Pages:
Author

Topic: AI represents our desire to create God - page 2. (Read 655 times)

legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
October 27, 2018, 11:28:27 AM
#25
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"

You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible.  As I said, that is very, very unlikely.  But not impossible.

Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces.

I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument.  I hope you understand that much.

We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw?

I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God.

If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation.  Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so.  BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 27, 2018, 10:21:32 AM
#24
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
October 26, 2018, 10:08:32 PM
#23
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 26, 2018, 09:23:52 PM
#22
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible, calm your titties
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
October 26, 2018, 08:23:11 PM
#21
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1218
Change is in your hands
October 26, 2018, 08:19:30 PM
#20
Quote
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Wow, Loved it. Thank you for sharing this...
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 26, 2018, 07:13:03 PM
#19
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1218
Change is in your hands
October 26, 2018, 01:24:51 PM
#18
@ladysmith Just nailed it. It is our desire to cheat death which has led us to this point. I mean just look at our history, Man was always drawn to things like "Fountain of youth" from the beginning of time. What I wonder often these days is once we have merged with the machines and have made our consciousness immortal. What our next big desire will be? Will, we still pursue something like AI? Like a decade ago, Quantum computers were considered extremely powerful tools which would help us unlock the secrets of the universe and immortality. AI has snatched the spotlight from them for some reason. I wonder why... I mean we are much closer to quantum computers than something Like Technological singularity and yet we aren't hearing about them often. I Guess our priorities have shifted...
jr. member
Activity: 76
Merit: 1
October 26, 2018, 11:08:01 AM
#17
It depends on what the company plans to make. Do they want to create an AI robot that can do humans' dangerous jobs or house chores? Or are they planning to cheat death using artificial intelligence? The point is, AI is not bad and it doesn't automatically means the people behind it are playing God. It all depends on their intent.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
October 26, 2018, 10:17:48 AM
#16
As for the simulation argument, well, we cannot say for sure as there are many things in the quantum world that are just plain weird.  Impossible to represent on the computer.  Then you have to deal with singularities that have been predicted to exist by math.

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

We can already create virtual reality that is almost indistinguishable from actual reality, and we've only been using computers for ~40 years... how hard would it be to distinguish virtual reality from actual reality in another 100 years, or 1,000,000 years?  How much more complex will the simulations be in a million years?

What would even be the point of traveling 1000 light years to another planet, when we can simulate it right here? (probably why we've never been visited by aliens)

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

There is no physical evidence... it is a thought experiment, like Schrödinger's Cat:

If, in the future, virtual reality simulations will be indistinguishable from actual reality... how can we know that it hasn't already happened, and we aren't already living inside a simulation?

According to the theory, there is only 1 original universe, and infinitely many simulations... so the odds are 1 out of infinity that we are in the original universe... which means the odds of us living in a simulation are (infinity minus 1) out of infinity

I'm not a math surgeon, but I'd say the odds are quite high that we are already in a simulation; infinitesimally close to 100%

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
"A version of the simulation hypothesis was first theorised as a part of a philosophical argument on the part of René Descartes" (400 years ago, long before computers)

It is wishful thinking, IMHO.  Just like religion.  Let's stick with reality, shall we?

The simulation argument is invalidated by the fact that the fundamental equations of the laws of nature do not have closed-form solutions.

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
copper member
Activity: 224
Merit: 14
October 26, 2018, 10:10:21 AM
#15
Quote
If, in the future, virtual reality simulations will be indistinguishable from actual reality... how can we know that it hasn't already happened, and we aren't already living inside a simulation?

Apparently for US to create a simulation as powerful was the supposed simulation we live in it would require so much power that it would cause slow downs, glitches, and might even crash the system.. something I read somewhere..
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 26, 2018, 09:08:16 AM
#14
As for the simulation argument, well, we cannot say for sure as there are many things in the quantum world that are just plain weird.  Impossible to represent on the computer.  Then you have to deal with singularities that have been predicted to exist by math.

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

We can already create virtual reality that is almost indistinguishable from actual reality, and we've only been using computers for ~40 years... how hard would it be to distinguish virtual reality from actual reality in another 100 years, or 1,000,000 years?  How much more complex will the simulations be in a million years?

What would even be the point of traveling 1000 light years to another planet, when we can simulate it right here? (probably why we've never been visited by aliens)

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

There is no physical evidence... it is a thought experiment, like Schrödinger's Cat:

If, in the future, virtual reality simulations will be indistinguishable from actual reality... how can we know that it hasn't already happened, and we aren't already living inside a simulation?

According to the theory, there is only 1 original universe, and infinitely many simulations... so the odds are 1 out of infinity that we are in the original universe... which means the odds of us living in a simulation are (infinity minus 1) out of infinity

I'm not a math surgeon, but I'd say the odds are quite high that we are already in a simulation; infinitesimally close to 100%

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
"A version of the simulation hypothesis was first theorised as a part of a philosophical argument on the part of René Descartes" (400 years ago, long before computers)
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
October 26, 2018, 08:41:02 AM
#13
There are certain areas of the human brain that are so extremely interconnected and cross connected that it might be an impossibility for us to make an AI that approaches that kind of connective complexity. AI is there to teach us about ourselves, and for us to use as a tool. For example. AI can already easily out-learn and out-play the best chess players.

For the military, a bigger club, or more accurate gun. For big business, a better way to take over the minds of people one way or another, for more sales.

