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@example.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?
> >>> 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:
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at