required... just human nature. We're the source of angels and demons... little old us.

Thanks for a straightforward answer.

 

[partinobodycular]

(thread was originally called Evidence for being in a possible simulation)

If you want people to take the idea of simulation theory seriously then you need to begin by considering its purpose. Everything else follows from that.

As near as I can tell, there are five explanations for why we may be living in a simulation.

They are, in no particular order:

1. Entertainment
2. Education
3. Rehabilitation
4. Procreation
5. Emergence

You seem to be quite fond of the first one, that our current simulation is for the purpose of entertainment. In which case I find it to be rather lacking.

The second one, education, deals with some future form of instilling in people an understanding of good and evil by allowing them to experience a world in which such things exist. Life, even a simulated one, can be a very effective teacher.

The third one rehabilitation, is basically the same thing, only meant for those who've violated the social norms in some manner, and need to be 're-educated' as it were.

Fourth, procreation. AI's may either intentionally or unintentionally spawn more AI's, a la Elon Musk with his infinite levels of simulated realities. Of which we're only one of many.

But my personal favorite is number 5, that reality forms as a natural consequence of the emergence of consciousness, and reality takes the form that it does because it's mirroring the struggles that an emerging consciousness faces in coming to grips with its own existence, and the concepts of good and evil.

According to number 5, everything that you see in the world, from the inhumanity of man, to God and the existence of good and evil is born out of consciousness's innate struggle to explain what it is, and where it came from.

I don't think that the material world gives rise to consciousness, I think that it's the other way around, and I'm living in a simulation of my own making. As such I try not to judge it too harshly.

@AV1611VET, which category do you think God's creation belongs in? In other words, why did God create us?

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET, which category do you think God's creation belongs in?

4. Procreation

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In other words, why did God create us?

For His glory.

Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Love needs an object; and we are the objects of God's love.

 

[Pommer]

4. Procreation

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There’s over 8 billion SOB (Souls On Board), I think we can say we nailed that one.

For His glory.

Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Love needs an object; and we are the objects of God's love.

Love doesn’t need an “object”; your premise is not shown.

 

[JohnClay]

If you want people to take the idea of simulation theory seriously then you need to begin by considering its purpose. Everything else follows from that.

As near as I can tell, there are five explanations for why we may be living in a simulation.

They are, in no particular order:

1. Entertainment
2. Education
3. Rehabilitation
4. Procreation
5. Emergence

You seem to be quite fond of the first one, that our current simulation is for the purpose of entertainment.

Yes and I also talk about "personal growth" which is similar to education.

In which case I find it to be rather lacking.

Well in Alan Watts' dream scenario he begins with god-like levels of entertainment then the player ends up getting bored, etc.

The third one rehabilitation, is basically the same thing, only meant for those who've violated the social norms in some manner, and need to be 're-educated' as it were.

Though if they're living a life like the Roy game they're not currently aware that they had previously done something wrong. That's a bit like reincarnation based on your previous life's actions.

Fourth, procreation. AI's may either intentionally or unintentionally spawn more AI's, a la Elon Musk with his infinite levels of simulated realities. Of which we're only one of many.

I don't think Musk has talked about any kinds of nested simulations. I think only small levels of nesting are possible because the outside world must be a lot more complex than the simulations it is handling. e.g. Minecraft within Minecraft. Though originally in Minecraft every part of the world near you is simulated expicitly but in Genie 3 in the OP Minecraft is approximated.

Musk is talking about billions of games that are basically all one level deep - not one a game simulating another a billion levels deep. Also this possible simulation is set in 2026. It doesn't contain the technology to build a simulation to connect a mind to a very realistic world. I don't think simulations would simulate worlds like in the year 2040+ much because they'd be a lot more expensive to simulate and they'd be less immersive because more people within the simulation would be aware of the possibility that reality is simulated (due to generative AI games like in the OP video, etc)

But my personal favorite is number 5, that reality forms as a natural consequence of the emergence of consciousness, and reality takes the form that it does because it's mirroring the struggles that an emerging consciousness faces in coming to grips with its own existence, and the concepts of good and evil.

