Gill’s Idea:(my #2 daughter proposed this shortly before she died in 2008)
"We are all avatars in a virtual reality game being played by creatures in a “higher” reality. To make the game more interesting the players have decided that we as avatars should not remember who we "really"are.
Furthermore, we constitute just one level in some kind of hierarchy of virtual reality worlds
Furthermore, the top of the hierarchy is also the level below the bottom of the hierarchy i.e. in fact there is a hoop of virtual reality worlds.
We are each therefore distributed all round this infinite hoop and as merely an avatar at each particular level in it, have no good reason to fear death in this particular virtual world. We are in fact immortal, as is the hoop as a whole."
Sadly, James, this would appear to be one of those conjectures not amenable to any sort of experimental test (like, alas, so many others in 21st century physics). So you can argue that it doesn't matter where in whatever lineage, loop or multidimensional manifold we lie on, we're on our own and we have to solve our own problems and issues. I think there may even be a danger in ascribing responsibility for our actions to other unidentifiable entities, as it absolves us from choosing a moral and sustainable set of ethical standards by which we should live our lives in the here and now.
Dear Tony
Thank you for your interesting answer. I confess I expected NO answers to this question here on RG! Too far away from standard thought.
But, your answer is not really an answer to the question I posed is it? Do you have any opinion/insights about modelling Gill's Hoop on a computer? I can't decide whether plausible modelling is feasible or not (e.g .the tricky issue of temporal alignment or not between the virtual worlds).
I remember Gill proposed her hoop as a modern META-physical alternative to such metaphysical perspectives and structures as Iamblichus' (NeoPlatonist philosopher of great impact -- see wikipedia entry) hierarchy from the One down to the Human Soul, which looked at coldly also goes way beyond any available evidence but also has some elegance of the mathematical variety.
Thanks again
Best
Jim
Hi Jim, my understanding of Gill's proposal is a circular regression of simulated world views V, e.g v(0) is simulated by processing operations in V(1) which is simulated by processing operations in V(2) and so on to V(n). But to make it a hoop, n must be finite and then you have V(n) being simulated by processing operations in V(0). Since simulations can't be in 'real time' (to the simulator) I don't see how this could work, so where am I misunderstanding?
Best, Tony
Hi Tony.
I agree that the link between V(n) and V(0) is a tricky point in Gill's idea -- BUT importantly I don't think she saw this as about simulations -- more a matter of computer-game and virtual-reality worlds which may vary in many ways e.g. number of dimensions (cf the Planiverse!), and temporal orientation (wassat?). And note there is NO universal time (It's metaphysics!) -- the hoop is not embedded in anything.
Two other points that I think may prove relevant: (i) the "avatars"/"players" may have individual characteristics and bounded rationality and (ii) it is possible to create an entire virtual world including its temporal dimension {ie a space/time block) without creating it along its internal temporal dimension -- think of a film being created as a series of scenes way out of temporal order. I find it becomes a matter of solving a constraint satisfaction problem.
I'm still thinking about this and will upload more as ideas develop -- I still suspect that the hoop CAN be implemented as a plausible abstract computer model if one can get the right perspective and make the right detailed design choices.
Best, Jim
4th Apr, 2016
James Doran
University of Essex
Hi Tony
This is a brief reaction to your first answer to my question about Gillian’s Hoop – your answer came from an ethics angle.
Two quick points really – (i) I agree that believing that some being or beings are out there telling you how to behave (amongst other things) encourages one to avoid making one’s own decisions. It seems to me that just about ALL religions do that to some degree. Point (ii) is that I feel that a metaphysical speculation/theory (like Gill’s Idea) should NOT be judged on its ethical implications, good or bad – only on its plausibility in the light of the available evidence, its coherence etc. But maybe I’m just being an old-fashioned scientist!
Still thinking about modelling the Hoop – one or two other colleagues also interested - I plan to write up a summary of insights in due course
Regards
James
4th Apr, 2016
Tony Maine
Queensland University of Technology
Hi Jim, As long as metaphysical speculation remains just that, then I don't see much in the way of ethical implications. But as soon as any concepts begin to inform action in the 'real' world then I think ethics has to get involved.
