Nice try, Brent John On 2/24/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > John Mikes wrote: > > This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get > > into it is > > by Mark's remark: > > "I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe > that > > is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking > > stick. " > > --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000 in the bank in 100s and > > counted > > them ....37,38,39, - then stopped and said: well. so far it was a match, > > let me believe that the rest is also OK. > > We are much earlier into the completion of what we know about our > > existence. > > Then again you both wrote about simulations (even: emulations) horribile > > dictu: > > " The key point is that a wilful entity or conspiracy seeks to emulate > > all or part of another wilful entity's world to the extent that the > > latter can't tell the difference when the change is made." > > Untold: "restricted to details known" Nobody can simulate or look for > > unknown details. Of course "the latter" can't tell whether 'simulated' > > if looking only at the portion that matches. (I am not clear about > > "wilful entity".) > > The fallacy of the simulational business is more than that: you (get?) > > simulate(d?) HERE and NOW and continue HERE under these conditions, > > while THERE the simulacron lives under THOSE conditions and in no time > > flat becomes different from you original. That the world of THERE is > > also simulated? Just add: and lives exactly the life of THIS one? then > > the whole thing is a hoax, a mirror image, no alternate. > > * > > Jason: " A reversible computation is one that has a 1 to 1 mapping > > between input > > and output. " Going up in the $100 bills to #45, the map may change. > > Don't tell me please such "Brunoistic" examples like 1+1 = 2, go out > > into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves). > > How can you reverse the infinite variations of a life-computation? You > > have got to restrict it into a limited model and work on that. Like: > > reductionist physics (QM?) . > > It seems to me like a return to Carnot, disregarding Prigogine, who > > improved the case to some (moderate) extent from the classical > > reversible even isotherm thermodynmx, > > from which I used to form the joke (as junior in college) that it shows > > how processes would [theoretically] proceed, wouldn't they proceed as > > they do proceed. > > We can reverse a closed model content, all clearly known in it. Not > life. > > Just count into the simulations and reversals the constantly > > (nonlinearly!) changing world not allowing any 'fixing' of > > circumstances/processes. No static daydreams. > > * > > Jason: "Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and > > uncomputable to > > those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the > > universe evolves deterministically. " - right on. I just wonder why all > > those many worlds are 'emulated' after this one feeble universe we > > pretend to observe. In my 'narrative' I allowed 'universes' of > > unrestricted variety of course 'nobody' can ever continue in a totally > > different 'universe' a life from here. With e.g. a different logic. > > * > > "Are you saying that a perfectly efficient computer could not be built > > or that the physics of this universe are not computable? " > > You mean: with unrestricted, filled memory banks working on the > > limitless variations nature CAN provide? A perfectly efficient computer > > could then compute this universe as well. Maybe not these binary embryos > > we are proudly using today. Indeed: you ask about the physics of this > > universe, is it the reductionist science we are fed with in college? > > That may be computed. Discounting the randomness and indeterminism shown > > for members of this quantum universe of ours. > > > > Sorry for the length and my unorthodoxy. > > > > John M > > You seem to have two themes: (1) The universe is more complex than current > physics makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison, (2) Our > ability to comprehend things is quite limited. But these two together imply > that is quite possible that we live in a simulation. If the simulation is > being performed in a universe like ours, one with very complex physics, then > the physics of that universe could provide a simulation that was beyond our > ability to discern as a simulation - because of our limited > comprehension. The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate > the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and > understand. > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---