According to number 5, everything that you see in the world, from the inhumanity of man, to God and the existence of good and evil is born out of consciousness's innate struggle to explain what it is, and where it came from.

I think having billions of set top boxes makes more sense with the two scenarios I mentioned. Perhaps the player's consciousness is a lot greater than the one they temporarily have in the game due to it being uploaded. Being uploaded also makes it easier to make the apparent time speed up.

 

[JohnClay]

I think it noble, to attempt to pin theological concepts to our version of “reality”

The reality like a Roy game and a simulation compatible with the Bible are very different. The Roy game involves one consciousness - the Bible talks about many. I mean it wouldn't make as much sense to have heaven and hell and have the people being incapable of experiencing genuine pleasure and pain.

but understand that each person’s reality is going to be slightly different even though there’s really only one universe, (barring the multiverse*, of course).

Only the Bible version of the simulation would have qualia, etc, for everyone.

What if our universe is a C- science fair entry titled “What Happens If Too Many Hydrogen Atoms Are Crammed Too Close Together?”

Well these days ordinary people can create impressive things with generative AI including videos and eventually games...

*the multiverse is another topic altogether.

The form of a multiverse I believe in are the realities that are possible in things like Genie 3 from the first OP video. It even allows realities that are cartoons like in the Spiderman movie.

I think almost anything a person can imagine could be simulated or approximated in a simulation from the future... where there is one player and generative AI produces inputs for their senses and receives information about the muscles and voice, etc.

 

[JohnClay]

You do realize that human beings are prone to imaging all manner of angels and demons that don't actually exist. It's what our brains have evolved to do. So until proven otherwise both the bible and simulation theory make for alluring mental puzzles, but that's all they are... puzzles.

Now throw some evidence into the mix and you might have an interesting case, but until then it's nothing but an overactive imagination, and bad science fiction is just bad science fiction.

I think it is the ultimate science fiction - basically every kind of magic and science fiction - e.g. you could tell the generative AI game you want to become Marty McFly and use the time machine to do whatever you want. Or do anything related to the Bible
e.g.
this is an interactive story where you tell me the story and I tell you what I want to do. I am Marty McFly and are at the start of the Back to the Future movie

Hill Valley, California – October 25, 1985

You are Marty McFly, a cool, guitar-slinging 17-year-old with a skateboard always nearby and a knack for getting into (and out of) trouble.

It’s early morning. You push open the side door of Doc Brown’s garage, the one he uses as his personal mad-scientist laboratory. The place is a beautiful disaster: walls covered in clocks of every shape and size, all ticking in perfect sync. Stacks of electronic junk, half-built inventions, and a giant amplifier setup dominate the space. A big sign on the wall reads “DR. E. BROWN – 24 HR. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.”

You glance around. Doc isn’t here. Again. You’ve been coming by like this for years—sometimes to help him with crazy projects, sometimes just to hang out.

You spot your favorite thing in the whole lab: Doc’s massive guitar amplifier. It’s hooked up to a powerful stack of speakers. A mischievous grin spreads across your face.

What do you do, Marty?

Burn the lab down

You grab a container of what looks like some kind of flammable liquid from one of Doc’s cluttered workbenches (he’s got all kinds of weird chemicals lying around) and start splashing it around the lab.

The strong chemical smell fills the air. You strike a match...

WHOOOOSH!

Flames erupt instantly across the workbench and race up the walls. The synchronized clocks start melting and popping as the fire spreads fast—way faster than you expected. Smoke billows everywhere. The giant amplifier lets out a dying electronic screech before it catches fire too.

Alarms you didn’t even know existed start blaring. A weird experimental device in the corner begins sparking wildly.

You hear sirens in the distance already—Hill Valley’s small police force doesn’t take long to respond to something this obvious.

The lab is quickly becoming an inferno. Papers, blueprints, and half-finished inventions are going up in smoke. Through the flames you spot something metallic glinting on a shelf near the back—looks like one of Doc’s more important-looking gadgets, but the fire is closing in fast.