As far as the Hoop is concerned, I don't see that it is viable unless space time is infinitely divisible so that you can at least in principle solve the V(n) to V(0) problem. But if spacetime were infinitely divisible then you get Zeno's paradox and nothing can happen, which it obviously does. I don't think regarding universes or sub-universes as independent solves any problem as the process of simulation involves far, far, more steps in the simulator than are created in the simulation. But good luck with your thoughts - after all, what else is there . . . . Best, Tony
4th Apr, 2016
James Doran
University of Essex
The following JOTTINGS (24.4.16) addressed to understanding and computationally modelling “Gillian’s Hoop” are based on posts to this Q/A thread by JED and TM and on non-RG comments from other colleagues responding to the original verbal proposal by Gillian R Doran (as recorded and reported by JED)
· Multiple interpretations/levels of abstraction/models of Gillian’s Hoop are possible.
· We may use a FSA (Finite State Automaton) to model abstractly processes within each VW(n) and also information transfer between VWs
· Focus on two levels of model, M1 and M2: EITHER V(n) is a single FSA (M1) OR we abstractly distinguish individual players=avatars=characters (M2) (but how exactly? Need to distinguish environment!?)
· Must add intuitive requirements from our concept of a computer game
· The model elements are thus the VWs and their content, the info packages (and their content) passed between VWs and the associated (LOCAL) times. So the level of abstraction of the (more detailed) model M2 is pitched at the MAS that constitutes a VW, which is not itself specified in detail, but is assumed to have certain necessary properties which could in implementation be elaborated in an appropriate way.
· We are forced(?) to go metaphysical to escape from
IF FORALL(n): VW(n) CONTAINS VW(n+1 or 0) THEN CONTRADICTION
· [A topological perspective seems relevant here – see also Escher’s ever ascending stairway…]
· Take the entire Hoop to be outside, NOT within, our physical spacetime structure, as currently hypothesised. There is therefore NO universal timeline common to all VWs.
· A key option to adopt is that the VWs are of “block time” variety – presuming the players (in model M2) are given an illusion of time -- as we experience time (see “Eternalism” e.g. Wikipedia entry). But this approach challenges the original suggestion of the immortality of the players. In this view they are timeless. NB The Christian God is also commonly regarded as outside time and therefore unchanging and eternal whilst being distinctively “personal”.
· We only need to construct a single fixed structure as a model
· It is plausible(?) that certain properties (which need not be elaborated) that can appear within the FSA defined VW(n) constitute the conditions for various properties in, actions upon and information from VW(n+1).
· Properties indicating that a particular agent has “won” can be specified e.g. the relevant VW entering a particular sub-state.
· Is the number of players=characters=avatars in each VW(n) necessarily the same? No! Some characters can be merely FSAs (ie not guided from “above”) and some players may guide multiple characters “below”.
· Gill’s suggestion that that therefore WE are immortal is questionable. At best it depends upon careful interpretations of her proposal and of what “death” of a player/character in a VW means precisely.
· What are the criteria by which a metaphysical proposal can reasonably be judged? Is Gill’s Idea more or less plausible than, say, the (well-known Neoplatonist) Iamblichus’ metaphysical structure - also with a mathematical aspect -- of a hierarchy from the unknowable “One” down to the human soul? WHY?
10th Oct, 2017
s. Y Laird
Laird Unlimited Editorial Services LLP
sorry about your #2 daughter's passing before you... but living into old age isn't easy cake... " that therefore WE are immortal is questionable. " certainly, that _is_ without question... if what counts as WE is known here and now.
11th Nov, 2017
Louis Brassard
James,
''"We are all avatars in a virtual reality game being played by creatures in a “higher” reality. To make the game more interesting the players have decided that we as avatars should not remember who we "really"are.''
This statement is self-contradictory. What it says contradict that we should not remember. It says we are avatar that should not remember they are avatar. The person saying this has to be an avatar that remember!!!!
11th Nov, 2017
James Doran
University of Essex
Louis,
But isn't the statement in question is a somewhat speculative conclusion or conjecture inferred from the available evidence of experience? It does not rely on remembering who we "really"are.''
Contrast:
''"We are all avatars in a virtual reality game being played by creatures in a “higher” reality. To make the game more interesting the players have decided that we as avatars should never understand who we really are."''
which would indeed be self-contradictory, I think.
You're the first person to raise this issue -- thanks!
JIm
Can you help by adding an answer?
Answer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence