On 2/26/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > > > > On 2/26/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> From: Brent Meeker > >>> 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? > >>> Doesevery one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe > >>> with understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted? > >>> (and why simulate?) > > >>> JohnThe 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 > > > > > Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, then > we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp). > Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us > possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the > physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative > computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp > predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing > emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp > generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only > comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white rabbits > would disappear. > Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable > universe cannot be. This follows from UDA. > Cf my previews explanation: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05272.html The UDA is an argument about ultimate reality. We can still speculate as to whether we are simulated in one level relative to another level. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
