Matt The irony to me, of what every human believe in, is that it is conditional. For example, "We believe in science, but we don't believe in possibility." Strangely though, it is exactly that inherent, relativistic effect in every human, which should give rise to possibility. We do not have to all agree on the assumption that all laws of how the universe works are known to science. We already know - because of science - that all laws are not known, for example, the laws on dark matter. This fact opens up possibilities for re-examining and challenging conventional science.
Bearing in mind, we cannot simply discard what is known as "irrelevant". For example. we cannot simply conclude that all light spectra do not travel through a vacuum at a constant speed. The process of science allows for the re-examination of published facts. However, there is an acceptable process for doing so. This is t ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, 02 September 2019 22:39 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings If we are living in a simulation then of course anything is possible. It isn't a law that nothing is faster than light. It's an observation. Here are at least 4 possibilities, listed in decreasing order of complexity, and therefore increasing likelihood if Occam's Razor holds outside the simulation. 1. Only your brain exists. All of your sensory inputs are simulated by a model of a non-existent outside world. The universe running this simulation is completely different and we can know nothing about it. It might be that space, time, matter, and life are abstract concepts that exist only in the model. 2. Your mind, memories, and existence are also simulated. You didn't exist one second ago. 3. The observable universe is modeled in a few hundred bits of code tuned to allow intelligence life to evolve. In this case the speed of light is in the code. 4. All possible universes with all possible laws of physics exist and we necessary observe one that allows intelligent life to evolve. There may be other possibilities that a simulation wouldn't allow us to imagine. On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, 6:49 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com<mailto:nano...@live.com>> wrote: It's easier to break a mold than gluing it back together again. Let's not male science our god, nor our demon. It's still up to us to procure meaning from chaos, or at least to describe such an observation via an appropriate, qualitative and quantitative language. I'm in favor of experimental science, but there has to be a discipline involved, else it's just hacking away till you've deforested the forest. Your point on the speed of light? Most interesting. Perhaps a more-practical example of "going faster than the speed of light" would be useful. I suppose, it'll all end in a static, spot of white light, wouldn't it? Just as it began. Ask yourself this; would an AGI entity be having this kind of discussion, and if so, how would it flow? ________________________________ From: johnr...@polyplexic.com<mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com> <johnr...@polyplexic.com<mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com>> Sent: Sunday, 01 September 2019 23:54 To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com<mailto:agi@agi.topicbox.com>> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings On Friday, August 30, 2019, at 2:31 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote: But, I strongly disagree with the following statement, for it contains an inherent contradiction. "It is allowed to break physics or invent new ones in a virtual world." No, they should not be allowed. The definition of engineering, as putting method to science, denounces such anarchism. Engineers have to take method and use it in context of science. If no science exists yet, they seemingly have the obligation to try equally hard to develop and formalize it. What I meant, for example that old saying, what goes faster than the speed of light? Thought. I always considered that stupid but it actually isn’t. If you have models in a software virtual world they can break all kinds of physics (and mathematics) in an attempt to shortcut to solutions and/or model more accurately with existing resources. A Few wise Yogi quotes: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." "We made too many wrong mistakes." "If the world was perfect, it wouldn’t be." What is one way to bypass combinatorial explosions? Break rules. Shhh it’s a secret :) and it’s OK. That’s how things work. John Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M35540f43ca4f7b08a2d379b1> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-Md192930e50d01ee257073fc8 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
