How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything

It's curious, watching Campbell's winter conference the impression that comes out of it is that he "solved" the programming issue by introducing an immaterial "Larger Consciousness System" that he admits can be interpreted as a 'god' of sorts (he makes an off-hand comment about hoping that this LCS is not appropriated by an established religion).

I know that his forum has fallen into disrepair and is inhabited by a combination of suck-ups and perhaps a token skeptic, but it seems to me that the "computer" part is being taken too literally here. I would describe it better as some sort of holodeck, a malleable projection of sorts. In any case, I wish that some of his protocols are formalized.

I mean, is there a test that one could devise to see if it exists or not? If so, I am not aware of one,, even theoretically.

In December 2016, Campbell went public with a few ideas:


A few days ago, Sci told me that Marcus Arvan has a few ideas as well: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/bl...olens.html

Edit: I do suspect, however, that Campbell's ideas have evolved since his "Big Theory" days, at least to some extent.

It's curious, watching Campbell's winter conference the impression that comes out of it is that he "solved" the programming issue by introducing an immaterial "Larger Consciousness System" that he admits can be interpreted as a 'god' of sorts (he makes an off-hand comment about hoping that this LCS is not appropriated by an established religion).

I know that his forum has fallen into disrepair and is inhabited by a combination of suck-ups and perhaps a token skeptic, but it seems to me that the "computer" part is being taken too literally here. I would describe it better as some sort of holodeck, a malleable projection of sorts. In any case, I wish that some of his protocols are formalized.

Interesting, the subtle nuances of Tom's theory. When I listened to him talk about it, I got the impression that he favoured a VR rather than a computer generated simulation (and I assumed a difference).

My comment earlier was really meant to address the actual computer simulation theories such as :

https://www.simulation-argument.com/

It appears that people such as Niel deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk like Bostrom's reasoning.

However, my reservations about that go way beyond what I wrote in my previous post. I think it has the same problem that AI does: qualia.

Interesting, the subtle nuances of Tom's theory. When I listened to him talk about it, I got the impression that he favoured a VR rather than a computer generated simulation (and I assumed a difference).

My comment earlier was really meant to address the actual computer simulation theories such as :

https://www.simulation-argument.com/

It appears that people such as Niel deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk like Bostrom's reasoning.

However, my reservations about that go way beyond what I wrote in my previous post. I think it has the same problem that AI does: qualia.

My response was aimed at the exchange between jkmac and malf, in which Tom was used as a central example. He does push VR, but exploits programming terms like a sailor curses.

There is an identical problem with models that appeal to a god.

Yes of course. Which is why the end of my post said this:

In my mind, I might as well just believe in a vengeful God.

I might be way off base in understanding what is being talked about in this thread (not having read the links, etc.) but I think there is a crucial difference between positing a computer generating a simulation and us living in a virtual reality existing in the mind of God (or source, or universal consciousness or whatever name you choose).

The computer would presumably be programmed by other minds - perhaps alien - which, presumably, live in a material universe and not a simulated one. Or maybe they are a simulation in a computer another level up (13th Floor, anyone?). How does that move us on from where we are now in our speculations?

God, on the other hand, might be thought of (and is, in some philosophies) as the uncreated ... that which is and what it is is all that is (er, sorry!).

I don't know,,, why is it not possible to imagine God as the alien in this scenario? Maybe "he" built the machine and wrote the software. Both stories are equally unsubstantiatible.

It's curious, watching Campbell's winter conference the impression that comes out of it is that he "solved" the programming issue by introducing an immaterial "Larger Consciousness System" that he admits can be interpreted as a 'god' of sorts (he makes an off-hand comment about hoping that this LCS is not appropriated by an established religion).

I know that his forum has fallen into disrepair and is inhabited by a combination of suck-ups and perhaps a token skeptic, but it seems to me that the "computer" part is being taken too literally here. I would describe it better as some sort of holodeck, a malleable projection of sorts. In any case, I wish that some of his protocols are formalized.

Yes,,, but who cases if the computer is box with blinking lights or something else? He views the system as a "machine" which operates by software-like rules. Whether the computer plugs in or takes some other form is really not important. 

Tom suggests it runs one instruction at a time, against a certain clock frequency, which explains (to him) why there seems to be an actual minimum time slice granularity to our reality, akin the the "planck level" of physical resolution.

Yes, trust me, MANY suck-ups on that site. Major reason I threw up my hands and left. I pointed out inaccuracies in what Tom was saying about some double slit experiments and caused a huge row. I decided to leave shortlky thereafter cause I didn't want to deal with a bunch of minions. A few months later Tom admitted this was a problem, and changed his description to fix it.

In December 2016, Campbell went public with a few ideas:


A few days ago, Sci told me that Marcus Arvan has a few ideas as well: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/bl...olens.html

Edit: I do suspect, however, that Campbell's ideas have evolved since his "Big Theory" days, at least to some extent.

I don't know- I met with him at an event last year and no real changes. Brilliant guy. Not saying he's wrong. Just that he is formulating a theory based on how this could work IF it was a computer. And turns out that he is force fitting various aspects of reality to conform to his theory by making assumptions that are baseless.

For  example- he claims that only humans and other creatures that can "make decisions" are subject to consciousness. You need to have a "decision space" he says. The need to be able to move for example, to decide to go left or right. That's completely arbitrary. Who's to say what has consciousness? And why? He is adding capabilities to his machine to explain whatever objection comes along. Seems to me to be a theory about what is possible, and not WHAT IS.

I don't know,,, why is it not possible to imagine God as the alien in this scenario? Maybe "he" built the machine and wrote the software. Both stories are equally unsubstantiatible.

It is possible but it gets you precisely nowhere. If you speculate that a super-advanced alien race programmed a whole simulated universe complete with simulated sentient beings then you are still left with a presumably material universe in which these aliens evolved to that point. So, having arrived at the point where these aliens can create such a simulation it must surely occur to them that they too might be simulations created by some programmer. An so on and so on.

As I said, however, that scenario also ignores metaphysical questions and the mind/brain dichotomy but that's a different discussion.

Interesting, the subtle nuances of Tom's theory. When I listened to him talk about it, I got the impression that he favoured a VR rather than a computer generated simulation (and I assumed a difference).

My comment earlier was really meant to address the actual computer simulation theories such as :

https://www.simulation-argument.com/

It appears that people such as Niel deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk like Bostrom's reasoning.

However, my reservations about that go way beyond what I wrote in my previous post. I think it has the same problem that AI does: qualia.

Not a big Niel deGrasse Tyson fan. 

I find much more style than substance.

Have never heard him, say a single thing that wasn't obvious or wrong. 

Example- he made a claim about helicopters that they are more dangerous than planes because if the engine fails they would simply fall out of the sky. Really? Are you that clueless? I assume he's not a pilot, but isn't auto-rotation pretty much known to the general public? OK maybe I'm being unfair,,, but I just don't see him as the last word on anything.