On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:57:40AM -0800, William wrote:
> > It takes precisely the same amount of information to simulate
> > something as the thing has in the first place. This is the definition
> > of information as used in algorithmic information theory. So I don't
> > think this latter argument works at all.
> I am referring to a perfect simulation by "higher hand". The universe
> where this simulation is taking place would both have all the
> information of our universe (same amount of information) + the
> information to describe the simulators ("higher hand"); which would be
> more than the information in our universe (and describing these higher
> hands probably isn't going to work without adding an infinite amount of
> information).

If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a "higher hand". In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
simulating the universe, the length of which by definition is the
information content of the universe.

If, on the other hand, the universe is not simulable by a Turing
machine, then I really don't know what you mean by simulating it by a
higher hand. You would need to give more details.


A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to