This is a series of proposition that leads to the conclusion (somewhat convincing in my eyes) that we are not physical, but informational/numerical/mathematical structures.
o Consciousness can be simulated, or better said, run on a computer. No difference between meat computer and silicon computer
o A world with conscious beings can be simulated as well.
o No difference what computer that simulates the consciousness can be (meat or silicone) – substrate independence.
o So, imagine that the simulation is run by a god with very long lifetime on a beach where he put pebbles of two different colors to represent ones and zeros. The first line of pebbles represents simulated world state at one time, the second line of pebbles is the world in second moment of time and so on.
o There is no question that that world is as real as ours, at least for the creatures living in that world – and that god can even ask questions and receive answers from the creatures of that simulated world by rearranging pebbles.
o There is nothing “magical” goes in the god’s brain either. It can be a program for Turing machine, also written in the same pebbles.
o So, we have near infinite field of these pebbles, and it is the world. This world is defined by rules, how the next row is obtained from the previous row, and by initial condition – the orientation of the pebbles in the first row.
o To understand the world, one needs a set of interpretation rules and capability to do such interpretation computationally, but the world itself exists independent from somebody understanding how to interpret it, or even from presence of that somebody.
o Interesting possibility – there could be multiple interpretation rules to understand the same pebble field, producing different worlds and different creatures in it. This is not related to the argument.
o Similarly to how we abbreviate binary sequences, 1110 = E; 0011 = 3 , that god could use numbers, letters, symbols to shorten what is written on the sand with pebbles.
o In fact, we have examples of such shortening in math, that infinite number of digits is shortened to just one simple letter. For example, pi. There is a set of rules about how to generate digits of pi, similarly to as those pebble rows are generated. And who is to say, that there is no such interpretation of the digits of pi that describes a world with conscious creatures in it? The set of rules can be extremely complex, but so what? Just because I do not know this interpretation, it does not matter for the creatures of that world.
o So, suppose that such interpretation exists (if it does not, then lets denote whatever that god is writing with pebbles by single letter – it does not matter for the arguments presented here). So, when I (not god) write this letter “pi”, do I create the world? Of course not, this world exists by itself, without me writing the letter pi. And I will argue it does not depend on whether human civilization exists or not – pi does not care.
o Now, even if existence of a primordial physical world is required for the math to exist, there are infinite upon infinite abstract mathematical “simulations” or “letters” that nobody even needs to conduct or write, that describe infinite upon infinite number of worlds with conscious creatures. So, what are the odds that we ourselves live in that primal primordial physical world, and not in some kind of pi?
I am reminded of this comic by Randall Munroe https://xkcd.com/505
To make it easier to wrap my head around, I summarize each dot point:
o World can be simulated
o Substrate independent
o Simulate with pebbles
o Feels real to simulated beings
o Simulator can be turing machine
o Deterministic
o Independent of obsever
o Aside - different interpretations give different worlds?
o Can symbolically represent patterns
o pi is an example. Digits of pi could represent a world
o Sequences are independent of symbols
o Infinite sequences with infinite interpretations gives infinite possible worlds - thus, we're infinitely likely to live in a simulated world, even if a physical world is required to give rise to all those permutations
Then summarize the argument:
I think plenty of people would argue about (1), though I do not. (2) follows from (1).
I think (3) is not necessarily a given. We can conceptualize of a sequence, we can even write down a representation of a sequence, but in what manner does a sequence actually exist? Similar to the concept of a triangle. No such thing exists. We can only create representations of a triangle, or posit statements based on the supposed properties of a triangle, were it to exist.
Finally:
First you say that a sequence can represent a world, given an interpreter.
Then you say that such a sequence can represent a world, independent of an interpreter.
But you give no justification for that.
Consider an alternate formulation:
You say that a sequence can be interpreted as a world, but is independent of that interpretation. In that case, sequences are unnecessary, because I could conceive of an interpreter which perceives our universe from any symbol or sequence. So it is not the existence of the sequence which is what causes the world to exist, but the interpreter.