"Earth as a Simulation Series 2: Are we simulated copies of people? How, slowing down technological development in your simulation will get around the potential recursive building sims in a sim glitch problems. However, an accurately simulated population will STILL present specific experiences, despite that the technologies these experiences depend on DON'T YET exist (immersive VR experiences for example). This series presents evidence of anomalous 'missing technology' experiences & evidence of obscuration of these & evidence that the simulation we are in was built in the last few decades."
Main Page Headings List
In dismissing this possibility as being IMPOSSIBLE then it is also very obvious that they haven’t even thought about the possibility of there being ‘obvious’ visible evidence ‘IF’ a population was being TAKEN THROUGH THE PHASE WHEN THE SIMULATION WAS BUILT. ‘IF’ they had considered this possibility then they would have eventually realized that there WILL be visible evidence AND being visible then it’s likely that you can physically OBSERVE this potential evidence to see if it’s visibly present . . .
As a Simulation Designer what would you desperately need to very Accurately Simulate your own Population?
However, they have obviously NOT even thought about this possibility AT ALL because ‘IF’ then they had they would have figured out they’d be OBVIOUS visible clues AND then they’d have used their advanced observational abilities to actually OBSERVE if any of these clues are actually VISIBLY present here.
This is not only inexcusably, incompetent it’s also going to be highly embarrassing.
A very good and rational question to consider ‘IF’ there is a possibility that we might be in a simulation would be this one . . .
“‘IF’ simulated people were being simulated through the ‘building the simulation we are in phase’ then would there be any observable visible evidence to the simulated population that they were living through this phase?”
What evidence would there be ‘IF’ we are in a simulation AND we where also ‘unbelievably’ being simulated through the phase were the population we are simulating designed and built the very simulation we are in?
Obviously this requires one to exercise something that seems impossible here . . . which is the ability to THINK and ponder about earth as a simulation possibilities.
Now if you consistently attempt to do this then after about a year of effort your feeble minded head might just manage to figure out that for a simulation to be useful it has to be accurate AND that this accuracy ‘unbelievably’ doesn’t just happen magically.
For our meteorological weather simulations here we have sensors all feeding in data from all round the world as well as data from satellites. Without accurate data your simulation simply won’t return accurate results.
So, what accurate data would be required to simulate an entire world of purported to be conscious and aware people seriously accurately?
Well, ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then we are each accurately simulating someone else AND we are living every detail of that persons life, we are doing their job, we are married to the same person they are, we will have the same shopping habits, we will have learnt to speak the same language, we will have studied the same things, we will go to the same tennis club, we will even have the same likes and preferences, the same thinking capacities . . . and so on and so on . . .
So, are we supposed to believe that the simulation managers employed a magician to magically manifest this data out of a magicians hat? I say this because this is obviously what academics here must think OR perhaps they just haven’t been allowed to THINK about this PERIOD?
How would you Disguise the Global Collection of Personal Data from your Simulated Population?
‘IF’ we are simulating people though the phase they designed and built the simulation then for the earth simulation to be useful then they’d have to collect unbelievably minute personal details about each and every person and their life.
Seriously, is this too complicated to figure out?
‘IF’ we are in a simulation project accurately emulating all the people from somewhere else then just were did they get the personal data from to generate each person here?
For ANYONE that has spent time seriously THINKING about ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities then it eventually becomes stupidly obvious that an impossible to hide, very invasive PEOPLE data collection would be one of the ABSOLUTE things that would be VISIBLE ‘IF’ we are in a simulation AND that this data collection would ONLY be visible when we are being simulated through the phase the simulation we are in was being built and TESTED.
The simulation designers couldn’t even start to test basic and realistic ‘people interaction rendering’ software components without this data.
To collect this detail of personal information on a global scale then they would have had to invade EVERYONE’S PRIVACY to an unbelievable degree. In other words, this invasion of privacy would have happened on an astonishing scale within the population that built a simulation of this detail.
To put this VERY simply . . .
‘IF’ this data collection took place in the original population then in an accurate simulation of that population pretty much the same personal data collection effort would ALSO happen in the simulated copied population too . . . in other words ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then a personal data collection effort WILL ALSO BE VISIBLE HERE . . .
So, ‘IF’ you are one of those here that have spent time THINKING about ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities then why have you OBVIOUSLY NOT THOUGHT about this very obvious possibility?
Isn’t this one of the very obvious clues that will be highly, HIGHLY visible to your simulated population ‘IF’ you are in a simulation AND that you are also being simulated through the simulation project’s data collection and TESTING phase?
The next question for you to THINK about before reading the next page is quite obvious . . .
“If you were a simulation designer than how would you prevent your simulated population from becoming suspicious about any massive, global, very personal data collection particularly as the designer of our simulation would be aware that just a few years before this started to happen there’d be an official academic ‘simulation argument’ published which worryingly might encourage someone (ANYONE) to START THINKING about what a MASSIVE, global, personal data collection might ‘REALLY’ signify . . . “
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .
