John M wrote: > > [...] > If you consider (the) (your) universe, something according to YOUR > current intuition what YOU have of it, then there is nothing else upon which > you can "simulate" it. You definitely need something ELSE on which > a simluation can be based. More than just your intuition-based universe. > (I didn't say: 'outside reality'!). > > My (rethorical) question pointed to this dichotomy. > It may be wrong, but probably understandable now.
OK. I don't believe that our/any universe can be simulated within itself. It can only be conceived that it could be simulated another (much) larger virtual universe or within an appropriate mathematical structue (if the dictinction makes sense). In other words, I consider theoretical computablity (which one may consider somehow mystical) and not actual practical computability (even considering techologies far beyond what we can even imagine) which I do not consider possible at all. There might be a bit of faith (in some artihmetical realism for instance; that one could like to call mysticim) here. > [...] So you may find a limit what I didn't. Possibly. > To your remark on my narrative (watch the name I use): > "This sounds very speculative (not to say mystical) to me." > Not more than the white or pink elephants/rabbits. Or some > computation that takes infinite time and infinite virtual > memory. Yes. I may also not have got it the right way at first read. Best regards. Georges Quénot.
