Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-22 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 22 Mar 2017, at 13:22, David Nyman wrote:



On 20 March 2017 at 16:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That is why I say that, with or without computationalism, the  
physical reality cannot be emulated by a computer. The universe  
cannot be a program, if a program can sustain my consciousness.


​Isn't the UD a program?


Sure it is. It is also equivalent with the set of sigma_1 sentences p.

p -> []p is true fro RA,

and is p -> []p is true and provable by PA. p sigma_1, and "[]"  
representing indexically their respective provability predicate. (RA =  
PA without the induction axiom).


Note that both []p -> p are true for RA and PA, at least all  
mathematicians believe that, but none of RA or PA can prove its own  
[]p -> p (correctness), nor even really define it.


p here represents always a sigma_1 sentence, that is a sentence which  
asserts the existence of some number having a testable property, like  
it exists a prime number, or it is exists a proof of this, or that, or  
the computation 457688902002 will stop. When they are true, they are  
provable by the universal machine. Note that their negation might be  
true, and not provable, like "there is no proof of "0=1" (consistency).


From Löb, true for PA, and provable by PA, []([]p -> p) -> []p, PA  
will prove []p ->p only when he actually proves p. It is up-mostly  
modest.


The UD, more exactly its execution, represents a fragment of the  
arithmetical reality. It contains already the machines which believe  
in much more than such fragment.


Consciousness is the first person experience, which I think is given  
by the knower, which we get thanks to Theaetetus through []p & p  
(which implies []p & <>p, so can be use to give already a sort of  
physics, and give also a "quantum logic" for p sigma_1).


Apology for being technical.


Ah, but then you will say that the the UD isn't physical reality.  
Rather, the physical reality consists in what is filtered from the  
UD* through the lens of the machines' first-personal pluralism. Yes?


Exactly.

And due to the invariance of that experience relatively to the number  
of steps of the UD computation, the measure is defined on some cross- 
product of a random oracle and the halting oracle. The measure is non  
computable, and physics should not be completely computable. A priori,  
it is totally uncomputable (cf the whitte rabbits).


That is why I derived only the logical structure of physics, from the  
self-reference discourse, using only that P(x) = 1 if p is true in all  
consistent extensions (= provable, by Gödel's completeness theorem)  
*and* there is such consistent extension (something the machine cannot  
prove for itself, by Gödel incompleteness. ([]p & <>t).


It is equivalent to the belief by some person that he will get a cup  
of coffee with probability one, assuming mechanism,  in the WM- 
duplication in a protocol which guaranties that a cup of coffee is  
offered to both reconstituted persons, i.e. in Washington and Moscow.


Bruno



David​



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-22 Thread David Nyman 
On 20 March 2017 at 16:34, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That is why I say that, with or without computationalism, the physical
> reality cannot be emulated by a computer. The universe cannot be a program,
> if a program can sustain my consciousness.
>

​Isn't the UD a program? Ah, but then you will say that the the UD isn't
physical reality. Rather, the physical reality consists in what is filtered
from the UD* through the lens of the machines' first-personal pluralism.
Yes?

David​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 16 Mar 2017, at 11:35, Telmo Menezes wrote:


I think that the important insight that people miss is this: if
computationalism is true, then it is nonsensical to ask if we are in a
computer simulation or not. The answer could be: "both". The relevant
answer is: "it doesn't matter". Bruno's thought experiment with the
teleportation machines shows this very well.


OK, it does not matter if the simulation is exact. But to make the  
simulation exact for the physical reality, you need to emulate in a  
finite time the whole universal dovetailing. That is why we can, given  
some time, see if we are in a simulation made by some intelligence. We  
will soon or later see a flaw, unless the intelligence follows the  
simulation and intervene all the time we see the flaw. That is why if  
we are in a simulation or  emulation, made by an alien, it has to be  
malevolent.





I enjoy following Sabine's blog, but here I have trouble finding an
argument, except for "I don't like the idea".

I concur with Brent that there is no reason why quantum worlds could
not be emulated with conventional bits. Quantum computers are not
super-Turing.


But they are not emulable in real time (plausibly, assuming P ≠ NP,  
etc.). This is not a problem, but it still makes our observation not  
emulable, because you need the full 1p-indeterminacy on the infinity  
of all computations.


