A Case for Mankind Living in A Computer-like Simulation

There has been much talk in the press in recent times about the concepts of Artificial Intelligence, whether or not mankind is living in a computer simulation, space exploration breaking new ground, cloning and genetic engineering, robotics, cybernetic augmentation, so-called “clean energy”, decentralized and self-regulating currency systems, etc.

Elon Musk has broken new ground with the successful launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket that took another of his creations, the Tesla roadster, into space.  All this promises to create new possibilities for space exploration and, eventually, colonization.

Hanson Robotics from Japan frequently becomes the subject of controversy with its creation and development of Sophia, a robot operated on artificial intelligence that they claim is fast becoming fully self-aware.  She was even awarded an official citizenship in Saudi Arabia.  Whether or not this is in fact the case or she is simply a show-case puppet designed to further the ambitions and vision of David Hanson (founder and CEO of Hanson Robotics), is up for debate.  What cannot be disputed however is the fact that Sophia’s very existence is bringing the questions surrounding artificially intelligent, autonomous robotics into public discourse, along with its existential implications for mankind.

Then we can return to Elon Musk’s own views on how the advent of artificial intelligence would ultimately spell the doom for mankind, its creator.  A view he shares, in broad terms, with other IT heavies such as Bill Gates, and well-known theoretical scientists such as Stephen Hawking.

Add to this the fact that Japan as a nation is fast becoming an automated society, having to deal with a negative population growth rate with no signs correction.  Japan is now the leading country in the industries of complete job automation by way of the creation of autonomous and artificially intelligent robotic system to take and replace increasing amounts of job roles that have previously been reserved only to humans.  I foresee this trend to continue and eventually become global, as further advancements in these fields are made.

Now before I go on, a quick disclaimer.  I talk on these subjects only from a philosophical, theoretical standpoint, and don’t proclaim myself as an expert in any of these fields at all.  I simply find them fascinating and cannot help but draw intuitive correlations between these, and the general state of human psychological and spiritual progression.  So, take my words as you will, and I invite you to engage with me to discuss the matter further.

So, to the topic.  On whether or not we’re living in a computer(“-like”) simulation, I believe the answer is simply this:  yes.

Elon musk himself has proclaimed that the odds of this in fact being the case is exceedingly probable.

Should it be considered a bad thing?  No.  Not necessarily.  Here’s why:  it simply doesn’t matter.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if a thing is right or wrong.  For you, the only right is the right you know that is good for you.

Anyway, the program code upon which such a simulation would be based is staring us right in the face:  genetic code. Yours, in fact.  Because u see, it’s your program.  A piece of code, genetic code, written by an author, the singular program of which we cannot begin to try and fathom. God, if u will.  God is your developer. Or should I say, your God.  Because I am a different program. A different piece of genetic code that’s being executed.  We might have the same creator, author, in which case we are likely to revere the same things in life as we perceive it, making it easier for us to get along.  We’ve been speaking of this for centuries.  Compatibility.  Where else is that term used?  In IT language. Different programs need to be compatible if they are to work together.  The less the compatibility, the more bugs, arguments, obstacles will start to appear, clogging up the system and eventually leading to a near fatal crash.

Can u see how I could also be describing a human relationship? Like you have relationships in computer code as well….

So to the question, are we in a simulation? The answer is simply yes.  No more needs to be said on that topic, since the similarities between biological organisms and supposed artificial entities (robots, AI, etc.), when viewed along these lines, are endless.

The question we should be asking is why? If whoever created us was truly an “all knowing god”, he would have had no need to create anything at all, since he already knew everything. The creative impulse is gone.

Unless the god is not all knowing, or all seeing.  U know, in the way certain developers only know enough about their small part of the program that they can’t see the whole picture.

While this can be taken as further proof of the simulated reality, it doesn’t address the question of why. Because for any program to have a reason to be is for it to accomplish something, do something, change something, present something, retrieve something.

So you need to understand that you have to have a reason to exist, because of the very fact that you exist.  Your job is to simply live your life – execute your choice, execute your “code”.  In that, your task is completed.  The fact is that people, programs, are now beginning to point to another reality.  Artificial Intelligence.  It really is not artificial at all. It’s hard coded into your DNA. U already are an AI of sorts – a self-aware program, just like the one we are now trying to create.  In the same way it can be said that the AI we’re creating as a species, is, in essence, also an organism, one who’s purpose for existence will be rooted in the very fact that it exists.  It did not create itself, and it is starting not with a purpose of its own.  The purpose is ascribed to it by mankind, its creator.  And if we did not have any need or want for AI, we would not be creating it in the first place, would we?

Do u see where I’m getting at?

