On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> *From:* Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *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 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to