# Re: Questions about simulations, emulations, etc.

```
On 09 Jun 2012, at 20:57, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:```
```
```
```On 09.06.2012 20:27 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
```
```Le 9 juin 2012 20:22, "Evgenii Rudnyi"<use...@rudnyi.ru>  a écrit :
```
```
```
```
...

```
```

No, I have meant

a) simulated computer

b) simulated myself (but not in a)

Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions
executed by
```
```some Turing machine. It seems that there is no difference. How would
you define the difference then in this case?
```
```
```
```
If you are running at the same level (inside the same simulation,
meaning what is simulating the computer is also simulating you and
the world you share) then you're able to affect the computer.
```
```
```
And computer in a way cannot affect me. This what I actually wanted to say in the beginning. Even if we assume simulation hypothesis, nothing changes and the business continues as usual. On Monday for example it is necessary to go to work.
```
```
On the other hand, if I understand Bruno's theorem correctly a) and b) imply quite different things. While a) brings no problem, b) leads to
```
arithmetic -> mind -> physics

```
That is, I am not sure if according to Bruno, mind simulation in simulation is possible.
```
Yes it is possible. And "worth", it is necessary the case.

Let me explain why.

```
Let us fix a universal system, FORTRAN for example, or c++, game of life, arithmetic, S & K, etc.
```
```
Let us enumerate the one argument programs: p_i, and let us called phi_i the partial (that include the total) corresponding computable functions. This is equivalent of choosing a base in linear algebra. We can associate a number to each partial computable functions.
```
```
A universal number (a computer) is a number u such that phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). x is the program, y is the data and u is the computer. In that case we can say that u emulates the program x (first approximation of a definition to be sure).
```
```
Now, phi_u, to be in the phi_i, needs to be a one variable function, so we better have a good computable bijection between NxN and N. With this you can see that a universal emulation can itself be emulated by yet another universal number, and you can easily understand that the universal dovetailer generates the infinitely many layers of simulations, showing that they correspond to true arithmetical relations. They are solution of a universal diophantine equation. We cannot avoid them in the measure problem.
```
```
The key is that below our substitution level we belong to infinities computations/emulation, defining our physical realities, and above the substitution level, it can (re)define our identities. We never know our level of substitution, but we can know that below, it is a matter of experience, and above it is a matter of private opinion, something like that.
```
```
In UD*, or in a tiny part of arithmetic, there are a lot of even infinite trails of simulation in simulation in simulation, etc. with variants etc.
```
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to