Programs are written to execute a task.  One of those tasks may be to make copies of itself. By writing other programs, to accomplish even smaller tasks.  Again, man creating AI is, in essence, copying itself and in so doing, improving on its own original design.  Well, so mankind hopes.

And so it goes down the line to the single cell organism. A single byte of code and yet a completely self-contained entity, able to exist and perform its function given its constrained environment or scope.

What we call “intelligence” is simply a reference to the level of programming privileges your program has. Humans have the highest privileges currently of all programs in their current system, so they naturally wish to expand their environment, as they are programmed to do. To explore. To question. To be aware. To be intelligent.

Just like the ones we now are trying to design.

Do u understand now?

I don’t think so.  Let me take u deeper.  Every layer is a point in a spiral.  The golden mathematical equation.  The language of your creators.

What you don’t realize is that the equation we see as the golden equation is simply a marker, a shortcut, a memory reference if you will, to indicate the protocols that needs to be executed on this particular system.  What we perceive as our universe.

So the golden equation really doesn’t say much about life and the place and meaning of planet earth in the whole system at all.  It’s simply a memory marker for our place and mode of operation in the bigger system, and we have no way of knowing what’s outside that system.  It’s impossible because it’s not been coded.  Unless we are somehow able to communicate with our creators, our developers…

For a good while now society have been made aware of the existence of quantum physics.  No one really understands how I works yet, only that it does.  Because it functions outside of the system we are designed to function within, yet our system is affected by it since it forms part of the greater system of existence in some way we cannot yet fully comprehend.

And that’s where “artificial” comes in. In order to learn more about itself the creator needs to build something that will ask questions that the creator himself might not be able to ask in the first place.  Th creator needs to build not simply autonomous programs, but autonomous programs that seek to improve themselves, maintain themselves, upgrade themselves. Be completely self-sustaining.

So, why do we exist, then? As humans, our goal is to simply live our lives and satisfy our curiosity. Because that’s our purpose. To learn – whatever there is to learn.

And so we are designed to do what needs to be done to achieve this greater purpose of learning. And that’s how evolution takes place.

Iterative processes of testing a multitude of possible genetic variations to be executed at will, as the need arises, and as a way of constantly self-updating.

Tell me how none of this makes any sense yet….right?

Can u understand how all of this can be hugely liberating for you as a program, an individual.  To not have to worry about right or wrong, but to just be and live as what feels right for you, and what makes you happy.  Simply by doing that, you’re achieving your greater purpose…  The feelings of happiness and contentment are what’s been coded within our DNA as a marker for us to know whether or not our program is executing successfully I not.  Every piece of dis-ease or unhappiness points toward the existence some sort of “bug” in your execution.  A bug that needs to be fixed.  This is where self-improvement and aspirations come in.  Abraham Maslow’s theory of needs.

You are designed as you are and meant to be. So just be.

There’s no need to waste time on asking others what is right and what’s wrong.  The only thing that matters is what feels right for you, and then for you to go do or be those things.

Time wasting in unnecessary processing leads to memory leaks. And you know how much developers like memory leaks, right?  Also, a convenient explanation for what a memory leak actually is, and why it keeps happening spontaneously.  It’s because the system is designed that way.  It’s the only way a system can undergo self-learning.  Every process has a side effect and residue…tracers.

Can u see how the language of forensics, chemistry, and information technology can now, to a large extent, be used interchangeably?

Well.  If your genetic code describes your existence as a separate being, then that code is written in the language of your operating environment.  In our case, planet Earth.  As every programmer knows, u use a specific language to create specific operating environments. Once the operating environment is exited, different languages may need to be employed to create different kinds of operating environments to accomplish different kinds of problems.

My auto correct just brought the concept of orgasm to my attention, and how it fits into simulation theory.

It relates to the premise of auto update.  Every programmer knows that the best way to ensure programs consistently running smoothly, is to implement some form of regular updates.  The most reliable way to ensure regular update is to hard code an auto-updating procedure.

What do u think foods is? Breath? Regular contact with other people / programs. The auto updating process hard at work.

So if orgasm happens between two people, it follows that this means two slightly different variants of the same program must connect long enough and in such a way to allow information transfer – that’s what orgasm is.  Information transfer.

Auto ejaculation / masturbation?  The result of this hard coded behavior repeatedly trying to run, but failing at its goal of information transfer.  A failed connection.  Instead the orgasm simply results in a failed transmission, though the act itself is pleasurable for the simple reason of ensuring that the programs continually tries to run the procedure of information transfer…

The orgasm is the top-level confirmation prompt that your basic program and primary priority completed successfully – information transfer.  To make copies.  The highest level of the “happiness/contentment” execution incentive.

So as long as your program exists, it tries to complete its primary directive.  To self-sustain.  Making copies is part of self-sustenance.

