How Simulation Design Boundary Limits & Simplifying Approximations Will Confound the Embedded Expectations of Accurately Simulated Individuals

As described on the previous page a simulation or virtual reality designer will define strict boundary limits to avoid the population straying into environments that are not already pre-defined.

However, what I have not seen presented anywhere else is the possibility that they would also define limits with respect to what was possible to avoid the population doing things that ‘could’ result in an anomaly or even a glitch. In other words the simulation designer of a simulation project of self aware, free thinking people would pre-define limits that would make it as likely as possible that their simulated population stays within the pre-defined environment as well as within ‘developmental’ limits.

For example you could easily change how some assumed natural laws work you could even invent some new ones. For example, it is very likely you could re-define or even implement momentum, you could do the same with inertia which would both complement the obvious speed of light limit.

Accurately Copied People living in a Simulation will have Embedded Expectations of How Their Reality Should be

You would make such changes for the following reasons:

  1. To keep the population on one well pre-defined copied planet. To make it very unlikely that you will have a significant number of the population getting further than the moon for space explorations.
  2. You’d limit ‘speed’ because you’d not want anyone going anywhere FAST. You’d do this to avoid having to render frames at insane rates because you’ve something travelling at the speed of light because to do this accurately would likely overload the entire processing capacity of your simulation.

In other words ‘IF’ we are in a simulation AND we are very accurately simulated then we (and particularly researchers) could have expectations about HOW THINGS SHOULD WORK in a real reality which won’t be met ‘IF’ we have had limits applied (or simplifying approximations) to our simulated environment.

I can remember reading science articles where it is obvious that the scientists or researchers were obviously very surprised in ways that suggested that their research results and conclusions didn’t match their PERSONAL expectations.

If we are in a simulation then some researchers and scientists whom spent a lot of time simulating ‘someone’ whom was an expert and knew everything there was to know about some specific research line then they will have HARD CODED EXPECTATIONS.

Accurately Simulated Scientists will have Embedded Expectations of How Their Reality Should WORK & What Experimental Results they SHOULD GET

Some of them will know, they will absolutely ‘KNOW’ that how reality actually is here ISN’T what they are expecting because it won’t feel or intuit as being right. Some will also have a very strong built in feeling or sense that certain specific limits and constraints OR how specific things work or are presented to ourselves here are very much ‘not right’ at all.

One of the ways of finding out ‘IF’ we are in a simulation would be to have everyone describe what they FEEL or intuit is MISSING or INCORRECT . . .

  1. What do you feel is missing or incorrect with respect to your external environment?
  2. What do you feel is missing or incorrect with respect to your INTERNAL environment?
  3. Are you expecting ‘something’ that isn’t possible here or are you expecting ‘something’ that is already here to function differently?
  4. What do you feel is physically missing in terms of your experiences?
  5. How do you feel about your physical body? Do you have a physical body? Is the body you have REALLY the one you are expecting? If peoples bodies ARE as they expect then why do we have so many people having cosmetic plastic surgery?
  6. Is there anything that you automatically EXPECT to do which you apparently cannot do here?

What Embedded Expectations do you have of how specific aspects or components of YOUR Reality SHOULD work BUT DON’T?

How are you reading this expecting different components or aspects of your reality to function in ways that THEY DON’T? What are these differences? Are there ‘missing’ things that you are expecting? Have a think about this and then tick those that apply to your in the box below. ‘IF’ you have interesting and or very strong expectations of ‘differences’ then leave a comment below explaining these.

 

For example I personally expect the following . . .

  1. I expect to have an entire wall as an interactive computer engagement space. I also expect to be able to walk around WITHIN A DATABASE and I have expectations that I should be able to visually and mentally ‘shuffle’ data around and I expect to have many tools to explore relationships and connections between different and distant data sets. As far as I am concerned I am personally living in an severely retarded and pathetic data handling computer age.
  2. I also have an expectation that my body will hold to being just over 30 years old AND it won’t age beyond this.

7 Comments

  1. Catherine

    I’m supposed to be living somewhere else, somewhere specific that I’ve explored often in my dreams. Perhaps my dreams are realer than I think…

    Reply

  2. Matt

    RE:
    ‘Hard coded expectations’ in these paragraphs:

    “I can remember reading science articles where it is obvious that the scientists or researchers were obviously very surprised in ways that suggested that their research results and conclusions didn’t match their PERSONAL expectations.

    If we are in a simulation then some researchers and scientists whom spent a lot of time simulating ‘someone’ whom was an expert and knew everything there was to know about some specific research line then they will have HARD CODED EXPECTATIONS.”

    Here is Another quote from Permutation City (science fiction novel about simulations) by Max Egan which describes differences between real and simulated environments and has real reality researcher responses to simulated environments — despite the differences being ‘slight’ or minor they are immediately unable and unwilling to take in or work with new information. The ‘image’ and feeling/ impression you get is a like a computing error where you just get a ‘prompt’ and everything shuts down — that’s what it must feel like to be a researcher hard coded to expect things to be ‘one way’ and they turn out to be different, and you feel absolutely sure and certain of this in the core of yourself, down to your bones?

    This specific example is about ‘chemistry’ vs. ‘simulated’ chemistry for a simulated universe. It features a computed universe construct program called the ‘Autoverse’ — a workspace for creating simulated reality substrates:

    Permutation City by Greg Egan
    p. 19

    The Autoverse was a waste of money, and a waste of time — a hobby she could justify when things were going well, but an indulgence she could ill afford right now.

