I forward it to this list... I'm not sure it pass the barier of
moderation on FOR, anyway I think it is relevant... (or I'm too
presomptuous to see it is not).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Theories and Reality (was Re: Lakatos)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little while ago...
2008/7/10 Peter D Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Babak Seradjeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Let's think, for instance, what is the perceived
> > reality of a person connected to David Deutsch's virtual reality
> > generator. The generator can be simulating *exactly* the Euclidean
> > geometry. So even though Euclidean geometry is not applicable to the
> > cosmos as we know it today, it will be exactly applicable to the
> > perceived reality of this person. So again, this is not an
> > existential problem.
> Of course it is, because it hinges on the actual existence of a VR
I don't see why... it's the same as saying the universe is embedded in
something, it depends on the actual existence of the universe bearer.
> > This is also an argument that the statement "some theories are wrong"
> > is not an absolute statement. Some theories are wrong *as solutions
> > to particular problems*: A theory based on Euclidean geometry is
> > wrong as the solution to the problem of cosmological space-time but
> > exactly correct as the solution to motion simulated by the above
> > virtual reality generator.
> It will still be wrong about the wider reality in which the VR generator
> is embedded. We demand widespread applicability as a condition of the
> correctness of our theories.
I don't understand if we accept the turing emulability of our own
"mind" then it is totally meaningless to speak of a level 0 of
reality, there isn't a level 0 of emulability it's nonsense. You have
to refer to matter to tell this machine is concrete and is in the
level 0, the difference with the abstract machines is it is composed
of matter (so it means matter is not emulable, matter is something
more than just information), and you have to assume that the following
axiom is false, computational power is infinite (either spacialy or
temporaly). Meaning all the infinite steps of a non stopping algorithm
can be run.
I'd like to know how could you tell if you're in level 0 ? it seems to
me that a level 0 of reality requires non-turing emulability of the
mind, ie: you could live in a VR but your "mind" is in level 0,
because if it's not the case then Bruno's case show that there is no
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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