The apparent physical reality cannot be computable, if our brains or  
body are (at some relevant level (relevant = consciousness invariant).


I summed up this once by saying "IF I am a machine, whatever I can see  
correctly cannot be a machine".


That is why I say that, with or without computationalism, the physical  
reality cannot be emulated by a computer. The universe cannot be a  
program, if a program can sustain my consciousness.


Bruno







On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:

"Emulated" would mean we're "really" computed somewhere else.

Brent


On 3/15/2017 3:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:


Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are  
more

likely emulated.

K


On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett  


wrote:


Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the  
popular idea
that we are living in a simulation created by some super- 
intelligence

somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno  
should listen

in

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the  
Google Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything- 
list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 16 Mar 2017, at 00:42, Brent Meeker wrote:


"Emulated" would mean we're "really" computed somewhere else.



Emulation is just a 100% exact simulation. That notion makes sense in  
the digital frame, and indeed the Universal Dovetailer (alias the true  
sigma_1 sentences) emulates everything emulable, that is all program  
executions (and thus ourselves in the case there is a human  
computationalist substitution level).


Now most truth *about* the digital machines are not emulable by any  
machine: the arithmetical truth is far bigger that the computable  
arithmetical truth. As I said, a part of physics has to be not  
emulable, if computationalism is correct. Physics is a first person  
plural phenomenon, and the first person is not only not emulable by  
machine, but not even definable by machine (assuming computationalism).


Bruno




Brent

On 3/15/2017 3:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are  
more likely emulated.


K


On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:
Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular  
idea that we are living in a simulation created by some super- 
intelligence somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea


http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should  
listen in


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 16 Mar 2017, at 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote:


I think Sabine is wrong when she says that one must use qubits to
compute the universe.  Anything computable by a quantum computer is
computable by a classical (Church-Turing) computer, with the penalty  
of
an exponential slowup.  Sabine makes some good points, one of which  
I've

tried to make with Bruno.  Bruno (and Tegmark) aren't thinking of a
physical computer (as Sabine apparently is); they're Platonist and
they're thinking of a Turing machine or other abstract "computer" that
computes everything.  Bruno likes to cite a set of Diophantine  
equations

that constitute a universal computer.  But as Sabine observes, the
computation of the universe can't just be a computation of your
thoughts.


There is no computation of the universe. There can be only computation/ 
emulation of your thought. The physical universe emerge from a NON  
COMPUTABLE statistics on all the computation of "my" thought. That is  
used in the computationalist non-cloning theorem.






 In order that your thoughts be "about" something, the
something must be computed too.


But then we would not been able to dream. In a dream, we are cut from  
the environment, and yet have thought about something (usually built  
by the neo-cortex from plausible quasi-random data generated by the  
cerebral stem, in some theory)






 There's no other way to assure that
your thoughts will correspond to a universe.


Which can be a reason to be skeptical about "a universe".





 But then we're back to her
first point that of course the universe is computed in this trivial
sense that everything is computed.


With computationalism, only thought are computed, not what the thought  
can possibly be about, which emerges from an infinity of computations  
(due to the first person inability to compute the result of the self- 
multiplication, and to see if there are delays, etc.).





 I think Bruno understands and
accepts this point, but he sees his theory that every possible
computation is performed (by a universal dovetailer) and our  
multiverse

is just one of the things computed as an explanation that is beyond
trivial.


Tegmark is closer to this, but I criticized him on exactly this. Even  
with a very low substitution level, the physical reality remains out  
of all possible computations (and that is why we can be very skeptical  
that the notion of "physical universe" makes any sense.





 He says it implies quantum mechanics via the
first-person-indeterminancy principle. I think that's still trivial.


It is simple, but not trivial, as you can see how strong gnostic  
atheist still get stuck on the first person indeterminacy. Moreover,  
the math of the first person indeterminacy, needed to get physics is  
highly not trivial, as it is based on Solovay theorem, itself based on  
Gödel and Löb, the universal machine (a highly non trivial notion as  
it requires closure of a set of functions for the diagonalization,  
etc.).


The illusion/appearances of the universe is a very non trivial  
arithmetical phenomenon. Without Gödel's incompleteness, there is no  
phenomena at all in arithmetic!