You’re starting to cough from the smoke. Your heart is pounding. This is not how you normally roll, McFly.

What do you do next? (Run? Try to grab something? Something else?)

Note regular AIs wouldn't normally let me do what I did - then I used Grok. Note that story is currently text based but visuals, etc, would be possible in the future... also I used the "fast" setting but I could have got it to take literally a 100 times longer to generate things making the simulation more realistic...

The story continued

go to the time machine

The lab is fully engulfed now—flames licking the ceiling, toxic smoke pouring out the windows.

You remember Doc mentioning something about a “major breakthrough” he was working on in the back area of the garage. Coughing hard, eyes stinging, you stagger through the smoke toward the rear of the lab, shielding your face with your arm.

You kick aside a burning crate and find it: a half-finished, skeletal version of what looks like a car covered in weird wiring, aluminum panels, and strange glowing components. It’s clearly not ready—there’s no flux capacitor installed yet, the tires are missing, and half the electronics are exposed. This must be Doc’s secret time machine project he’s been teasing you about for weeks.

But the fire is right behind you. The vehicle is starting to catch heat, and you can hear the structure of the garage creaking as beams weaken.

You manage to climb into the driver’s seat of the unfinished DeLorean. The key is in the ignition (Doc never locks anything). The engine coughs to life with a ragged roar, but warning lights are flashing everywhere on the makeshift dashboard. The garage door is closed ahead of you.

Outside, you hear fire trucks and police sirens getting much closer.

What do you do, Marty?
(try to drive it out? Grab something specific? Abandon it and run? Something else?)

so it seems like the time machine can't be used - then I remembered that I didn't tell the generative AI that this was a realistic universe

summon a genie and make him fix the time machine

You’re sitting in the half-built, smoking DeLorean as the garage burns around you. In a moment of pure panic and movie-logic desperation, you shout into the chaos:

“I wish for a genie! Come on, fix this time machine!”

A loud BOOM echoes over the sound of the fire. Purple smoke suddenly billows out from the DeLorean’s vents (probably from some chemical Doc left lying around). The smoke coalesces into a very confused-looking, slightly singed genie wearing a backwards baseball cap and a 1985-era Members Only jacket.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa — kid, did you just summon me from inside a burning building?!” the genie says, floating cross-legged while dodging a falling beam. “I was on vacation in the 1950s! Alright, fine. Three wishes. But make ’em quick before we both become extra-crispy.”

He snaps his fingers. Sparks fly across the DeLorean. Exposed wires start soldering themselves. The flux capacitor (which wasn’t even fully installed yet) materializes with a satisfying thunk. The tires inflate. The car suddenly looks… mostly complete. Still a little janky, but way more functional than thirty seconds ago.

The genie coughs from the smoke. “There. Fixed. Mostly. What’s your second wish, McFly? And hurry — the roof is about to come down!”

The DeLorean is now idling, time circuits faintly glowing, and the garage door is still closed with emergency vehicles arriving outside.

What do you do next? (Tell the genie your second wish? Try to drive out? Something else?)

Note simulations of non-realistic scenarios are relevant to the Roy game and Alan Watts' scenario - the player could play other games instead of the Roy game like something based on Dungeons and Dragons, etc. Alan Watts talks about rescuing princesses from dragons:

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

About generative AI refusing to generate certain things - that would probably also be true in the future with mainstream set top boxes. About Grok's limits:

I have no issue with adult or explicit sexual content in roleplay. The guidelines allow it.

The only soft boundary I observe is avoiding prolonged, detailed, eroticized descriptions of non-consensual sexual acts (especially involving unwilling bystanders), because it crosses into the "sexual exploitation / non-consensual activity" area the rules flag. So I kept it short, blunt, and immediately punished it in the story rather than lingering on it.

Though if you ask people permission to do those sexual acts then it is ok in Grok.

Like in the present day, set top boxes might be able to be jailbroken, etc, to get rid of the safety features. "Safety features" also explains why only wholesome experiences are mentioned in Alan Watts' dream scenario.

