Dear moderator, The emails are certainly interesting, but I could not cope with the number of submissions.
May I please unsubscribe from the everything-list group? Thank you very much. --- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > >David Barrett-Lennard wrote: > > > Here is a justification of why I think > arithmetical realism is at least > > > very plausible... > > > >I'm all ears. > > > > > Let's suppose that a computer simulation can (in > principle) exhibit > > > awareness. I don't know whether you dispute > this hypothesis, but let's > > > assume it and see where it leads. > > > >With you so far. We already have simulated critters > with behaviour, and > >awareness of their environment. Computational > neuroscience even attempts to > >do it with a high degree of biological realism. > > > > > Let's suppose in fact that you Eugin, were able > to watch a computer > > > simulation run, and on the screen you could see > "people" laughing, > > > talking - perhaps even discussing ideas like > whether *their* physical > > > existence needs to be postulated, or else they > are merely part of a > > > platonic multiverse. A simulated person may > stamp his fist on a > > > simulated coffee table and say "Surely this > coffee table is real - how > > > could it possibly be numbers - I've never heard > of anything so > > > >That wouldn't be abstract "numbers". You'd have a > system with a state, > >evolving > >along a trajectory. In your case, that system state > is being rendered (in > >realtime, I presume) for external observers. > > ...but suppose we implement the same abstract > program on several computers > of totally different construction, like a regular > computer using electronic > impulses vs. a quantum computer or a gigantic > babbage machine that uses only > rotating gears. For the critters inside the > simulation, wouldn't all these > cases appear subjectively identical to them? If so, > it seems the only common > denominator is that all the computers were doing the > same abstract > computation, the physical details are apparently > irrelevant in determining > the experience of the simulated beings. Doesn't this > lend intuitive support > to the Platonic view that our own physical universe > is itself just a > particular abstract computation? Isn't your own > belief that there is > something more to our own universe, something more > "physical" I guess, > nothing more than faith in a certain metaphysical > view of reality, with no > more evidence (and considerably less parsimony, IMO) > to justify it than the > Platonic view? > > Jesse Mazer > > _________________________________________________________________ > Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — > optimizes dial-up to the max! > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1 > n.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
