Jerry Clark wrote:
> 
> Such 'Life' evolution raises an interesting question: These SAS's would ...
> Sooner or later a physicists would hear about
> this new development and the realisation would be made that their universe
> *is* a Life simulation. 

Would it?  This is a questions I've thought about some.  Would the
fundamental mechanism of the life simulation be deducible by these
SAS's?  Perhaps the only things that would be "knowable" by these
SAS's would be higher level structures, which they might interpret
as, for example, eleven dimensional quantum mechanical strings, or
something.

But, assuming that the lowest level structure of their world is
discernable, I would expect there to be a significant difference 
between the measure of those creatures and the measure of other
creatures - us perhaps.

So if we further assume that our universe is *not* a game of life,
and if the AUH is true, then by the SSA I would conclude that the
probability of any SAS finding itself to be in a game of life is
probably zero.  That is, the set of SAS's inside a game of life is
of measure zero relative to the set of SAS's inside universes like
ours.  

In the bizarre nature of infinite sets, not all SAS's are in 
universes like ours, but in fact the probability of being in a
universe like ours is 100%.

> 
> More interestingly still: when are *we* going to discover some 
> CA or similar which
> turns out to be *our* universe? In my lifetime I hope.

CA?



-- 
Chris Maloney
http://www.chrismaloney.com

"Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
-- Homer Simpson

Reply via email to