On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, someone wrote:
> This is from Tegmark's paper (although I think he was paraphrasing
> Tipler from Physics of Immortality):
>   In fact, since we can choose to picture our Universe
>   not as a 3D world where things happen, but as a 4D world that merely
>   is, there is no need for the computer to compute anything at all --
>   it could simply store all the 4D data, and the "simulated" world 
>   would still have PE.

        I haven't read that much of Tegmarks paper.  Obviously he's not a
computationalist, but so far sounds like a structuralist.

>   Clearly the way in which the data is stored
>   should not matter, so the amount of PE we attribute to the stored
>   Universe should be invariant under data compression.

        But at this point he no longer sounds like a regular stucturalist.
What he says above seems silly.

>   Now the ultimate question forces itself 
>   upon us:  for this Universe to have PE, is the CD-ROM really needed
>   at all?  If this magic CD-ROM could be contained within the simulated
>   Universe itself, then it would "recursively" support its own PE.  
>   This would not involve any catch-22 "hen-and-egg" problem regarding 
>   whether the CD-ROM or the Universe existed first, since the Universe 
>   is a 4D structure which just is ("creation" is of course only a 
>   meaningul notion within a spacetime).

        Here he doesn't answer his own question.

>   In summary, a mathemtaical 
>   structure with SASs would have PE if it could be described purely 
>   formally (to a computer, say) -- and this is of course little else 
>   than having mathematical existence.

        A case for that can be made and has been on this list, but not in
the quotes from his paper above.

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Reply via email to