On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:34:50AM -0800, CMR wrote: > I'm familiar with the concept of a metalayer in software dev as a > compatibility interface between apps etc.. So, in this case the > "meta-layer" being I assume the "interface" between the universes abstractly > and between the simulation and the platform concretely, or is it referring > to the computational device itself that the simulation is running on (per > your bit "storage" reference below)?
The latter. Just ab abstraction of the physical layer embedding the simulation. > The "visible" universe meaning ours(?) I assume, and the the bit storage Yes. > accounting for our 4th Dimensional progression? That depends whether we're an object, or a process in the metalayer. > matrioshka = nested I assume as in the dolls; I interpret this to mean that Yes, e.g. us implementing a virtual universe large enough to include observers. The limitations of the host substrate (relativistic universe of limited duration, constraints of computational physics --> upper limit to the bits and number of operations on these bits). > "selection" would favor a universal resource economy of high efficiency and > so the "cost" of simulating a universe of at least our's complexity would be > deleterious to the "survival" of the "host" universe and thus lower it's > relative fitness? Or am I full of it here? No, this is not selection of universes, just motivations of systems occupying an universe. Matter and energy is a scarce commodity in the current universe, so assuming an universe we're currently observing is not doesn't require trivial resources to run there's a negative pressure on the motivations to run it. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
Description: PGP signature