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.


Mark Peaty  CDES



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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to