On 3/5/07, Danny Mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I've no idea why we might be being simulated if we are being simulated. > It is actually very arrogant to assume that we are somehow the centre of the > simulation at all, like bacteria in my gut assuming that the universe, the > solar sysstem, humans were made for their benefit. " > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > I have a problem with the very premise of asking why we are being > simulated. Having been a member of this list for years, I have seen > objections to the simulation argument raised repeatedly that are along the > lines of "it is presumptuous to assume anyone would want to simulate us," or > "it is entirely speculative and not based in science", etc. I have also > seen a fair amount of discussion about how the simulation could be done. > > > > To me, the logical chain is straightforward. If you accept a MWI > interpretation or some other ensemble theory, then everything that can > happen does happen. There is maybe a little wiggle room here, as perhaps > you can have a MWI with an enormous number of universes versus and infinite > number, depending on the nature of the underlying implementation, but as I > understand it from earlier discussions and from my reading, most interpret > MWI as requiring an actual infinity. > There is a big difference between an infinite and a merely very large MWI: for one thing, QTI requires an actual infinity of worlds.
Now, after you have the MWI as the underlying foundation, there is really > only one additional question that needs to be answered. Is there something > fundamentally primitively "physical" and non-reproducible about my existence > that would forever prohibit any attempt at reproduction? When I say "my > existence" you have to include two possibilities. First, if you want to > hold onto the "primitive physical" viewpoint you have to assume that there > is something about the nature of our apparent reality in the third person > that is simply not capable of emulation or simulation. Second, you ALSO > have to assume there is something about our first person experience that is > also not capable of emulation or simulation. This is where the "primitive > physical" proponents lose me. I have thought about this a great deal, and > just can't figure out why I should assume there is something so special > about my experiences, memories, and thought process that it under no > circumstances could ever be capable of reproduction anywhere else in > existence (other than the "naturally" occurring copies of myself in other > parts of the multiverse, which are of course under this line of thinking > occurring at a "primitive physical" level). > > > > I am an attorney, so I guess I look at this at a little different > perspective than most on here with science related backgrounds. I think > once you get to a certain level, whether it be with MWI, or string theory or > any other concept that can not be directly tested or observed, science loses > its ability to take you further and you have to look into other areas such > as logic and philosophy to finish the journey. However, there is a > circumstantial case to be made for things even beyond strict science. For > instance, I believe the circumstantial case for our universe being emulable > or simulable is strong given what we know about how our universe works so > far. The reasons for this have probably been discussed around here > extensively, for instance the close relationship between math and physics, > and our ability to describe the things we observe in mathematical terms. > > > > To my way of thinking, the opponents to a simulation viewpoint are > basically left arguing a concept that there is something "magical" or > "spiritual" about human thought. That it is a supernatural function that is > forever beyond the realm of science. Either that or they do not accept an > ensemble theory. I could not disagree more with your statement that it is > "arrogant to assume that we are somehow the center of the simulation." On > the contrary, what is arrogant is to assume that in a universe in which it > is possible to simulate environments and universes (and this we know, just > check out a Playstation 3 game I will say only partially tongue in cheek), > is that we occupy a special location at the very top (or bottom depending on > how you look at it) of this hierarchy of natural and artificial creations. > I'm not opposed to the idea that we may be part of a simulation. The only way to exclude the possibility is, as you suggest, if there is something magical about human thought (not just mysterious - we know it's mysterious). However, it seems you are both agreeing and disagreeing with my statement that we shouldn't assume we are at the centre of the simulation. There is a tendency to think that if we are in a simulation someone has painstakingly hand-coded every aspect of us and our environment, whereas it seems to me much more likely that our universe is a product of a UD type program. A UD need only be run once on an infinite computer and it would swamp out any more deliberate simulations. > I think one thing that hangs a lot of people up on this concept is the > idea that somewhere there IS a primitive, physical universe, and that we are > just a digital simulation being run in that "more real" universe. This is > NOT necessary nor is it part of my thinking on the subject. Maybe there is > some "more real" or "primitive physical" reality out there that is > simulating our entire quantum mechanical multiverse, but this is entirely > speculative and presumably beyond the realm of any potential scientific > discussion. When I refer to our being simulated, I am assuming the > simulation is occurring in every way that is logically and physically > possible in the multiverse, just as every other part of the multiverse is > being likewise simulated in every way that is logically and physically > possible in some other part. This is required, in fact is logically > necessary if you assume it is capable of simulation. > It would be really neat if no physical universe is needed to implement the simulation. For one thing, it would get around the question of the contingency of physical existence, a problem even for God. That is as far as I think logic can take us. All the different > theoretical ways that we can be emulated or simulated or of course > interesting discussion. Why some intelligent beings in some other part of > the multiverse may want to simulate or emulate our part of the multiverse is > interesting as well, but is entirely unrelated to the logic of whether the > entire entity is at least in part a simulation as set forth above. > Right, it's the anthropocentric psychology and programming methods of the potential simulators that I disagree with. 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@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---