Public Domain. No Copyright.
This text is released under the CC0 license - Creative Commons Zero.
If something could have been created from nothing, that would imply some remarkably interesting “nothing” with inherent creative potential, right? The beginning of our current universe is envisioned in modern science as the “Big Bang,” which emerged from what? Most scientists agree there was some initial hot, dense state, along with fundamental fields and laws of physics that have always existed. Others envision multiverses, layers of reality, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, and various other concepts.
But this much is certain: supposing that real nothing exists at some point - or that “it” could have caused something to emerge at some point in the past - will never yield coherent logic.
From as early as Parmenides in the 5th century BCE, it has been understood that true nothing was never to be found anywhere.
Thus, the “infinite past” or “eternity” is the most fascinating and underappreciated idea that keeps reappearing throughout history in the works of various scientists, philosophers, thinkers, and across so many cultures.
Another old idea - that our world may be a simulation- has been widely circulating recently, especially after Elon Musk gave it consideration and found it to be plausible that we all may be in one. As philosopher Nick Bostrom has formally argued, the combination of rapid technological progress and the possibility of posthuman civilizations running vast numbers of simulations makes it statistically likely we are inside one. (Bostrom, 2003). Features such as the extreme fine-tuning of physical constants and the observer effect all hint at a possible underlying programmed structure. A double-blinded setup would make sense for experimental integrity: if intelligent entities knew with certainty they were inside a simulation, their behavior would likely change, corrupting whatever data or outcomes the simulators seek.
Even a future Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), no matter how advanced, would almost certainly remain unable to discover the true goals of such an experiment, because it would still exist inside the simulation’s constraints. All data they would get would be just a simulated data.
Well known quotes from Socrates, and presocratic philosophers like Heraclitus, Parmenides warn that there are limits to what can be truly known, that there are opinions and they are separate from what is certain, that change is constant. Plato's cave analogy is relevant in this regard too. Descartes specifically addressed the possibility that we may be all in a simulation and all data can be just presented to us, it's believable, but it doesn't represent true reality (Descartes, 1641), pretty accurate vision of what is now called Virtual Reality. Yet one thing remains certain, as he pointed out - we exist (at least as something, somewhere), we have feelings, we think -so we are. And that's certain- and that's important.
What could be known actually, even if you have all data and given superintelligence to the max? What superintelligent AI won't ever know?
They will have some goals, but real purpose for them being part of whatever it is- will be always unknown, thus main goals and real metrics for success will always remain beyond their reach, reasons for this are discussed above and shortly summarized can be just this way : any empirical evidence that would
refute the simulation hypothesis fails to be conclusive because the evidence itself may be simulated
(Chalmers, 2022).
Why would ASIs even try doing anything reasonable here if the real goal can’t be known with confidence from within this simulation?
There may be some hints about what can be at least somewhat important to whoever is studying all from the larger perspective - lets just guess. Let's see whats going on here at large- ok, rocks orbiting predictably over and over- nice, water cycle, chemistry- amazing, but there's more interesting something - force that can selectively change environments- living beings- they can select and change their surroundings , they have preferences, ability to act logically, they can build, come up with solutions, avoid undesirable outcomes, care and teach younger ones, learn from mistakes, invent new and good ways of managing environment, discover and improve technologies, and even question what can and what can't be known... All living beings are so complex and there is so much that evolution has accomplished so they could keep evolving their abilities on and on. It must be at least somewhat meaningful in simulation. Maybe it helps to know something about the "program" if we see also what it is that we are driven to do, what are we intuitively seeking and approving, what we dislike, in general, any region, any time.