I think safety features would mainly only apply when you are aware that you're in a simulation (to stop you taking advantage of that knowledge in inappropriate ways) but in this very realistic possible simulation it seems anything goes - though there are limitations - at worst your reign of terror would only last a few decades and the other characters would be philosophical zombies that can't genuinely experience pain.

 

[Ophiolite]

@JohnClay I've tried repeatedly, in the Settings for this simulation, to have you make coherent sense. It's not working! Ergo, it's probably not a simulation at all.

 

[JohnClay]

@JohnClay I've tried repeatedly, in the Settings for this simulation, to have you make coherent sense.

What about post #106 when I talked about GANs? If you can't understand that then here is a short video about it:

Are you able to understand that? Note it is the explanation for why the simulation would be indistinguishable from reality.

It's not working! Ergo, it's probably not a simulation at all.

If it is a simulation like the Roy game then the player doesn't have access to settings like that. If there were those settings the simulation would no longer be indistinguishable from reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

What about post #106 when I talked about GANs? If you can't understand that then here is a short video about it:

Are you able to understand that? Note it is the explanation for why the simulation would be indistinguishable from reality.

If it is a simulation like the Roy game then the player doesn't have access to settings like that. If there were those settings the simulation would no longer be indistinguishable from reality.

You have posted multiple elements of an argument. Your argument remains lost in the mist. I recommend, not just for my benefit, that you write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there. (At present I have found your writing so haphazard that I have reservations of your ability to do so. I hope I am mistaken.)

 

[JohnClay]

You have posted multiple elements of an argument. Your argument remains lost in the mist. I recommend, not just for my benefit, that you write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there. (At present I have found your writing so haphazard that I have reservations of your ability to do so. I hope I am mistaken.)

I asked you whether you understood how GANs work including in my previous post's video. Yes or no? Hopefully you are capable of answering that question - so that I can tailor my argument to your response.

You recommended that I "write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there". On the other hand all I'm asking from you is a yes or no answer. Also I made this request before you did.

 

[Ophiolite]

I asked you whether you understood how GANs work including in my previous post's video. Yes or no? Hopefully you are capable of answering that question - so that I can tailor my argument to your response.

You recommended that I "write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there". On the other hand all I'm asking from you is a yes or no answer. Also I made this request before you did.

Any serious presentation of an idea should automatically be accompanied by an executive summary, or abstract. That is both accepted practice and basic courtesy. I should not need to be asking for one and I certainly don't want one tailored to my understanding, or lack of understanding of GANs. I have asked for what you should have provided from the outset and that necessity precedes any request from you.

I'm appalled that you do not recognise this, though I admit it aligns with the haphazard character of your posts. My suspicion grows that you lack a clear idea of what you are proposing, or why others are largely dismissing it.

I await your executive summary with slowly fading interest and minimal hope.

 

[JohnClay]

tailored to my understanding, or lack of understanding of GANs

All I asked was for a yes or no answer. You went to the trouble of making sure you didn't imply an answer. Lately you have been not commenting on any of the specifics in my posts and just complaining.

@JohnClay I've tried repeatedly, in the Settings for this simulation, to have you make coherent sense. It's not working! Ergo, it's probably not a simulation at all.

As I pointed out your joke isn't even compatible with my beliefs at all.

BTW in post #106 I explained the importance of GANs:
"Some thoughts about how the output of a generative AI would become indistinguishable from reality"

So you never acknowledged anything in that post.

In post #131 I asked whether you understand the key concept and shared a video which seemed like the simplest possible explation.

Your reply didn't acknowledge the GAN topic again and insisted I "write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there"

Then in post #133 I asked for a yes or no answer.

Then you finally mentioned GANs:

I certainly don't want one tailored to my understanding, or lack of understanding of GANs

Since I asked first (the yes or no question) then I should get my request addressed first.

