fayfreethinkers.com

This thread has been split from here.
--Savonarola, FFForums Mod@Large

Darrel wrote:Incidentally, Frank Tipler has the credentials but he is in fact a nut. I read his 1997 book "The Physics of Immortality" and he argued for the following:

a) anything simulated, down to the atomic level, is actually that thing, not a simulation
b) computers will be so powerful in the future they will be able to simulate all possible past events down to the spin of each electron
c) the people in the future will want to do this and thus resurrect all of us via computer simulation

So Kevin, don't worry, Tipler says you will be resurrected by a computer in the future. No, really.

DOUG
Yes, that is Tipler's assurance that we are immortal: we will be recreated in a computer program in the future.

In fact, in subsequent interviews, Tipler has stated that we can't tell whether we are in a simulation RIGHT NOW.

We have a discussion of this in my Intro classes when we discuss the issue of personal identity. Tipler has a very specific understanding of what makes you the person you are, but not everyone uses his definition.

]

Darrel wrote: So Kevin, don't worry, Tipler says you will be resurrected by a computer in the future. No, really.

You'll understand, I am sure, if this doesn't provide me with much comfort.

Doug wrote:
In fact, in subsequent interviews, Tipler has stated that we can't tell whether we are in a simulation RIGHT NOW.

I actually have no problem with this assertion. One of the many plausible explanations of our universe is that it is just a "simulation". But, just as in invoking god, this doesn't actually explain anything--it only suggest the existence of some sort of superstructure encompassing the universe that is itself in need of explanation. Oh, and let us not forget that there is currently NO REASON to accept this is at all descriptive of reality.

Darrel wrote: a) anything simulated, down to the atomic level, is actually that thing, not a simulation
b) computers will be so powerful in the future they will be able to simulate all possible past events down to the spin of each electron
c) the people in the future will want to do this and thus resurrect all of us via computer simulation

Thought I would play the devils advocate yet again and address the physical plausibility of these as I understand them.

a) This may actually have some credence to it. However I would say this lies in the realm of philosophy more than physics. If it quacks like a duck and farts like a duck, it is, by definition, a duck. At a certain point one might argue that we are somehow making a "sub universe" but it would not be OUR universe. It would BE a simulation, but still a functional environment. And as he points out, it is POSSIBLE that we are, in fact, in a simulation right now. There is no reason to believe this is the case--it is just a possibility. It is also possible that every gas molecule in the room will bunch up in the corner leaving you in a complete vacuum at which point you will die of hypoxia. But don't worry, this is POSSIBLE, but not likely to happen.

b) Okay this is just silly...and I am going to have to say "quanta" allot so I apologize in advance. This is just not possible unless we find a way to LEAVE this "universe" and construct a computer with more bits than this "universe" has quanta. Even if the random nature of quantum mechanics is just an illusion, there is no way to keep the books on every quanta no matter HOW much memory your computer has. The obvious reason?...well...your computer is PART of the universe and ITS quanta must be accounted for...what are you going to use to keep up with such quanta...well...bits...which at their absolute best, are on the order of a quanta...so....who keeps up with them? I believe that the day is fast approaching when keeping tabs on every mode of C-60 will be a walk in the park. But we will never be able to keep up with the entire universe. To assert otherwise is to display an astounding ignorance of the fundamentals of such computation.

c) This would be AWSOME! And it was done with some unfortunate limitations in the movie AI. Though I cannot say for absolute certain, I am quite sure that at this point in time, when such complicated computing would be possible (i.e. creating an artificial intelligence) the information of who and what we were will have been utterly lost to chaos. Some information can never be retrieved.

It is an interesting idea--would such a re-rendering really be "us". Well, I yield that to doug. However must say, I wouldn't hold my breath either way. It may one day be possible to "copy" a human's cognitive responses into a computer, and I do believe that AI's eventuality is almost a certainty. However we won't be around to see that day. And I wouldn't count on your "digital resurrection". Besides, I haven't lead the BEST life...Likely as not I will be condemned to live out my digital existence in a Dell. Better than Lee Strobel's fate, however. He will be forever trapped in a Packard Bell!

kwlyon wrote:

Darrel wrote: a) anything simulated, down to the atomic level, is actually that thing, not a simulation
b) computers will be so powerful in the future they will be able to simulate all possible past events down to the spin of each electron
c) the people in the future will want to do this and thus resurrect all of us via computer simulation

Thought I would play the devils advocate yet again and address the physical plausibility of these as I understand them.

a) This may actually have some credence to it. However I would say this lies in the realm of philosophy more than physics.

