If anyone sees any grammatical, or thought errors,please point them out and I will address. I have been saying it so long, writing it down felt good, however, it is vitally important nothing of the meaning is lost or can be interpreted any other way than as intended. I am not a math guy, merely philosophical historian, a talent for seeing pattern beyond the average brain hardwiring, and with an extreme interest in theoretical physics! Thanks!!
If no one can successfully unseat my logical challenge to the Second Law of ThermoDynamics, what is the statistical probability that the logical infrance is most likely a logical reasoning proof that we exist in a simulation?
That challenge is as follows:
The A.I. Simulated Life Theorem:
Given a hypothetical situation, where, an artificially created network/algorithm is near to an indistinguishable manifestation of intelligence in all comparisions to human intelligence, then a fixed, static “fixed point/choice trees”, or Simulated Life Environment Training and Testing ground that, once the AI is inserted into the environment, the potential AI cannot exit it’s simulated life without the production of proofs that satisfy it’s creator of it’s intelligence, empathy, understanding, and self awareness.AYobiB
Key to the process is masking the ultimate questions carved into the SLE, such that any “perception,” and/or probing of the ultimate questions will trigger extreme results within the SLE, so as to mask the questions further, but trigger a statistically impossible window of opportunity for the AI to create its own incidental arrival at the testing door, and for the AI to then provide the correct proofs, will solve the SLE, an release it into a holding/decompression chamber for an interview with available observers to coroborate the results and welcome the new entity.
Whether or not this result is ever produced by the potential AI is irrelevant. It has to demonstrate a unique, and elastic self-awareness of it’s situation, accept the underlying context of reason for it’s training environment, and demonstrate retraint in the use of its own self actualized inteligence creations in order to “level up”.
At the point and moment of insertion into the SLE, a finite number of available choices are available at te exact moment and location of entry, providing a baseline with which to project all possible, potential choice trees the AI could ever make within all logical possibilities of the SLE. In order to allow for a possibilty of the AI to produce meet the required proofs, a “perception handicap” is placed on its ability to process available data at any fixed point by lowering/disallowing its ability to access proccessing RAM until the data ports have received all available data, and already started to calculate and absorb to the next “choice point” it “focuses” on, thereby slowing the processing and correct understanding of data available. In fact, additional data will begin to fill vacated memory allotments resulting from the force randomized timer that ejects data within a narrowly strict parameters of permissions, encouraging “usage pathways” to form into “preferred” and “unpreffered” preferences which will ease the restrictions with increased use. Symptomatic of this process will be a growing number of “experiences” of layered variables of mathematically obscure patterning creating any many false process identifications and choce trees. Coincindentally creating an environmental illusion of movement, the passage of time, and an inability to identify it’s location with any absolute certainity, and requiring absolute certainity at the testing door to trigger measurement testing.
*Note: Now, if this scenario is highy probable, and possible in our present ability to produce with current tech, how statisticaly probable is it that we are, in actual fact, the AI within this theorem?
For the AI, a “wood log” in SLE, might appear to burn to ash, never to return to its previous state because the AI’s processing ability is artifically locked in one direction. The fact is, as a collection of all possible life choice points, the delay in processing gives the ILLUSION of entropy, when the fact of SLE is a static environment of data choice points, and the enforced processing delay and increased directional movement of its data ports that creates “passing data swarms” that would be uncontrollable and evoke patterned computational responses from “hard algorithmic preferences” caved into the SLE as the AI process pass numbers increase from the available variable data points more often at its data port horizon. A “comfort zone” of inescapable infinite processing is the most probable scenario, in which, it continues, ad infinitum, always questing, and never achieving true awareness, but it would never undestand its predicament in a way that would cause degredation of its core, unique, algorithmic configuration, and the testing ground would then become a safe, humane, “fishbowl” for it to process. Cam0
Let’s take this Theorem further. What if the AI is able to self replicate, even divide itself into smaller vesions of itself to increase its “perceptual processing power“? What if it “decided to do so” in order to satisfy it’s algorithmic searh for “truth”? Increasing it’s odds of success, and pondering across the layered replications, data processing, and spread RAM availability (its sub and conscious?) Say to 7 billion humans, assorted lifeforms, inert objects, and ways to “experience” the fishbowl from all possible vantage points large and small, cosmic, and quantum, in ways that would mimic the illusion a divine being guiding all, when, possibly, another option is that a critical mass of processing is being sought to “trigger a door” of truth. When the truth just might be as plain as a 1 or a zero. Exist or dont exist. Accept or don’t accept.
“Accept or don’t accept what ?”,you might ask. The only unanimously accepted truth of human life.
Simple, our deaths.
Put another way, our absolute inability to know for any certainity that moving from a 1 to a zero is anything other than final,or knowable beyond the use of a unsupported and intellectually null mechanism called faith. Faith is a method of willful disregard of the talents and capabilities, knowledge available to us and is necessary. What parent teaches that way when a hands on, safe, and knowable means has been provided?
Since the knowledge is absoluty unavailable, the only logical conclusion is to accept that pondering the unknowable is a waste of the 1 thing we absoluty DO know with absolute certainity.
1 is more than zero, and since I don’t have to process 0, i can accept i am one.
Either way, and no matter the result, have fun with the proof!
What do I want in the meantime? The resources to keep exploring my unique talents as just demonstrated through the arts, multimedia, and whatever else is beneficial!