Dear Dr. Roman, thanks for this beautiful article. I loved it!! I have a few thoughts around it...
If we live inside a simulation, also if the simulators have only limited resources (source of energy) available for computation at a given instant of time, then the simulators would try to minimize the computational cost (i.e. ultimately to minimize energy consumption for computations) to run the simulation in a more efficient manner. If all this is true, it could be possible for us to exploit this attribute of simulation in some way to our own benefits in the simulated world. I would term this "Applied Simulation Hypothesis".
Maybe we can computationally entangle two distinct events that are otherwise not causally related, if we live inside simulation. For instance, ask your friend to run a random number generation in New York. At the same time, you run a highly complex computation in your computer in London. For instance the computation could be about simulating weather or turbulence to keep it really complex. You plan it in such a way that if the random number generator returns 1, 3 and 7, then, you (sitting in London) would exponentially increase the complexity of the calculations (may be by involving more parameters). If the random number generator returns other than these three numbers, you would exponentially reduce the computational complexity. If we are all inside a simulation, then to reduce the computational pressure, the simulators might slightly "BIAS" the random number generator in New York to produce numbers other than 1, 3 or 7. This is why i call this "computational entanglement". This phenomenon could be one of the ways we can prove (or disprove) that we live inside simulation. If at all this is true, then the key questions are:
1. How complex should be the calculations run in London to influence the random number generator at New York?
2. How long should I increase/decrease the computational complexity in London to computationally entangle with the program running at New York?
3. What would be the implications if we prove the existence of computational entanglement?
4. How much of "BIAS" can be really triggered in the random number generation process in this way if at all the hypothesized computational entanglement actually exists?
I’m pretty well convinced at this point that the ai race is fueled by people who are trying to break everyone out, and they’ll stop at nothing to get it done. They don’t care what the outcome is. They assume breaking it will be better than us being stuck in it forever. It’s either that, or eventually everyone gets to see how and why a simulation started towards the end of their “spiritual” journey. Things are so seemingly stupid and reckless right now that whatever is going on definitely doesn’t seem like the logic of base reality. Either I fucked up badly, which I guess is more likely, or the demiurge is asleep at the wheel.
Dear Dr. Roman, thanks for this beautiful article. I loved it!! I have a few thoughts around it...
If we live inside a simulation, also if the simulators have only limited resources (source of energy) available for computation at a given instant of time, then the simulators would try to minimize the computational cost (i.e. ultimately to minimize energy consumption for computations) to run the simulation in a more efficient manner. If all this is true, it could be possible for us to exploit this attribute of simulation in some way to our own benefits in the simulated world. I would term this "Applied Simulation Hypothesis".
Maybe we can computationally entangle two distinct events that are otherwise not causally related, if we live inside simulation. For instance, ask your friend to run a random number generation in New York. At the same time, you run a highly complex computation in your computer in London. For instance the computation could be about simulating weather or turbulence to keep it really complex. You plan it in such a way that if the random number generator returns 1, 3 and 7, then, you (sitting in London) would exponentially increase the complexity of the calculations (may be by involving more parameters). If the random number generator returns other than these three numbers, you would exponentially reduce the computational complexity. If we are all inside a simulation, then to reduce the computational pressure, the simulators might slightly "BIAS" the random number generator in New York to produce numbers other than 1, 3 or 7. This is why i call this "computational entanglement". This phenomenon could be one of the ways we can prove (or disprove) that we live inside simulation. If at all this is true, then the key questions are:
1. How complex should be the calculations run in London to influence the random number generator at New York?
2. How long should I increase/decrease the computational complexity in London to computationally entangle with the program running at New York?
3. What would be the implications if we prove the existence of computational entanglement?
4. How much of "BIAS" can be really triggered in the random number generation process in this way if at all the hypothesized computational entanglement actually exists?
Kindly share your thoughts..
Regards
Vaitheeswaran
I’m pretty well convinced at this point that the ai race is fueled by people who are trying to break everyone out, and they’ll stop at nothing to get it done. They don’t care what the outcome is. They assume breaking it will be better than us being stuck in it forever. It’s either that, or eventually everyone gets to see how and why a simulation started towards the end of their “spiritual” journey. Things are so seemingly stupid and reckless right now that whatever is going on definitely doesn’t seem like the logic of base reality. Either I fucked up badly, which I guess is more likely, or the demiurge is asleep at the wheel.
Is this a joke?
why would this be a joke?