The emails are certainly interesting, but I could
not cope with the number of submissions.
May I please unsubscribe from the everything-list
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,
> >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!
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes