Talk:Proof

From Simulism

This topic came up on Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/17/0150223) and I wondered if what we see in the quantum double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_of_experiment) is, if not evidence, at least consistent with a simulation. A simulator might save on computational effort by simulating photons as probability distributions most of the time, rather than tracking each and every photon. Thus in the double-slit experiment, an interference pattern is produced. But if we set up detectors at the slits, in order to find out which slit the photon is passing through, then we force the simulator to simulate each individual photon -- and as a result, a different pattern appears on the screen. Comments?

• This would indeed be an interesting topic. Perhaps you would want to write an article about this on the Science page? --Ivo 08:24, 19 December 2006 (CET)

[edit] Disproofs

P(Strong AI possible)>>P(intelligent beings can be designed by humans)

Ways an advanced civ might be "uninterested" in making _realistic_ simulations:

Simulation runs slower than real-time. By analogy with the Halting Problem, there could be irreducible physical phenomena which are physically impossible to simulate using less space-time - what will the weather be a year on Tuesday? If more humans could live than have ever existed (eg by colonising new planets) that is evidence that a minimal real-time simulation is possible.

Costs too much resources for billions of sims (eg by space-time limits).

Practical doubts: The accuracy of conventional simulations depends on the precision of initial data (an atom level simulation of Earth needs to know the state of every particle within k-lightyears where k is the duration) and the completeness and correctness of physical laws. This casts serious doubt on ever producing accurate historical simulations (before measurements were available). Sampling input data more quickly eg every second would minimise the dependence on physical laws.

re (2) Programs are the results of creative activity

We have existence proofs for evolved intelligences (ie humans) but not designed ones - Today it's more plausible that a conscious program could be evolved randomly than designed creatively.

re (2)...Extrapolating this activity to a real-world simulation, we would expect to have found codes, images, or other clear designations of authorship at some macro or micro level. None has been found.

This is controversial (leaving aside evidence from religious believers). In the paradigm of a super-intelligent designer why should the designed beings comprehend the design? Even if they could, by Goedels Incompleteness Theorem it can be impossible to prove design from within a formal system.

re (3) If the real world is a simulation rather than say, a complex cellular automata, then it has a purpose, and a designer

Suppose that simulations could be created by random natural processes - if a donkey eats an apple and a year later an apple tree grows, is the donkey the Designer of the tree? What is the trees purpose?

re (3)...This would mean, for example that the atoms, physical constants and processes, chemical reactions would all be disbalanced in favour of producing the object of the simulation, namely conscious life. Here we do find such evidence

This is merely a teleological fallacy - (1) where is the proof that evolution could not produce conscious life in any different universe? (2) why should the phenomenon of conscious life be especially esteemed as evidence of design?

How is it different from theology to speculate without evidence about the incomprehensible motives of an unknown Designer?