Brent: ' Which scientists...ours of theirs?'
MP: Ours. The situation is not static; they would have to KEEP responding to our scientists' unpredictable forays into basic science, unpredictable a-priori either to them or to us. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: > Mark Peaty wrote: >> Brent: ' >> the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, >> only the part we can investigate and understand' >> >> MP: as I argued in my response to Stathis, the 'part we can investigate >> and understand' can be ever expanding and the exactitude of our >> understanding can in time reach just about arbitrarily fine degrees of >> resolution. Or, which would be more the worry for 'emulators' who wished >> to remain invisible, the emulation would need to be able to be >> controlled to a finer resolution than scientists' contemporary >> measurement skills. > > Which scientists...ours of theirs? > > I don't disagree, but suppose the level at which we could see it was a > simulation was the Planck scale. This is not entirely speculative, since the > Planck scale is where a conflict between quantum mechanics and general > relativity must manifest itself. If the Simulators were only interested in > how the world operates far above that level then maybe they were sloppy and > just left potential inconsistencies in the simulation. The program will > crash when we do the right experiment to reveal it. But that level is thirty > orders of magnitude smaller than anything we can reach now. > > Brent Meeker > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
