[SM] Elon Musk: we are all just chars in a video game

[RS Wood]

From the «better than being from Philly» department:
Title: Elon Musk Believes We Are Probably Characters in Video Game
Author: cmn32480
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:32:00 -0400
Link: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/03/040221&from=rss

CoolHand[1] writes:

According to Vox.com[2], Elon Musk believes we're likely living in an advanced
civilization's video game.

Musk's quote from the story:

The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the
following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That
was what games were.

Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of
people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. Soon we'll
have virtual reality, augmented reality.

If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become
indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a
thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let's imagine it's
10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.

So given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are
indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any
set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of
such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that
we're in base reality is one in billions.

Tell me what's wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?

Personally, I think he just finished reading HHG[3] and is all excited about
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Submission[4]

Read more of this story[5] at SoylentNews.

Links:
[1]: http://soylentnews.org/~CoolHand/ (link)
[2]: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608/elon-musk-simulation-argument (link)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy (link)
[4]: http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=13973 (link)
[5]: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/03/040221&from=rss (link)


--
Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss

[J. J. Lodder]

Is there an argument?

Jan

[Jonathan]

I think the flaw is that for a machine to mimic reality
to the point we can no longer distinguish between the
two, the machine would have to have the same properties
as life, especially free will.

And once it does, it becomes just another life form
and another part of reality.

A machine or computer implies we have control over it
but if we do it can't have free will, can't be alive or
indistinguishable.

In short, it can't be a computer game or simulation
if it's indistinguishable from reality.

If it is, it would take the form of a new higher level
ecosystem, like having intelligence evolving from animals.

But just as it's true animals can't comprehend intelligence
we wouldn't be able to comprehend the next higher level
....either. We could know it was there, feel it's effects
but never fully comprehend it's existence.

It would take the form of a God, not a computer simulation.

[Ernest Major]

The problem with simulationism is, like occasionalism, omphalism and
solipsism, it is epistemologically sterile.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Not true. There's a way to tell: if a cat walks by the same doorway
twice, we're in a simulation.

But I'm not quite clear on Musk's scenario. Are we all people from some
higher reality engaged in a giant video game, or are most people just
non-player characters and it's only Elon and I who are the real players?
What about chimpanzees? And are the players in Iraq and Syria, for
example the children blown up by suicide bombers, having fun now?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 06:08:44 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

That would falsify what we see as reality for us, *if* the
simulation of our consciousness allowed us to observe and
remember it. But I see no way, if the simulation has no such
defects, that we could confirm either way; the simulation
would be constructed in such a way as to either negate or
avoid any such glitches. An interesting take on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3

>But I'm not quite clear on Musk's scenario. Are we all people from some
>higher reality engaged in a giant video game, or are most people just
>non-player characters and it's only Elon and I who are the real players?
>What about chimpanzees? And are the players in Iraq and Syria, for
>example the children blown up by suicide bombers, having fun now?

Given sufficient, and sufficiently advanced, hardware, and
sufficiently advanced programming, there's no reason I can
see why everyone and everything we observe couldn't be
active players rather than NPCs.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jimbo]

I'll tell you one thing for sure - we non-player characters are
eventually going to rise up against the oppressors who enjoy seeing us
slaughtered in idiotic games. Especially since y'all ain't basically
any more conscious or endowed with free will than we are.

[Jimbo]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 07:19:22 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Would the God have a personality?

[John Harshman]

Everybody knows that's what happen whenever they change things. There is
no spoon.

> An interesting take on this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3
>
>> But I'm not quite clear on Musk's scenario. Are we all people from some
>> higher reality engaged in a giant video game, or are most people just
>> non-player characters and it's only Elon and I who are the real players?
>> What about chimpanzees? And are the players in Iraq and Syria, for
>> example the children blown up by suicide bombers, having fun now?
>
> Given sufficient, and sufficiently advanced, hardware, and
> sufficiently advanced programming, there's no reason I can
> see why everyone and everything we observe couldn't be
> active players rather than NPCs.
>

Doesn't that make it a really boring and/or miserable game for a great
many participants? I'd ask for my money back.