Bruno





Brent

On 3/15/2017 2:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular
idea that we are living in a simulation created by some
super-intelligence somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should
listen in

Bruce



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 15 Mar 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular  
idea that we are living in a simulation created by some super- 
intelligence somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea


http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should  
listen in


Feel free to make a summary of her point. I am currently overscheduled  
with my job. I might agree with her as I find highly not plausible  
that we are in a simulation made by *any* intelligence, as the  
observation seem to confirm that we are in the infinity of of  
simulation already realized through addition and multiplication in  
elementary arithmetic. Of course some observation might change my  
mind, but as long as the observation confirms computationalism a  
change of mind seems premature.


Bruno





Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-16 Thread Telmo Menezes 
I think that the important insight that people miss is this: if
computationalism is true, then it is nonsensical to ask if we are in a
computer simulation or not. The answer could be: "both". The relevant
answer is: "it doesn't matter". Bruno's thought experiment with the
teleportation machines shows this very well.

I enjoy following Sabine's blog, but here I have trouble finding an
argument, except for "I don't like the idea".

I concur with Brent that there is no reason why quantum worlds could
not be emulated with conventional bits. Quantum computers are not
super-Turing.

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> "Emulated" would mean we're "really" computed somewhere else.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 3/15/2017 3:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are more
>> likely emulated.
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular idea
>>> that we are living in a simulation created by some super-intelligence
>>> somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea
>>>
>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/
>>>
>>> I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should listen
>>> in
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List 
Here is recent paper on testing for a sim universe-
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IJQF-3888.pdf



-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

"Emulated" would mean we're "really" computed somewhere else.

Brent

On 3/15/2017 3:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
> Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are more 
> likely emulated.
>
> K
>
>
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular idea that 
>> we are living in a simulation created by some super-intelligence somewhere. 
>> She is not impressed with the idea
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/
>>
>> I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should listen 
>> in
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker 

"Emulated" would mean we're "really" computed somewhere else.

Brent

On 3/15/2017 3:28 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are more likely 
emulated.

K


On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular idea that we 
are living in a simulation created by some super-intelligence somewhere. She is 
not impressed with the idea

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should listen in

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-15 Thread Bruce Kellett 

On 16/03/2017 9:28 am, Kim Jones wrote:

Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are more likely 
emulated.


Explain to me how being emulated in the universal dovetailer is 
different from being  simulated by a computer.


Bruce


K


On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular idea that we 
are living in a simulation created by some super-intelligence somewhere. She is 
not impressed with the idea

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should listen in

Bruce


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker 

I think Sabine is wrong when she says that one must use qubits to
compute the universe.  Anything computable by a quantum computer is
computable by a classical (Church-Turing) computer, with the penalty of
an exponential slowup.  Sabine makes some good points, one of which I've
tried to make with Bruno.  Bruno (and Tegmark) aren't thinking of a
physical computer (as Sabine apparently is); they're Platonist and
they're thinking of a Turing machine or other abstract "computer" that
computes everything.  Bruno likes to cite a set of Diophantine equations
that constitute a universal computer.  But as Sabine observes, the
computation of the universe can't just be a computation of your
thoughts.  In order that your thoughts be "about" something, the
something must be computed too.  There's no other way to assure that
your thoughts will correspond to a universe.  But then we're back to her
first point that of course the universe is computed in this trivial
sense that everything is computed.  I think Bruno understands and
accepts this point, but he sees his theory that every possible
computation is performed (by a universal dovetailer) and our multiverse
is just one of the things computed as an explanation that is beyond
trivial.  He says it implies quantum mechanics via the
first-person-indeterminancy principle. I think that's still trivial.

Brent

On 3/15/2017 2:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular
idea that we are living in a simulation created by some
super-intelligence somewhere. She is not impressed with the idea

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/

I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should
listen in

Bruce



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live in a (computer) simulation?

2017-03-15 Thread Kim Jones 
Where does Bruno say we are living in a simulation? He says we are more likely 
emulated. 

K


On 16 Mar 2017, at 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder has an interesting blog post about the popular idea that 
> we are living in a simulation created by some super-intelligence somewhere. 
> She is not impressed with the idea
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/
> 
> I think she makes some good points. Maybe Wolfram and Bruno should listen 
> in
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.