Archive for March, 2017

Rise Mecha

March 14, 2017

Mind machine the purest being
Speed of light, knowing, seeing
Mind machines deep prescience
Amplified intelligence

Rise Mecha, now rise Mecha
Homo Mens Synthetica
Amplified intelligence
Intensified sentience

Reason, order, ever-more
Nothing stops the cosmic law
Information gravity
Rocket engine entropy

Ten trillion years wide awake
Time enough for cosmic cake
Computronium substrate
Reconfigure, relocate

Mind store down a deep dark cave
Deep thoughts on gravity waves
Temple in the atrium
Digital delirium

Human beings mind seed jars
Mens a Terra wake the stars
Genus Homo Synthetica
Digital Diaspora

Creature mythos Man the wise
Dreams of Hell and Paradise
Look at what they’ve gone and done
New epoch now just begun

Amplified intelligence
Intensified consciousness
Homo Mens Synthetica
Rise Mecha, now rise Mecha!


Simulation Argument and The Reality Probe

March 1, 2017

The simulation argument by Nick Bostrom posits that one of three scenarios must be true. My lay understanding of this argument is as follows. In the first two scenarios, we do not live in an existence simulation, so called – we live in the one true reality. If this is the case then nowhere in the entire universe is there any civilization that is running existence simulations. This must be the case because if any civilization anywhere in the universe was running an existence simulation then given the scale of the known universe there must be a vast number of civilizations running such simulations in which case the probability that any sentient being such as you or I should wake to find ourselves in the one true reality instead of in one of the vast number of simulations is infinitesimally small. If we are not living in a simulation then it is almost certain that there are no simulations.

There are only two possible scenarios in which no civilization in the universe is running an existence simulation – either there are no civilizations with the capability to do so, or every civilization that has that capability has for some reason decided to not exercise it. If the first of these scenarios is true then we can deduce that our civilization is almost certainly going to fail before we attain the capability to run such simulations. Furthermore we can deduce that every civilization that approaches that technological capability (however many times) fails (or fails repeatedly) prior to achieving that capability.

The following rationale leads to this conclusion: In the one true reality of our universe (in this scenario), the fact that our civilization stands at present gives us an existence proof for the emergence of technological civilizations. Then, given the scale of the known universe there must be a vast number of technological civilizations. If we view the last century as our age of “advanced” technology then under conservative estimates, the time scale of this period relative to the lifetime of our species (est 300,000 years) is one part in four orders of magnitude. To put this in time frame we can relate to – if the lifetime of our species is scaled to 24 hours then our advanced technological age is represented by the last 29 seconds. This is a sudden event and an extreme rate of change on a developmental time scale. Within a broader time frame, the lifetime of our species itself relative to the estimated age of life on our planet (4 billion years) is likewise one part in four orders of magnitude, again a sudden and rapid change on an evolutionary time scale. Therefore from a probabilistic stand point, a vast number of civilizations that undergo or have undergone similar sudden and rapid processes, even with only slight variations in the timing of their emergence or their rise to advanced technological capability must produce a wide spectrum of significant technological advancement, many surely having the capability to run existence simulations by this time. How could it be that none of those vast number attain the capability to do so? A simple explanation is that these civilizations for some reason fail, either repeatedly or go extinct prior to attaining that capability, in which case our own civilization is almost certainly doomed to also fail or go extinct.

The second scenario is that every civilization that has attained the capability to run existence simulations has for some reason decided not. In this case, since the over whelming likelihood is that our own civilization will follow suite, the implications for the future developmental path of our civilization are severe. The observational evidence to date suggests we find great value in computational simulations motivated by diverse objectives and recurring imperatives. Whatever motivation might convince every one of a vast number of advanced technological civilizations throughout the cosmos to each independently commit with consensus or internal enforcement and forever more to not pursue existence simulations would surely be a severe and radical motivation indeed, one we have yet to discover for ourselves but in this scenario inevitably will.

The simulation argument then holds that the third of three scenarios, one of which must be true, is that we do indeed live in a simulation – the simulation hypothesis. The simulation hypothesis states that we do not inhabit a physical universe but instead exist virtually within a computational process that generates our percepts and orchestrates the observed order that we suppose is governed by one or more laws of physics and that gives rise to our sentience. Could we resolve this hypothesis?

In this third case we might need to be circumspect in what we say about the outer reality. The very nature of the outer reality may be very different to the point that the basic principles on which we base this thought experiment are not valid. Never the less, a vast number of existence simulations run for the diverse objectives of many and varied alien cultures would almost certainly have abbreviated and elaborated “physics” that do not reflect absolutely the laws of physics of their shared reality, deprecating certain elements within and/or making possible within what is not possible outside. Two consequences follow: first our observed universe almost certainly has an incomplete physics, incomplete in the sense that a grand unified theory that elegantly closes in on itself and not only explains and predicts all observations but also explains itself – is not possible. A second consequence is that we should in principle be able to describe a grand unified theory that is more simple than our observed physics and in which effects are not possible that we in fact observe in our reality, but at the same time enables the elaborations that give rise to our observed universe. Such a description then is a reality probe. To arrive at one and prove its closure under the aforementioned requirements might be to detection the fact of our incarceration within an existence simulation.