    Maria put an end to her indecision in the usual way. She logged in to her Joint Supercomputer Network account — paying a fifty-dollar fee for the privilege, which she now had to make worthwhile. She slipped on her force gloves and prodded an icon, a wireframe of a cube, on the terminal’s flatscreen — and the three-dimensional workspace in front of the screen came to life, borders outlined by a faint holographic grid. For a second, it felt like she’d plunged her hand into some kind of invisible vortex: magnetic fields gripped and twisted her glove, as start-up surges tugged at the coils in each joint as random — until the electronics settled into equilibrium, and a message flashed up in the middle of the workspace: YOU MAY NOW PUT ON YOUR GLOVES.

    She jabbed another icon, a starburst labelled FIAT. The only visible effect was the appearance of a small menu strip hovering low in the foreground — but to the cluster of programs she’d invoked, the cube of thin air in front of her terminal now corresponded to a small, empty universe.

    Maria summoned up a single molecule of nutrose, represented as a ball-and-stick model, and, with a flick of a gloved forefinger, imparted a slow spin. The vertices of the crimped hexagonal ring zig-zagged above and below the molecule’s average plane; one vertex was a divalent blue atom, linked only to its neighbors in the ring; the other five were all tetravalent greens, with two bonds left over for other attachments. Each green was joined to a small, monovalent red — on the top side if the vertex was raised, on the bottom if it was lowered — and four of them also sprouted short horizontal spikes, build from a blue and a red, pointing away from the ring. The fifth green held out a small cluster of atoms instead: a green with two reds, and its own blue-red spike.

    The viewing software rendered the molecule plausibly solid, taking into account the effects of ambient light; Maria watched it spin above the desktop, admiring the not-quite-symmetrical form. A real-world chemist, she mused, would take one look at this and say: Glucose. Green is carbon, blue is oxygen, red is hydrogen . . . no? No. They’d stare awhile; put on the gloves and give the impostor a thorough grope; whip a protractor out of the toolbox and measure a few angles; invoke tables of bond formation energies and vibrational modes; maybe even demand to see nuclear magnetic resonance spectra (not available — or, to put it less coyly, not applicable). Finally, with the realization of blasphemy dawning, they’d tear their hands from the infernal machinery, and bolt from the room screaming, ‘There is no Periodic Table but Mendeleev’s! There is no Periodic Table but Mendeleev’s!”

    The Autoverse was a ‘toy’ universe, a computer model which obeyed its own simplified ‘laws of physics’ — laws far easier to deal with mathematically than the equations of real-world quantum mechanics. Atoms could exist in this stylized universe, but they were subtly different from their real-world counterparts; the Autoverse was no more a faithful simulation of a real world than the game of chess was a faithful simulation of medieval warfare. It was far more insidious than chess, though, in the eyes of many real-world chemists. The false chemistry it supported was too rich, too complex, too seductive by far.

    Reply

  3. Annabelle

    1.I have expectations that I should be able to build or craft absolutely anything without taking classes. Build a house , pottery, cooking, electrical work, sports, music etc. It is all out there and I want it. I often try and do Ok but I expect more. People ask me why I can do all this and I just expect it
    2. I also expect my body to not age. Interesting. This is needed to get things done. While I feel I look older, people ALWAYS say I look like I am frozen in time or have been to some fountain of youth. I have had several bizarre medical fake interruptions and when I go to get them checked out- there is nothing there. Seems an opportunity for someone to get inside and do some re- wiring. Or they are suggesting I chop something off or out.
    3. I expect to communicate telepathically when I can’t make it in person. Sometimes it works. I was so frustrated with the trash collectors always leaving stuff behind and I was not breaking any recycling rules. I telepathically said “now look- I leave you guys a huge tip. What is going on?” The next week I happened to be outside the exact minute they came and I am usually at work! . The cutest trash collector in the world took everything and said ” sorry about that”. !
    4. I expect what ever supplies I need to appear out of nowhere. If I need candles I will stumble on a sale of exactly what I want. Or discarded items on the curb. Love it! Or someone’s getting rid of exactly what I need and offers them to me. And usually strange things that I want appear out of no where
    5. And this one is tough. I expect to be able to help people more than I succeed at. I wonder if this is a free will issue or I am not allowed to help them move forward or heal.

    Reply

  4. Nina

    RE: What do you feel is missing or incorrect with respect to your external environment?

    I feel my current external environment is supposed to be more high-tech than the one I live in now, and it’s not just because I live in a technologically backward country where the locals are generally technology users / consumers rather than technology innovators and creators.

    RE: What do you feel is physically missing in terms of your experiences?

    I feel I should be using some kind of haptic technology (similar to the ones used in the Iron Man films or in the movie “Minority Report”) where all personal data can easily be seen on a single panoramic screen that offers a 180 degree view of the person’s timeline. I imagine myself using my hands to magnify certain parts of a person’s script so I can take a closer look at it, restore a person’s original timeline using available data to reassemble his / her life chronologically, or create a copy of a person’s timeline so I can identify major plot points / life events and re-arrange these events in an alternate timeline.

    Here in this simulated world, I am bogged down with manually arranging loose family photos and my own individual photos (i.e. personal data) in chronological order.

    Reply

  5. Mary

    I expect my world to be much more technologically advanced. When I drive around and see the cars and buildings, I always get the sense of a lag of about 50 years, less to allow for geometric progression. Everything seems outdated and clunky.
    I also expect not to age past 30, to be telepathic with all things, animate and inanimate, and to create things easily.

    Reply

    • Clive

      We’re at least 200 years behind ‘physical’ reality advances Mary, later ‘enhancement’ pages will point out that some human enhancement ‘experiences’ date from the mid 1700’s. Although I can personally ‘spot’ examples o0f subtle tech manipulations starting maybe 1300 years ago (history wise in ‘here’).

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *