On 9/15/2011 9:46 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 15 Sep 2011, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/15/2011 7:34 PM Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
At present, I am just trying to figure out our beliefs that
make the simulation hypothesis possible.
But this is really astonishing, and in quasi-contradiction which
what you say above. We just don't know any phenomena which are
not Turing emulable. As a theorician, but only as a theorician, I
can show the theoretical existence of non simulable phenomena,
but that really exists only in theory, or in mathematics. Worst,
most non simulable phenomena will be non distinguishable from
randomness, and if we are machine, we will never been able to
recognize a non Turing emulable phenomenon as such. It seems that
the question is more like "how can we believe something non
Turing emulable could exist in Nature".
Let me repeat your statement: "We just don't know any phenomena
which are not Turing emulable." I am not sure that it is so
Ah? You have a counter-exemple?
As I have written, the simulation hypothesis just does not work in
I don't understand what that means.
It means that what you can simulate in practice is actually pretty
limited. So when you speak about a counter-example, I do not understand
you. Just try to employ simulation in practice and you will immediately
see my point.
It is easy to say that everything in Nature is Turing computable. Yet,
it is hard to use this statement in practice. Exactly here I see a
Well, after all my example is here
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
For more options, visit this group at