On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *From:* Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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???WHO????--- > > "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?) > John > > 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?
Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
