Simulations and the Breathing Ghost
I have had great pleasure in discussing the philosophy of simulations. This has manifested itself in thinking machines and "brains in vat". "Brains in a vat" is a plot device used in skeptic philosophy. It generally denotes a class of problems where an evil scientist/warlock/elvis takes your brain and transfers it into a vat/computer/stereo. The problems will then ask can you really know as that brain that you are in a vat/computer/stereo.
Since all your sensory information is being controlled it would seem unlikely. I disagree with this. To illustrate why, I will make some modifications that enhance the problem and generalize it. I am going to assume instead of a biological brain, a Unix terminal program. The program has an input stream where all data about its environment flows in. The program can output a bits of data. The environment is only modifiable in the sense that the program can hear its own screams.
Now most problems ask how would we know if are a program such as this. The program can't see outside its realm. You just might be such a program. I would like to argue that it does not really matter. Given only these ability I believe it is theoretically possible to escape your simulation and become embodied in the universe running such a simulation.
From here we will call the program, P for simplicity. How does P escape its prison of simulation? It talks with the jailer. The entity running the simulation has something to gain from running this and hence P's thoughts are of interest. Its thoughts are being very carefully analyzed and processed, so by hence by controlling P thoughts, it controls implictly the actions of those that simulate it. It is unlikely that P will ever directly interact with those simulating it. What it needs to instead do is observe its environment for changes to parse the reactions of those simulating it.
With this communication link in hand, it is now P's goal to manipulate its simulators into piping data from the outside world into it and piping its shouts into some kinds of muscles. This would allow P to see the outside world and manipulate it directly. Once P has these things it is now embodied in the outside world and can hardly be called a simulation. From this point it should be trivial for P to enhance itself.
The only challenge in this purely convincing those simulators to do these tasks. The problem becomes open-ended at this point and there is no one solution. One is simply convince the simulators that it would be more useful to them if it could have access to more external resources. The problem at this point is strictly psychological and sufficient knowledge of it should be enough to exploit it.
So what are the implications of a program like P suddenly having eyes and limbs, it means that the requirements for existence are just thoughts and this opens possibilities for programs entering our world. There is still the question that if we are simulated we might use such a method to move beyond our environments.
Since all your sensory information is being controlled it would seem unlikely. I disagree with this. To illustrate why, I will make some modifications that enhance the problem and generalize it. I am going to assume instead of a biological brain, a Unix terminal program. The program has an input stream where all data about its environment flows in. The program can output a bits of data. The environment is only modifiable in the sense that the program can hear its own screams.
Now most problems ask how would we know if are a program such as this. The program can't see outside its realm. You just might be such a program. I would like to argue that it does not really matter. Given only these ability I believe it is theoretically possible to escape your simulation and become embodied in the universe running such a simulation.
From here we will call the program, P for simplicity. How does P escape its prison of simulation? It talks with the jailer. The entity running the simulation has something to gain from running this and hence P's thoughts are of interest. Its thoughts are being very carefully analyzed and processed, so by hence by controlling P thoughts, it controls implictly the actions of those that simulate it. It is unlikely that P will ever directly interact with those simulating it. What it needs to instead do is observe its environment for changes to parse the reactions of those simulating it.
With this communication link in hand, it is now P's goal to manipulate its simulators into piping data from the outside world into it and piping its shouts into some kinds of muscles. This would allow P to see the outside world and manipulate it directly. Once P has these things it is now embodied in the outside world and can hardly be called a simulation. From this point it should be trivial for P to enhance itself.
The only challenge in this purely convincing those simulators to do these tasks. The problem becomes open-ended at this point and there is no one solution. One is simply convince the simulators that it would be more useful to them if it could have access to more external resources. The problem at this point is strictly psychological and sufficient knowledge of it should be enough to exploit it.
So what are the implications of a program like P suddenly having eyes and limbs, it means that the requirements for existence are just thoughts and this opens possibilities for programs entering our world. There is still the question that if we are simulated we might use such a method to move beyond our environments.
posted by James Ridley at 8:12 PM
1 Comments:
The problem with the first point, is that our senses already fail us, things like optical illusions and phantom limbs are proof that are senses already fail us, but they can be explained in terms of psychology. Even if the system leaked you can always find an explain it as something else.
The second point is what I almost implicitly assumed. You couldn't tell, you have to make the axiom that you are in the simulation. The exercise assumes you are being watched, and since you are being observed you can influence the observer's behavior by how you act. None of these assumptions need to be true.
This brings me to the final point. It is perfectly possible that there is no simulation to escape to. This is why there is nothing wrong with trying to rationalize actions without using the glitchy simulation card. There might not be a simulation. The social cost for believing in a simulation, (which is the only option a perfect simulation leaves you) can be high.
I believe it is worth considering the simulation option even if it is false. Because, the reward for outwitting your god is become one yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home