DAR
I agree, it has some plausibility to it in some aspects, that's why he uses it. But realize, he is not just saying that this would be a very accurate simulation but rather that if you were simulated to this degree of fidelity, it is not a copy of you, it IS, completely, utterly, you. Consciousness, all of it. Hello, how have you been? I think our memories were included too.

If it quacks like a duck and farts like a duck, it is, by definition, a duck.

DAR
Right, but he is saying you are 100% THE very same duck. Not a a copy! THE, duck.

b) Okay this is just silly... not possible unless we find a way to LEAVE this "universe" and construct a computer with more bits than this "universe" has quanta.

DAR
The whole thing is silly. He just takes Moore's law of computational power increasing exponentially and runs it out way into the future. This is retarded. When Skeptic mag interviewed him the first thing they asked was if he was pulling our collective legs. I think he said no. I think it's great for teachers to think outside of the box, and these assertions bring up interesting questions, but really, this book is astonishingly absurd and he tries to make a real case for this, his "Omega point" and to provide the math for it too. I see now he has written a book "The Physics of Christianity." I think he just wants to sell books. Point being, these guys will just say things to be provocative and sell books. Fundies read too much into their selective quotations from some of these physicists.

c) when such complicated computing would be possible (i.e. creating an artificial intelligence) the information of who and what we were will have been utterly lost to chaos. Some information can never be retrieved.

DAR
I think that's safe to say.

It is an interesting idea--would such a re-rendering really be "us".

DAR
Tipler argues yes. You should see the assumptions he stacks to get there. His conclusion (after assuming his assumptions and forgetting about that)? We will certainly be resurrected!

Better than Lee Strobel's fate, however. He will be forever trapped in a Packard Bell!

DAR
Considering the depth of his sentience, I think you could run Strobel's software quite nicely on a Commodore 64.

D.

kwlyon wrote:Though I cannot say for absolute certain, I am quite sure that at this point in time, when such complicated computing would be possible (i.e. creating an artificial intelligence) the information of who and what we were will have been utterly lost to chaos. Some information can never be retrieved.

DOUG
Right, which is why Tipler says that a computer simulation would be run on every POSSIBLE past scenario, just to catch any differences that would have been lost to chaos.

So Tipler's claim is not just that the future computer would run a complete re-creation of this universe, but a re-creation of every possible universe, at least with regard to its effects on us.

There are some major problems with this, but let me just say that Nietzsche had a similar view with regard to a concept he called eternal recurrence.

kwlyon wrote:

Doug wrote:
In fact, in subsequent interviews, Tipler has stated that we can't tell whether we are in a simulation RIGHT NOW.

I actually have no problem with this assertion. One of the many plausible explanations of our universe is that it is just a "simulation". But, just as in invoking god, this doesn't actually explain anything--

DAR
I agree. It is an interesting idea. But like you say, explains nothing and just pushes the ultimate questions back. There have been movies trying to develop this idea. There is this one, The Thirteenth Floor, which wasn't very good as I remember:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/plotsummary

There was The Matrix of course. I think there was another which did a better job. Can't remember it though (not Tron and not "The Truman Show" and not "Vanilla Sky").

D.

Darrel wrote: Considering the depth of his sentience, I think you could run Strobel's software quite nicely on a Commodore 64.

You could...but, despite being outdated today, the Commodore 64 was an excellent little machine for it's time. I wouldn't waist it on him.

kwlyon wrote:

Darrel wrote: Considering the depth of his sentience, I think you could run Strobel's software quite nicely on a Commodore 64.

You could...but, despite being outdated today, the Commodore 64 was an excellent little machine for it's time. I wouldn't waist it on him.

I had a Commodore 64. I started out with the VIC-20, their smaller model. 3.5k of RAM. No kidding.

Doug wrote: I had a Commodore 64. I started out with the VIC-20, their smaller model. 3.5k of RAM. No kidding.

DAR
My sister had a friend helping her update the RAM in her computer the other day. He told her to text me and tell me that her computer only had 512 meg of RAM. He thought I would find it extremely funny that a computer could have such a small amount of memory. I told her my first computer had 2 meg of RAM which I upgraded to 4 so, not all that funny. Kids these days.

D.
--------------------
"The VIC-20 was originally meant to be called Vixen, but this name was inappropriate in Germany, Commodore's second most important market, because it sounds like wichsen, a German language colloquial word for "masturbate." VIC, which was subsequently chosen, has a similar problem, it can be pronounced like fick[en], the German word for fuck. Therefore the VIC-20 was finally marketed as the VC-20 "Volkscomputer" (people's computer) in German-language countries, an obvious wordplay on Volkswagen." --wiki

My first computer (Sinclair ZX-81) only had 512k, and that was with the expansion pack.

Tim