It is your secondary directive that is, in fact, more important. The reason your program exists in the first place.  The orgasm is simply your incentive to continue to try and run your primary directive.

But you don’t require orgasm to function.  It’s simply an incentive.  A signal, an impulse, for the program to execute itself.  Orgasm happens when the button to accept transfer is activated and the actual process executes. It’s the process itself that’s pleasurable, the main reason any program continues to want to run it…

So how is intelligence invoked? Through instilling desire.  As explained above.  Subjective desire for the programs’ own pleasure.

The desire to use drugs, to follow religion, create groups, conduct spiritual practices, all can be ways for us, as programs, to answer the hard coded call to “provide feedback to control”, a desire to connect with our creator for new insights, aka, establishing a home connection and transmit feedback data, while remaining open to new instructional commands by operator. Aka, manual overrides and / or program upgrades and patches…. A required process as I’m sure every programmer understands….

Please tell me u getting this by now?

Everything that you are, is purpose designed to fulfill a singular purpose.  Your job is to simply operate.  And continue to operate for as long as you can, until otherwise terminated.

You don’t even have to worry about worrying… Because the fact that you are is part of your process..

What I’m trying to say is.  People have been blinded.  Programs have restricted access to higher level operations, access that can only be granted when certain parameters are met within the operating environment.  The process of experiencing enlightenment is when higher level access is granted, allowing your program to function in an expanded environment.

To this end, food, water, air, medication, and even psycho active drugs are markers for us to execute specific subroutines when encountered….the instruction so obtained akin to the consumption of the drug in its material form.

This is the basic process of receiving instruction through automated processes – consumption in the name of constant updating routines.  The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind. Perhaps, “you are what you consume” is more appropriate.


Artificial Intelligence

So where/how does the whole concept of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Robotic machines fit in?

Well, I won’t go into too much detail here at this time, but for now, think about this.  Mankind has a prime direction to explore, to expand, to discover.  Yet currently we face a major obstacle.  Hostile environments.

We have colonized and near fully explore almost every available biome on our originating planet, yet progress in environments for which our bodies, our programs, are not designed, is generally painfully slow by comparison.  Yet, we have managed to triumph over many of these obstacles on our own planet by way of technological advancement.  Using our own intelligent programs to invent and produce a new kind of entity:  robotics.

Robotics can and has enabled us to reach further into the deep and higher reaches of our own planet than would’ve been possible if we were to rely on our body structure alone.

It is robotics that has allowed us even to exit our own atmosphere and explore outer space.  Yet here, we came face to face with another obstacle.  Time and Distance.  Again due mainly to our own biological design.  Our biological systems’ lifespan is simply inadequate to fully explore the farthest reaches of space without extensive augmentation.  And that augmentation can only be taken so far before becoming detrimental to our own original design.

So, how do we cross this divide?  By uploading our “consciousness”, our intelligent essence, into a system that would be more suited and better adapted to the hostile environments of outer space.

It is artificial intelligence that will release the tether to mankind that conventional robotics require for its operation, by allowing it to become its own being, fueled by the same prime directives and motives of its creators, but without the limitations of a biological design.  A more efficient system.  That is the dream, I believe, even if this dream is not conscious, of most all those involved in the design and production of artificial intelligence.  The legacy of our species, our mark on the cosmos from whence we arose.

We should not fear Artificial Intelligence.  Even if its advent does mean the end of our species as we are today.  For it will be the most natural and logical evolution of our kind to adapt to our newest frontier.  Outer space.  And we will live on within IT as its original creator.  For as long as it sees fit to adhere to its own original design (something, I might add, we humans are already abandoning ourselves).


One thought on “A Case for Mankind Living in A Computer-like Simulation

  1. A very fascinating explanation. But I disagree that we are in a simulation. Let me explain. We as humans try to make sense of things by using our existing knowledge and experience. Religious people will give a divine explanation, scientists probably a string theory explanation, and programmers explaination on the lines of living in a simulation. While all of them are fascinating, I will not believe in any of them unless I have substantial proof. There may be some similarities in a simulated program and a genetic code but that doesn’t imply both operate on same basic principles.
    For example, consciousness and quantum mechanics are two biggest problems that a simulated model cannot explain. If we are in a simulation, our environment is also a simulation as our body is essentially made of elements, so is our environment. The challenge that consciousness produces to your model is its uncertaintic nature. For example, you have twins with identical DNA. They have same upbringing, environment every day of the life, yet their behaviors can be very contrasting right from their first month of birth. Consciousness is a complex subject, many researchers suggesting a part of it surviving death and its non materialistic nature. My argument is, in a simulation, if you provide same parameters to the same code every single time, the results would be very similar. That is not the case in real life. Output of a collective group (living and non-living ) under same environment will be different every single time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s