Jesse Mazer wrote, > Isn't there a fundamental problem deciding what it means for a given > simulated object to implement some other computation?
Yes, but does this problem need to be solved? I have no problem with the idea that some "physical object" (in one computation) can be "interpreted" in all sorts of ways - depending on how you map it. Does it matter if there exists a (weird) mapping between a rock and a universe with conscious inhabitants? The universe doesn't depend on the rock for its existence so who cares! - David
