On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *From:* Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
> (Brent wrote):
> "....The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole
> complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand."
> -----(End of his post below)
> "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe?
> or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea?
> Does every one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe with
> understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted?
> (and why simulate?)
> The discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a possibly
simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a "real" world would
look like, so that we can gather scientific data and thereby determine
whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that we are going to run into a
Microsoft logo or bump their heads against a huge planetarium screen. How do
we know that the limits of the simulation we might be in are not represented
by the speed of light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on
how much we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of
light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or more
finely granular. How would we know?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at