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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at