Bruno - thanks.

Stathis did not address my "why simulation at all" main question, you did by an 
"IF" followed by "then" and another 'if' (already assumed) and it goes on and 
At the end we are in a virtual reality what could bring Hollywood a $billion 
and the teens would kill all the aliens in the video-games. 

It is not far from the Gedankenexperiment to shortcut something we do not 
understand by fantasy and keep it repeating so many times that people get used 
to it. That happened with the EPR, the Big Bang, (oops: indeed the  expanding  
universe), etc. leading to 'complementarities' in which I really do not know: 
is our mental faculty not wide enough to comprehend it, or we just 
misunderstand some readings on our instruments. When people "get used" to the 
'if'-s: comes the statement of a physicist on another list: "I can live with 

I feel sometimes somebody somehow somewhere should recall a 'reasonable' 
(original?) question.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

  Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

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

        From: Brent Meeker 
        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?)

        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:


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

Reply via email to