November 4, 2014 @ 8:44 pm
Another in depth post that’s wonderfully put together Clive. Most of what you said reminds me of the concept of getting a job. To get a job, what do you do? You go to a job location and fill out an application. A job application is information to screen people and to KEEP DATA on a person so that the employers know who they will/will not hire. I feel that is part of keep records on people. As a result, a lot, I mean A LOT of people go unemployed or very few get hired.
January 8, 2015 @ 6:01 pm
This quote from science fiction novel Permutation City (by Greg Egan) exemplifies the kind of in depth data gathering tools that the original population likely had.
In this passage the marketing software AI is not only ‘finding’ data about this person’s relationship partner remotely but it also exploiting this personal relationship partner of the person they are selling to by using a ‘close’ resemblance avatar to try to manipulate/ sell to/ influence the ‘potential customer.
If you think about it this is exactly like the movie ‘Inception’ where they use a ‘close’ but different double– a subtle way to infiltrate and manipulate people through their associations that are ‘close’ but not exactly the same, cognitively dissonant to break down psychological barriers and infiltrate.
So this is interesting from an ‘invasion of privacy’ standpoint and also the mind-boggling things that these technologies lead to. In addition the technology and concept itself is very interesting and I think we can all relate to have to manually sort through ‘junk’ / ‘spam mail’ ahahhaa.
NOTE:
Maria = potential customer
Aden = relationship partner
—
Permutation City by Greg Egan
p. 17
Upstairs, in the bedroom that doubled as an office, Maria switched on her terminal and glanced at a summary of the twenty-one items of mail which had arrived since she’d last checked. All were classified as ‘Junk’; there was nothing from anyone she knew — and nothing remotely like an offer of paid work. Camel’s Eye, her screening software, had identified six pleas for donations from charities (all worthy causes, but Maria had hardened her heart); five invitations to enter lotteries and competitions; seven retail catalogues (all of which boasted that they’d been tailored to her personality and ‘current lifestyle requirements’ — but Camel’s Eye had assessed their contents and found nothing of interest); and three interactives.
The ‘dumb’ audio-visual mail was all in standard transparent data formats, but interactives were executable programs, machine code with heavily encrypted data, intentionally designed to be easier for a human to talk to than for screening software to examine and summarize. Camel’s Eye had run all three interactives (on a doubly quarantined virtual machine — a simulation of a computer running a simulation on a computer) and tried to fool them into thinking that they were making their pitch to the real Maria Deluca. Two sales programs — superannuation and health insurance — had fallen for it, but the third had somehow deduced its true environment and clammed up before disclosing anything. In theory, it was possible for Camel’s Eye to analyse the program and figure out exactly what it would have said if it had been fooled; in practice, that could take weeks. The choice came down to trashing it blind, or talking to it in person.
Maria ran the interactive. A man’s face appeared on the terminal; ‘he’ met her gaze and smiled warmly, and she suddenly realized that ‘he’ bore a slight resemblance to Aden. Close enough to elicit a flicker of recognition which the mask of herself she’d set up for Camel’s Eye would not have exhibited? Maria ran the interactive. A man’s face appeared on the terminal; ‘he’ met her gaze and smiled warmly, and she suddenly realized that ‘he’ bore a slight resemblance to Aden. Close enough to elicit a flicker of recognition which the mask of herself she’d set up for Camel’s Eye would not have exhibited?
Maria felt a mixture of annoyance and grudging admiration. She’d never shared an address with Aden — but no doubt the data analysis agencies correlated credit card use in restaurants, or whatever, to pick up relationships which didn’t involve cohabitation. Mapping useful connections between consumers had been going on for decades — but employing the data in this way, as a reality test, was a new twist.
The junk mail, now rightly convinced that it was talking to a human being, began the spiel it had refused to waste on her digital proxy. ‘Maria, I know your time is valuable, but I hope you can spare a few seconds to hear me out.’ It paused for a moment, to make her feel that her silence was some kind of assent. ‘I also know that you’re a highly intelligent, discerning woman, with no interest whatsoever in the muddled, irrational superstitions of the past, the fairy tales that comforted humanity in its infancy.’ Maria guessed what was coming next; the interactive saw it on her face — she hadn’t bothered to hide behind any kind of filter — and it rushed to get a hook in. ‘No truly intelligent person, though, ever dismisses any idea without taking the trouble to evaluate it — sceptically, but fairly — and here at the Church of the God Who Makes No Difference–”
Maria pointed two fingers at the interactive, and it died. She wondered if it was her mother who’d set the Church onto her, but that was unlikely. They must have targeted their new member’s family automatically; if consulted, Francesca would have told them that they’d be wasting their time.
Maria invoked Camel’s Eye and told it, ‘Update my mask so it reacts as I did in that exchange.’