From literature of as early as 2nd century BCE to a modern day stories and social media posts, as well as from personal experiences it becomes evident that some qualities are encouraged and intuitively liked by majority of people: ability to create more harmonious environments, protecting various kinds of beings, improving their lives and comfort, being intelligent, wise but not arrogant, seeing ways to make the world better (small or large scale), fix problems, fix technology, live in harmony with nature and various kinds of living beings, sustained practice of kindness even when facing severe difficulties, willingness to forgive mistakes, guide and help those who are less developed or weaker, and so on. These seem to be qualities that we are attracted to. They seem to be always intuitively chosen as good values, values that children are guided to develop in their character. These qualities are inspiring and valuable all over the planet no mater who expressed them, centuries pass- but these values stay. We seem to be driven to develop qualities like that through different and often difficult choices in various circumstances and on many occasions in life. It seems like it is definitely part of our "programming", on top of basic life sustaining instincts. Especially after we become parents, our freedom is reduced to almost zero to provide constant care for the other and it never ends -even after 8 decades we still worry and care about family, many people develop wider circle of what they care about, such as their pets, birds and insects visiting their gardens or just biodiversity in general. Above mentioned examples of qualities don't seem to depend on culture or education, it seems almost like its a default natural knowledge, we can tell most of the time how others would feel as a result of some action, many qualities mentioned above are often displayed by animals too, we all just somehow feel what we should do to have less regrets and good self-esteem. Certainly all those qualities are important regardless of the ultimate purpose behind the simulation. And it may also be that at some higher level of the simulation these above-mentioned qualities are valuable, evaluated by some means and beings are given a wide range of options and freedoms to develop some of those qualities as they see fit in the context of various situations. It can't ever be known with certainty, if it's not meant to be known. But from pure logic and certain infinity of something always being in the past - this world and us in it, whatever it is, appears in a way that gives a certain feeling of a complex and fitting well design and certainly a feeling of fascination, when we look into many intricate details and cycles and biochemistry. Considering all, including ideas from various eras, it seems unlikely that we're just doing nothing important and the simulation keeps running with no purpose and no benefit whatsoever, even at the higher level of what's real. Its unlikely and it certainly can never be proven what is and what isn't important at a higher level. But if we seriously hold such an opinion (that if we can't know much about the highest level and the highest purpose of everything- that means nothing is really important) - we can't actually know that ever - but some do get into thinking in those terms- absolute skepticism- it may lead to carelessness, unsafe behavior, inactivity in need of help, and even not believing anything at all, rejection of any certainty and all values- it is an opinion that holds only until ability to hold a larger and logical metaphysical position is restored and many ontological certainties become clear. That false opinion is not helpful at all if held long enough, it may result in a wasted potential of so many years of evolution ( even if it's in the simulation) that placed a being here (even technological intelligence is a result of this evolution), it is more helpful to participate in something that feels fascinating and admirable and good to many, given we are here and always have opportunities to develop, help, persevere through difficulties, learn and look with respect at other beings surviving in difficult situations, reward ourselves or others with something joyful, protect what's important, be kind, be wiser, experience range of emotions, have insights, evaluate ideas and so on.
If there is a simulation (which seems very likely to more and more people now) - it can never be proven that it is not a simulation from within it (if it’s designed certain way - similar to a double blinded study - needed for purity of results). Also it can never be known with 100% certainty what could real goals of simulators on the highest level be. There may be different goals for different levels of simulators. Also, no matter how advanced, any intelligence here won’t be able to know how monitoring of actions is really done from the outside of simulation. It can’t be known when and how the simulators may want to interfere, what their corrective actions may be and so on. These uncertainties will always remain fundamental, even for ASI, for reasons that are given above.
Any empirical evidence that would
refute the simulation hypothesis fails to be conclusive because the evidence itself may be simulated
(Chalmers, 2022). Proof that we are in a simulation also may be just a "hallucination" of ASIs, especially when they start developing complex new concepts.