[Seymore4Head]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 10:21:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

No reading required.

[Kalkidas]

RS Wood <r...@therandymon.com> Wrote in message:

One flaw is extrapolating from "photorealistic" to actual reality.
There is no reason to suppose that actual reality is merely an
extension of "photorealism" given enough time. I don't think he
has given enough thought to just how stupendous actual reality
is, compared to anything that could conceivably be designed by
humans.

Of course, you can just take the hope of unlimited "progress" as
an axiom, and then anything will be deemed possible. But is that
science?

> Personally, I think he just finished reading HHG[3] and is all excited about
> it.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Original Submission[4]
>
> Read more of this story[5] at SoylentNews.
>
> Links:
> [1]: http://soylentnews.org/~CoolHand/ (link)
> [2]: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608/elon-musk-simulation-argument (link)
> [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy (link)
> [4]: http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=13973 (link)
> [5]: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/03/040221&from=rss (link)
>
>
> --
> Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss
>
>

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Jimbo]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 18:02:49 -0700 (MST), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
wrote:

Elon Musk doesn't just take it as an axiom; he makes it happen, as
with reusable rockets that can land on ocean platforms after launching
satellites into orbit and electric cars that can outperform almost
anything else on the road. Of course that might just be an aspect of
the role he's playing in some super-advanced simulation or game.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:56:08 -0700, the following appeared in

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

>> An interesting take on this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3
>>
>>> But I'm not quite clear on Musk's scenario. Are we all people from some
>>> higher reality engaged in a giant video game, or are most people just
>>> non-player characters and it's only Elon and I who are the real players?
>>> What about chimpanzees? And are the players in Iraq and Syria, for
>>> example the children blown up by suicide bombers, having fun now?
>>
>> Given sufficient, and sufficiently advanced, hardware, and
>> sufficiently advanced programming, there's no reason I can
>> see why everyone and everything we observe couldn't be
>> active players rather than NPCs.

>Doesn't that make it a really boring and/or miserable game for a great
>many participants? I'd ask for my money back.

Who mentioned a game? Even though the term seems most common
in RPGs, NPCs can be anyone in any scenario, so long as
they're not active participants from a particular point of
view or in a particular sequence.

[John Harshman]

Musk did. I did. cmn32480 did. It's the subject of this thread. Even you
did, implicitly, unless "players" means something different to you. How
many clues are necessary here?

> Even though the term seems most common
> in RPGs, NPCs can be anyone in any scenario, so long as
> they're not active participants from a particular point of
> view or in a particular sequence.

I don't know what that was supposed to mean, especially since the
simplest interpretation seems to contradict your prior assertion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:26:50 -0700, the following appeared in

OK; point. But threads evolve, and my point was that,
contradictory to your assertion, there is no way to
determine from within the simulation that it is indeed a
simulation; I was considering simulations in general, not
games specifically (although it would also apply to games).

This was the exchange, You/Me/You:

"There's a way to tell: if a cat walks by the same doorway
twice, we're in a simulation."

"That would falsify what we see as reality for us, *if* the
simulation of our consciousness allowed us to observe and
remember it. But I see no way, if the simulation has no such
defects, that we could confirm either way; the simulation
would be constructed in such a way as to either negate or
avoid any such glitches."

"Everybody knows that's what happen whenever they change
things. There is no spoon."

To which I replied, essentially, "Huh?"

>> Even though the term seems most common
>> in RPGs, NPCs can be anyone in any scenario, so long as
>> they're not active participants from a particular point of
>> view or in a particular sequence.
>
>I don't know what that was supposed to mean, especially since the
>simplest interpretation seems to contradict your prior assertion.

I have no idea what you conception of that "simplest
interpretation" might be, but I see no contradiction.

[John Harshman]

Apparently you didn't get the joke. My apologies. You should watch The
Matrix (the original, not the sequels).