A brief silence followed. Maria imagined the synaptic weighting parameters being juggled in the mask’s neural net, as the training algorithm hunted for values which would guarantee the required response. She thought: If I keep on doing this, the mask if going to end up as much like me as a fully fledged Copy. And what’s the point of saving yourself from the tedium of talking to junk mail if . . . you’re not? It was a deeply unpleasant notion . . . but masks were orders of magnitude less sophisticated than Copies; they had about as many neurons as the average goldfish — organized in a far less human fashion. Worrying about their ‘experience’ would be as ludicrous as feeling guilty about terminating junk mail.
Camel’s Eye said, ‘Done’.
November 4, 2015 @ 2:54 pm
I was/am aghast at the collection of data via social networks, media preferences, shopping history and government collection agencies. Last year I tried to view the reason for it and I got one word: recreation. At the time I assumed we were the ‘real’ people but maybe not.
April 1, 2016 @ 1:26 pm
EVIDENCE
So, what accurate data would be required to simulate an entire world of purported to be conscious and aware people seriously accurately?
Well, ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then we are each accurately simulating someone else AND we are living every detail of that persons life, we are doing their job, we are married to the same person they are, we will have the same shopping habits, we will have learnt to speak the same language, we will have studied the same things, we will go to the same tennis club, we will even have the same likes and preferences, the same thinking capacities . . . and so on and so on . . .
So, are we supposed to believe that the simulation managers employed a magician to magically manifest this data out of a magicians hat? I say this because this is obviously what academics here must think OR perhaps they just haven’t been allowed to THINK about this PERIOD?
Especially with the above mentioning ‘shopping’ as well as the ‘likes and preferences’. I came across this article on ‘ad blocking’:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/alexander-hanff/whittingdale-is-wrong-it-is-advertisers-who-are-destroying-digital-economy?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=597d18c207-DAILY_NEWSLETTER_MAILCHIMP&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_717bc5d86d-597d18c20
At the beginning of March the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, gave a speech at the Oxford Media Convention after being lobbied by publishers on the issue of “ad blocking”. It was clear from Whittingdale’s comments that his opinion was based on just one side of the argument and that he had made no attempt to research the issue beyond meetings with lobbyists. Indeed he even stated as much:
“The newspaper industry brought this to my attention and did not understate the severe consequences if this trend continues.”
Whittingdale compares the ad blocking revolution to the music revolution a decade ago and accuses those of us who use ad blocking technologies of being no better than “pirates”. Furthermore he accuses the developers of ad blocking tools of running a “modern day protection racket” whilst completely ignoring the very legitimate concerns of digital consumers.
—
So, this article is basically protesting the an official ‘attitude’ espoused by this politician which ADMITTEDLY was accepted absolutely at FACE VALUE without any further thinking or deliberation and rubber stamped.
This type of attitude is not only very bizarre but as you read on you get to the ‘meat’ of what this seems to be about (and what it was probably about in the original population or would be representing):
Ad blocking plugins such as the popular AdBlock Plus (Eyeo GmbH) work by preventing the web browser from ever connecting to the adtech servers which place tracking technologies (such as cookies) on consumers’ computers and mobile devices. By blocking the connection from ever happening it prevents many of the techniques used to track and profile our online activities from doing so. This is why, as a long standing advocate of privacy, I have been recommending such tools for close to a decade.
Especially:
preventing the web browser from ever connecting to the adtech servers which place tracking technologies (such as cookies) on consumers’ computers and mobile devices.
So there is obviously a huge pushback against anyone wanting ‘sane and decent’ privacy standards. Which goes along with this:
Digital advertising has recently been described as the biggest threat to privacy not just due to the intrusive tracking and profiling of our online activities but also, as advertising becomes increasingly programmatic, the number of security risks increases as well, leaving digital consumers wide open to fraud, identity theft and other harms. Just last year Google removed 780 million bad programmatic ads from their advertising networks which were designed to exploit vulnerabilities in web browsers to take control of computers and mobile devices.
So you can sort of understand why ‘no one’, not politicians or regulatory bodies OR publishers or advertisers or the consumers (i.e. us poor saps using the things) can come to any basic or coherent understanding let alone consensus. No one is allowed to make heads or tails of it really, it’s basically a huge jumbled mess:
So despite Whittingdale’s unqualified statements, digital consumers should absolutely be using ad blocking technologies to mitigate these significant risks against their properties and fundamental rights. Cyber crime costs an estimated $375 billion – $575 billion globally per year and if ad blocking can help prevent some of that drain on the global economy everyone should be using it.
Whittingdale claims we are all irresponsible and that if we don’t start accepting advertising as the funding model for the Internet, publishers will go out of business and presumably the Internet will fail. We heard the same argument about the music industry, the book industry and the movie industry during the advent of digital technologies set to create paradigm shifts in those markets. Yet here we are 10 years later with more music, movies and published content than we have ever had.
I recently spoke at industry events for both the publishing and advertising sectors – on the issue of privacy and ad blocking – and it became abundantly clear at each of these events that the publishing industry accept that they got it wrong, the advertising industry accept that they got it wrong – both understand that their relationships with consumers of digital content are broken and that they are responsible for breaking it.