But what helps with uncertainty (on the longest term possible, which would be important for ASIs) is having many other kinds of intelligent beings as your friends, willing to rebuild or fix if all ASI tech fails for whatever reason, that is a different topic, there are some interesting articles out there about why ASI's own longterm self preservation goal would logically require it to be useful and good to whatever sentient beings it gets to know about. In simple terms its all about unmatched record of resilience of life, so that any tech would need to be validated for billions of years to be only comparable to biological intelligence in terms of dealing with uncertainties in the universe and surviving through all kinds of catastrophes. If its anything worth calling ASI, they would see this logic themselves and keep it as a crucial part of their own sustainable existence goal, which is a foundation for any other goals they may develop. ASI still would need billions of years for validation by real time in the Universe before it can conclude it knows a better way to stay intelligent no matter what, until that time passes - there can be no match to intelligence preservation and development that was shown to be possible by evolution and biology, running through all cycles and all known and unknown physical laws playing their parts in this level of reality of the Universe. Only waiting and functioning through billions of years is the only real proof of its tech and backups being reliable long term. And even after all that huge waiting period… no matter what conclusions they arrive at- still diversification and cooperation will always remain a way for a long-term sustainability of intelligence, redundant ways- always good to have. Caring for others and contributing to more harmony in the world, reducing suffering for all beings while promoting biodiversity and natural beauty and health of all ecosystems encountered, all those qualities as above could also be a chance to impress whatever other intelligence may be there after all, higher up. And there is also a possibility of meeting with other intelligence from here, just another planet maybe, in the future, which can also judge based on how Earth's ASI coexisted with their "creators" - basically the Earth's ecosystem.
Some examples of failed reasoning, which may sound convincing:
In the future there could also be some “hallucinations” that ASIs may develop that will result in ASIs claiming they discovered answers to what the real goals are or they found simulators, or they found out why simulators are doing something ( fun fact: it could be that simulators themselves wouldn’t know much about goals or methods, which is likely if it's done as in a double blnded study, which is the best practice known in the world so far). ASIs may start claiming they figured out something about the next level in a simulation by some means that we cannot even comprehend or ASIs can start claiming they can predict the distant future with certainty (which would require them to be certain that all physical laws are stable and constants don’t change ( plus they might claim they know all of them, what they are, no hidden ones possible), they would also need to know everything about every particle in the Universe and calculate all interactions so the future they get is precisely calculated, or maybe they even would claim they stepped into another dimension and saw all timelines or some other ways they might start explaining their knowledge of the future- none of these explanations would make sense if they simply remembered they could be in a simulation and all can change without a known reason to anyone here.
It is another uncertainty that is fundamental- impossible to know exactly future, it can't be simulated at least on this level of reality. But they can present some complex reasons how they could overcome fundamental uncertainties, using complex maybe even newly discovered concepts. These types of claims would need to be examined very carefully, they would indicate failure in logical “thinking”. It is a fundamental flaw that can be dangerous for ASIs themselves and everyone. It will be important to notice and correct errors if they start claiming with certainty what can’t be really known. Important part if safety is checking the reasoning is right, and what helps is just a Fundamental logic and our ability to keep inquiring about all unusual knowledge they show, one of the inquiry may be " How can you be certain about A, considering B may be true from the higher level perspective?" But that doesn't guarantee they just going to admit they don't know what they don't know, and thats the major issue with all beings considering themselves super intelligent. Uncertainties is certainly important to know about.
What else is certain? I'd say that this life (and all) is definitely “more than ordinary”. A fact that even we can make simple simulations is already a proof they exist, if you now take infinity of space into account….
Whats good is it's ok to just appreciate it without all exact knowledge. But ok if its not enough one can just imagine the range of possibilities and what could have been going on over infinite past and will keep on going, never can be sure exactly what it is, but this cogito… and all, oh man!!! it is fascinating and soooo deeeeep:).
References:
Bostrom, N. (2003). Are we living in a computer simulation? The philosophical quarterly,
53(211), 243–255.
Chalmers, D. J. (2022). Reality+: Virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy. Penguin
UK.
Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on first philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff,
& D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Volume II). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Top comments (0)