----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kory Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

> At 10:36 AM 4/24/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >Does the fact that we never find ourselves in one of the bizarre,
> >inconsistent worlds that are postulated to exist in Platonia cast doubt
> >the reality of these worlds and the validity of the underlying theory?
> Not yet. We know that the bizarre, inconsistent worlds must exist if the
> Platonia idea is correct, but we (or at least I) don't currently know how
> likely they are. In Platonia, there are X number of possible-next-states
> from my current state. (For simplicity's sake, lets even say that X is a
> very very large finite number.) If a vast majority of these states show me
> sitting in my chair typing, with my computer not turning into a kangaroo,
> etc., then no, the fact that my world so far has not been bizarre and
> inconsistent does *not* cast doubt on the validity of the Platonia theory.
> In fact, if we can show logically, mathematically, or computationally (for
> me these are all ultimately the same thing) that a vast majority of my
> next-possible-states do in fact show me sitting in my chair typing, with
> very few computers turning into kangaroos, this would be an extremely
> strong reason to believe that the Platonia theory is correct, because it's
> survived a rather stringent falsification test.

I submit that this neither supports or refutes the validity of "platonia".
It ultimately only suggests that the "past" and "current" states of "our"
world have been consistent with the "laws" (theories) of physics and
aristotilean logic, so a far as we can accurately determine same, and
suggests somewhat less convincingly that the "future" states will continue
to be so.


<-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here -->

Reply via email to