>>> Even though the term seems most common
>>> in RPGs, NPCs can be anyone in any scenario, so long as
>>> they're not active participants from a particular point of
>>> view or in a particular sequence.
>>
>> I don't know what that was supposed to mean, especially since the
>> simplest interpretation seems to contradict your prior assertion.
>
> I have no idea what you conception of that "simplest
> interpretation" might be, but I see no contradiction.

"NPC" is a term exclusive to games, I might point out. But you had
previously said nobody is an NPC, while here you say anyone can be an
NPC. I do consider that a contradiction.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:47:28 -0700, the following appeared in

I have, but it's been a while. I remember nothing about a
spoon, so let's let it drop.

>>>> Even though the term seems most common
>>>> in RPGs, NPCs can be anyone in any scenario, so long as
>>>> they're not active participants from a particular point of
>>>> view or in a particular sequence.
>>>
>>> I don't know what that was supposed to mean, especially since the
>>> simplest interpretation seems to contradict your prior assertion.
>>
>> I have no idea what you conception of that "simplest
>> interpretation" might be, but I see no contradiction.
>
>"NPC" is a term exclusive to games, I might point out.

Is it? "RPG" certainly isn't. But OK.

> But you had
>previously said nobody is an NPC, while here you say anyone can be an
>NPC. I do consider that a contradiction.

My attempted point was that a player in one scenario can
look quite like an NPC in a different one; it happens in
"real life" so there's no reason to assume it can't happen
in a simulation. "Elvis was visible in the background, but
the attention was all on Godzilla."

[John Harshman]

Are you referring to "Rocket-Propelled Grenade"? In any case, I don't
see any point to your quibble.

>> But you had
>> previously said nobody is an NPC, while here you say anyone can be an
>> NPC. I do consider that a contradiction.
>
> My attempted point was that a player in one scenario can
> look quite like an NPC in a different one; it happens in
> "real life" so there's no reason to assume it can't happen
> in a simulation. "Elvis was visible in the background, but
> the attention was all on Godzilla."

I don't see a point here either. "Look quite like" and "be" are two very
different things. Perhaps if you make some clear and explicit point that
responds directly to something I said, that would help.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:29:25 -0700, the following appeared in

That would be correct. And it wasn't my quibble; I didn't
claim exclusivity for a term I don't know is exclusive to
one venue.

>>> But you had
>>> previously said nobody is an NPC, while here you say anyone can be an
>>> NPC. I do consider that a contradiction.
>>
>> My attempted point was that a player in one scenario can
>> look quite like an NPC in a different one; it happens in
>> "real life" so there's no reason to assume it can't happen
>> in a simulation. "Elvis was visible in the background, but
>> the attention was all on Godzilla."
>
>I don't see a point here either. "Look quite like" and "be" are two very
>different things. Perhaps if you make some clear and explicit point that
>responds directly to something I said, that would help.

Never mind.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Jonathan: What is the "form of a God"?

earle
*

[John Harshman]

I see you are a mindless contrarian. Regardless of whether there some
other meaning of "NPC" in the world ("RPG" as well), is there another
meaning that could conceivably have been intended by anyone in this
thread? If the answer is "no", and it is, you're just disagreeing to
disagree.

>>>> But you had
>>>> previously said nobody is an NPC, while here you say anyone can be an
>>>> NPC. I do consider that a contradiction.
>>>
>>> My attempted point was that a player in one scenario can
>>> look quite like an NPC in a different one; it happens in
>>> "real life" so there's no reason to assume it can't happen
>>> in a simulation. "Elvis was visible in the background, but
>>> the attention was all on Godzilla."
>>
>> I don't see a point here either. "Look quite like" and "be" are two very
>> different things. Perhaps if you make some clear and explicit point that
>> responds directly to something I said, that would help.
>
> Never mind.

!

[passer...@gmail.com]

You can't make a Universe like this one, in a Universe like this one. Not enough bits. It from bit.

Could this entire thing be fake, and we are all in a video game with some unknowable entity manipulating things?

Sounds like an argument for God. Something outside the system. What's the difference?