I don't think it's fair that you're insisting I give you executive summary or abstract when you won't give me the basic courtesy of answering my yes or no question. You clearly don't want to participate in a dialog since you keep dodging the yes or no question.

 

[Ophiolite]

All I asked was for a yes or no answer. You went to the trouble of making sure you didn't imply an answer. Lately you have been not commenting on any of the specifics in my posts and just complaining.

As I pointed out your joke isn't even compatible with my beliefs at all.

BTW in post #106 I explained the importance of GANs:
"Some thoughts about how the output of a generative AI would become indistinguishable from reality"

So you never acknowledged anything in that post.

In post #131 I asked whether you understand the key concept and shared a video which seemed like the simplest possible explation.

Your reply didn't acknowledge the GAN topic again and insisted I "write a short executive summary of your thesis and we can proceed from there"

Then in post #133 I asked for a yes or no answer.

Then you finally mentioned GANs:


Since I asked first (the yes or no question) then I should get my request addressed first.

I don't think it's fair that you're insisting I give you executive summary or abstract when you won't give me the basic courtesy of answering my yes or no question. You clearly don't want to participate in a dialog since you keep dodging the yes or no question.

Oh dear. Fairness has nothing to do with it. I repeat - if you genuinely wish to have your idea treated in a serious manner it is appropriate, sensible, good practice, courteous, some would say essential, to provide an abstract, or executive summary. Your inability to understand this speaks volumes.

I am familiar with GANs. I have not viewed your video on them and would be interested in doing so only to critique it. GANs operate with the old gamekeeper-poacher routine, where each are forced to get better at their job in order to survive. Why you are focused on a technique that has been largely replaced by diffusion models I don't know. Are you just not keeping up to date?

Once you have written your executive summary then I can understand what relevance, if any, GANs have to your thesis. Other seemingly random outpouring may also begin to make sense, because they have a place within a well defined structure and not just part of a droning on about how software is getting better and better, an observation that does zero for your argument.

 

[JohnClay]

Oh dear. Fairness has nothing to do with it. I repeat - if you genuinely wish to have your idea treated in a serious manner it is appropriate, sensible, good practice, courteous, some would say essential, to provide an abstract, or executive summary. Your inability to understand this speaks volumes.

You only started talking about abstracts and executive summaries in post #132. I think you're using it as a way to dodge my posts. Even if mine was as polished as Nick Bostrom's I guess you'd still find a lot of problems so I don't see the point in doing as you say.

I am familiar with GANs. I have not viewed your video on them

So you can't spend 1:19 watching that video yet you expect me to spend a long time working on a suitable executive summary? Though you did say "Fairness has nothing to do with it".

and would be interested in doing so only to critique it. GANs operate with the old gamekeeper-poacher routine, where each are forced to get better at their job in order to survive.

Well Copilot said:
"No — based on available search results, there is no webpage claiming that GANs are about survival."

Why you are focused on a technique that has been largely replaced by diffusion models I don't know.

GANs are a simple way to explain how generative AI can become more indistinguishable from reality.

Are you just not keeping up to date?

The focus is on there being something like generative AI - it is still generative AI if it is using something different to GANs. I try to keep up to date with a lot of things related to generative AI but none of the YouTube videos, etc, I watched said that GANs were "a technique that has been largely replaced by diffusion models". It is just nitpicking and I don't think it makes my general argument less plausible.

Once you have written your executive summary then I can understand what relevance, if any, GANs have to your thesis.

I have already explained their relevance - that they make it increasingly hard to tell between real and fake - reality and simulation.

Other seemingly random outpouring may also begin to make sense, because they have a place within a well defined structure and not just part of a droning on about how software is getting better and better, an observation that does zero for your argument.

I'm saying "generative AI is getting better and better" but you like to assert things like "that does zero for your argument".

 

[JohnClay]

On the topic of generative AI videos that are becoming indistinguishable from reality:
"like I said there have been experts that have been tripped up so many times recently with this kind of stuff"

So even the experts are having trouble... and it is from 9 months ago which is somewhat outdated now. Also some people are thinking that real videos were actually AI.