While my simple mind believes that "mathematical existence = physical
existence," I do not assume that "we owe our existence to the mere existence
of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it."
To me, the reason that mathematical existence means physical existence
is that "in infinite space and time, everything that can exist must exist."
If it's describable mathematically, then it "can" exist, somewhere in the
multiverse - therefore it "must" exist. Tegmark claims, for example, that
in his Level I multiverse, there is "an identical copy of (me) about
10^10^29 meters away." (arXiv:astro-ph/0302131 v1 7 Feb 2003)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality etc.
here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it
all all boils down to this:
Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would generate
an observer who would subjectively perceive his virtual world to be similar
to the world we live in (which is well described by the standard model and
The quantum fields are represented in some way by the states of the
transistors of the computer. The way the computer evolves from one state to
the next, of course, doesn't violate ''our laws of physics''. It may be the
case that the way the transistors are manipulated by the computer when
interpreted in terms of the quantum fields in the ''virtual world'' would
violate the laws of physics of that world. But this is irrelevant, because
the observer cannot violate the laws of physics in his world. Also, if you
believe that ''mathematical existence= physical existence'', then you assume
that we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a
machine that executes it.