Cool
member
Activity: 179
Merit: 16
October 25, 2018, 10:19:23 AM
#12
jr. member
Activity: 126
Merit: 3
October 25, 2018, 10:16:01 AM
#11
Man created God/s in his own image and to explain things that once were not understood. AI does not represent anything about creating a god. AI is pure science. God is not; zero. It is only created and based on belief. AI is being created to make our life easier and not because of a desire to create god. AI is useful. It is already being used in healthcare, in technology, in quantum physics, in our cars, in our phones.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
October 25, 2018, 10:15:29 AM
#10
As for the simulation argument, well, we cannot say for sure as there are many things in the quantum world that are just plain weird.  Impossible to represent on the computer.  Then you have to deal with singularities that have been predicted to exist by math.

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

We can already create virtual reality that is almost indistinguishable from actual reality, and we've only been using computers for ~40 years... how hard would it be to distinguish virtual reality from actual reality in another 100 years, or 1,000,000 years?  How much more complex will the simulations be in a million years?

What would even be the point of traveling 1000 light years to another planet, when we can simulate it right here? (probably why we've never been visited by aliens)

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

copper member
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
October 25, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
#10
There's definitely a strong element of that, especially in the surprisingly large community of techies who want to upload everyone's minds into a simulated universe. See for example Roko's basilisk, which is a highly religious idea. The AI=God idea is old and kind of obvious, and can be seen for example in the 1994 novella The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. (Probably there are much older references to the idea, but that's one I know off-hand.)

That said, even if everyone was already true believers of some religion, AI (even superintelligent AI, if done carefully) would be an obvious possibility with clear benefits. So I definitely wouldn't say that "creating God" is the main goal of / impetus for AI research.

I think that the human mind has a built-in strong tendency toward religion, and people who eschew traditional religions often (but not always) end up replacing it with something else, even unknowingly. Examples include vague spiritual beliefs, politics, and AI. Another one which I don't often see mentioned in this context is the simulation hypothesis, which is almost exactly deism. In fact, the simulation hypothesis is similar in some ways to the ancient cosmological argument for the existence of god.
hello admin , pleas check my messages
member
Activity: 179
Merit: 16
October 25, 2018, 09:51:01 AM
#9
I don't think people have any desire to create God... What makes you think a computer could answer the big questions better than a human?

I think people have a tendency to be more productive, and use more energy of the planet.  Most of this is due to greed, money and power (control over other people).  Computers are a resource to be more productive and make more money than your competitors.  This is all that is needed for AI to advance... it is a tool to obtain more money and power.

Most people say AI is inevitable, and perhaps it has been since the invention of the water wheel or steam engine

All we can really do is hope that our new robot overlords treat us better than the people/animals we have conquered...

I definitely agree that its creation stems out of the endless need to acquire as much money and power as possible as efficiently as possible. Capitalism is what started it all and is a huge motivator. I don't think we'd be where we are today without it.

However, I do think people have a desire to create God. One could argue that people have been doing it for centuries. People wrote the bible. People wrote the Quran. People created these ideas which ended up being Gods for billions of people, but these don't suffice as much in today's day and age where people in the developed world know as much as they do about biology and social sciences.

A computer could answer the big questions better than a human because of never-before-seen methods of information processing. They could analyze physics, mathematical designs present in the universe, pick apart the intricacies of the human consciousness and explain it all in a language that we can understand.

I hope they treat us well too.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1195
October 25, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
#8
No. I don't think it does. I think we're just trying to find answers to life's questions and also improve our lives for the better, and isn't that what science is actually about? I don't think AI would ever be able to answer philosophical questions either. They might possibly be able to help us map out things like the brain or understand some mathematics or mechanics of the universe but would AI ever really be able to come up with the meaning of life or proof of something that is outside of the universe? Some people just wouldn't believe them anyway just like a lot of people disregard science and technology now if it goes against their beliefs.

I think it's more likely a case of trying to become gods ourselves. We can create so many things with technology but our intelligence is limited and we can't create life or anything close to it, and AI is probably the next best thing, but it still won't ever be enough. 

I think that the human mind has a built-in strong tendency toward religion, and people who eschew traditional religions often (but not always) end up replacing it with something else, even unknowingly. Examples include vague spiritual beliefs, politics, and AI.

It probably does in a sense because most people need something to believe in to keep going and get out of bed in the morning and religions are the simplest and most widely accepted reason for that. I think a lot of people are religious because it's a just an immense comfort blanket to them. They just don't want to believe that we're essentially just robot meat apes and life is ultimately meaningless, so they believe this life is actually for something and has purpose. This is why they get so defensive and aggressive when their beliefs are questioned or when they disregard science in spite of facts and evidence, because they don't want their beliefs or comfort blanket disturbed. I usually find that without religion a lot of people's lives would truly fall apart because they'd just become nihilists who think everything is pointless and without ultimate repercussions. You often hear religious people ask atheists things like "well what's stopping you from raping or murdering or stealing?" Well if god is the only thing that is stopping them from doing that then it's probably a good thing they believe in god because if that's the only thing stopping you from raping and murdering then we'd be living in a true nightmare and without religion the world would probably be in an even bigger mess than it already is. Spirituality is the next best thing if you're not religious but that's also nonsense and those sorts of people usually still think there's some sort of higher power or grander purpose to life, which is their comfort blanket. You could make an argument for politics and even things like sports. They're all just distractions really.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
October 25, 2018, 09:00:52 AM
#7
As for the simulation argument, well, we cannot say for sure as there are many things in the quantum world that are just plain weird.  Impossible to represent on the computer.  Then you have to deal with singularities that have been predicted to exist by math.

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

We can already create virtual reality that is almost indistinguishable from actual reality, and we've only been using computers for ~40 years... how hard would it be to distinguish virtual reality from actual reality in another 100 years, or 1,000,000 years?  How much more complex will the simulations be in a million years?

What would even be the point of traveling 1000 light years to another planet, when we can simulate it right here? (probably why we've never been visited by aliens)
Pages:
Jump to: