Comment author: gworley 23 June 2010 08:08:30PM 3 points [-]

I agree with you here in that almost no one, especially the world's poor, will consider this a valid means of coming back to life. But, then, that's sort of the point. Depending on how you present it you can potentially get people to keep these kinds of writings even if they don't believe it will extend their lives in any meaningful way, and then they won't be completely lost because they didn't believe it was possible to come back from a biological death. And it lets those who do believe it will let them come back to life pursue their interest without hitting against social backlash.

Comment author: ocr-fork 24 June 2010 01:20:32AM 0 points [-]

Depending on how you present it you can potentially get people to keep these kinds of writings even if they don't believe it will extend their lives in any meaningful way,

Writing isn't feasible, but lifelogging might be. (see gwern's thread). The government could hand out wearable cameras that double as driving licenses, credit cards, etc. If anyone objects all they have to do rip out the right wires.

Comment author: cousin_it 08 June 2010 07:50:03PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, but would a binary tree of simulated worlds "converge" as we go deeper and deeper? In fact it's not even obvious to me that a stack of worlds would "converge": it could hit an attractor with period N where N>1, or do something even more funky. And now, a binary tree? Who knows what it'll do?

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 08:32:24PM 1 point [-]

In fact it's not even obvious to me that a stack of worlds would "converge": it could hit an attractor with period N where N>1, or do something even more funky.

I'm convinced it would never converge, and even if it did I would expect it to converge on something more interesting and elegant, like a cellular automata. I have no idea what a binary tree system would do unless none of the worlds break the symmetry between A and B. In that case it would behave like a stack, and the story assumes stacks can converge.

Comment author: khafra 08 June 2010 05:20:23PM 0 points [-]

I interpreted the story Blueberry's way; the inverse of the way many histories converge into a single future in Permutation City, one history diverges into many futures.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 06:48:29PM 3 points [-]

I'm really confused now. Also I haven't read Permutation City...

Just because one deterministic world will always end up simulating another does not mean there is only one possible world that would end up simulating that world.

Comment author: cousin_it 08 June 2010 04:53:05PM *  1 point [-]

But what if two groups had built such computers independently? The story is making less and less sense to me.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 06:25:05PM *  2 points [-]

Level 558 runs the simulation and makes a cube in Level 559. Meanwhile, Level 557 makes the same cube in 558. Level 558 runs Level 559 to it's conclusion. Level 557 will seem frozen in relation to 558 because they are busy running 558 to it's conclusion. Level 557 will stay frozen until 558 dies.

558 makes a fresh simulation of 559. 559 creates 560 and makes a cube. But 558 is not at the same point in time as 559, so 558 won't mirror the new 559's actions. For example, they might be too lazy to make another cube. New 559 diverges from old 559. Old 559 ran 560 to it's conclusion, just like 558 ran them to their conclusion, but new 559 might decide to do something different to new 560. 560 also diverges.. Keep in mind that every level can see and control every lower level, not just the next one. Also, 557 and everything above is still frozen.

So that's why restarting the simulation shouldn't work.

But what if two groups had built such computers independently? The story is making less and less sense to me.

Then instead of a stack, you have a binary tree.

Your level runs two simulations, A and B. A-World contains its own copies of A and B, as does B-world. You create a cube in A-World and a cube appears in you world. Now you know you are an A-world. You can use similar techniques to discover that you are an A-World inside a B-World inside another B-World.... The worlds start to diverge as soon as they build up their identities. Unless you can convince all of them to stop differentiating themselves and cooperate, everybody will probably end up killing each other.

You can avoid this by always doing the same thing to A and B. Then everything behaves like an ordinary stack.

Comment author: Blueberry 08 June 2010 03:35:09PM 1 point [-]

I don't understand what you mean. Until they turn the simulation on, their world is the only layer. Once they turn it on, they make lots of copies of their layer.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 04:14:33PM 1 point [-]

Until they turned it on, they thought it was the only layer.

Comment author: Blueberry 08 June 2010 03:30:16AM 0 points [-]

A deterministic world could certainly simulate a different deterministic world, but only by changing the initial conditions (Big Bang) or transition rules (laws of physics). In the story, they kept things exactly the same.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 02:57:59PM 0 points [-]

That doesn't say anything about the top layer.

Comment author: Houshalter 08 June 2010 01:24:03AM *  0 points [-]

Why would they make a sheild out of black cubes of all things? But ya, I do see your point. Then again, once you have an infinitley powerful computer, you can do anything. Plus, even if they ran the simulation to it's end, they could always restart the simulation and advance it to the present time again, hence regaining the ability to control reality.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 01:32:09AM 1 point [-]

Then it would be someone else's reality, not theirs. They can't be inside two simulations at once.

Comment author: Houshalter 07 June 2010 07:29:24PM 2 points [-]

Couldn't they just run the simulation to its end rather then just let it sit there and take the chance that it could accidently be destroyed. If its infinitley powerful, it would be able to do that.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 12:48:16AM 2 points [-]

Then they miss their chance to control reality. They could make a shield out of black cubes.

Comment author: Blueberry 07 June 2010 08:42:01PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure about that. The universe is described as deterministic in the story, as you noted, and every layer starts from the Big Bang and proceeds deterministically from there. So they should all be identical. As I understood it, that business about gradually reaching a stable configuration was just a hypothesis one of the characters had.

Even if there are minor differences, note that almost everything is the same in all the universes. The quantum computer exists in all of them, for instance, as does the lab and research program that created them. The simulation only started a few days before the events in the story, so just a few days ago, there was only one layer. So any changes in the characters from turning off the simulation will be very minor. At worst, it would be like waking up and losing your memory of the last few days.

Comment author: ocr-fork 08 June 2010 12:32:58AM 1 point [-]

Why do you think deterministic worlds can only spawn simulations of themselves?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 June 2010 04:23:35PM 4 points [-]

Ok, but in that case, that world in question almost certainly can't be our world. We'd have to have deep misunderstandings about the rules for this universe. Such a universe might be self-consistent but it isn't our universe.

Comment author: ocr-fork 07 June 2010 04:49:52PM 4 points [-]

Of course. It's fiction.

View more: Prev | Next