Georges Quenot writes:
I do not believe in either case that a simulation with this level
of detail can be conducted on any computer that can be built in
our universe (I mean a computer able to simulate a universe
containing a smaller computer doing the calculation you considered
with a
Eric Hawthorne writes:
2. SAS's which are part of a 3+1 space may not have higher measure than
SAS's in other spaces, but perhaps the SAS's
in the other spaces wouldn't have a decent way to make a living. In
other words, maybe they'd have a hard time
perceiving the things in their space,
Eric Hawthorne writes:
One of the issues is the computational complexity of running all the
possible i.e. definable programs to
create an informational multiverse out of which consistent, metric,
regular, observable info-universes
emerge. If computation takes energy (as it undeniably does
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
So probably, the extra-universal notion of computing all the
universe simulations is not traditional computation
at all. I prefer to think of the state of affairs as being that the
multiverse substrate is just kind of like a
very large, passive qubitstring memory,
Kory Heath wrote:
Tegmark goes into some detail on the
problems with other than 3+1 dimensional space.
Once again, I don't see how these problems apply to 4D CA. His
arguments are extremely physics-centric ones having to do with what
happens when you tweak quantum-mechanical or
I agree that this is what Tegmark is trying to say. If we look at it
in terms of measure, there are (broadly speaking) two ways for creatures
to exist: artificial or natural. By artificial I mean that there could
be some incredibly complex combination of laws and initial conditions
built
Eugen said...
I was using a specific natural number (a 512 bit integer) as an
example for
creation and destruction of a specific integer (an instance of a class of
integers). No more, no less.
That's plenty to bring out our difference of opinion. cf creation and
destruction of a specific
7 matches
Mail list logo
