On 10/16/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I agree 100%. All 3p related concepts are abstractions
constructed from many different 1p's. The idea of "Reality" is a
good example of this and it is why I define Reality as "what which
is incontrovertible for some collection N (N > 2) of observers
that can communicate (or interact) in some meaningful way. Of
course the word "meaningful" is a bit ambiguous...
I can't find the post where we were talking about simulation, but I
was going to lay it out like this.
I'm in the desert and I see a shiny patch in the distance.
I can consider the shimmering patch many things:
A. Under-Signifying Range of Sense:
1) A perceptually modeled representation of dynamic changing optical
conditions based on photon collisions and retinal stimulation.
2) A correlate for neurological functions evolved to link reflection
with the presence of life sustaining H2O.
a) this condition is either validated by the presence of water
of negated by its absence.
b) the limitations of 2) commonly lead to false positives owing
to the similarity of patterns between heat convection and reflection
off of the surface of water.
B. Signifying or Personal Range of Sense
1) maybe a mirage (simulation of water)
2) maybe water (which could be just as easily called a simulation of
C. Over-signifying or Super-personal Range of Sense
1) hope and salvation
2) punishment from God/trickery from the devil.
3) a dramatic point in the story
Simulation, to me, arises in the personal range of sensemaking. In the
lower ranges, simulation is not applicable (saccharine molecules do
not simulate sucrose molecules, polymer resin doesn't simulate the
cellulose of a tree, etc) and in the upper ranges, interpretation is
already ambiguous and faith based. You can't have a simulated dark
night of the soul, it is an experience that already defines itself as
unique and genuine (even if it's a genuine experience of being tricked).
Simulation then, is about the level of preference and (drumroll) Free
Will. If something satisfies our expectation criteria of what it is
intended to substitute for, then we say it is a simulation. The mirage
is an example of how ephemeral and relative this really is. The mirage
only passes for simulating water to us, at a distance. Probably don't
see a lot of insects or plants fooled by convection optics. It's only
a simulation in one sense or set of senses. This is why AI simulation
will fail to generate human subjectivity, because it only looks like a
human if you program it to play Jeopardy or chess or drive a car, etc.
I agree with you that, in this regard, everything only has one best
simulation and that is itself. Only one instantiation of something can
fulfill all possible expectation criteria for interaction with that
thing for an indefinite period. I'm not sold on simulation being
especially useful as a cosmological feature, but I think that it has
potential within this Personal Range, and the bi-simulation is part of
that. The personal range is the primary range anyhow. The loss of
voluntary participation in the sub-personal, super-personal, and
impersonal ranges coincides with the decrease in the relevance of
simulation, as the 'seems like' range of direct relation gives way to
the 'simply is' range of indirect (second hand) perceptual inertia.
It occurs to me that we can only gain information from simulations
if we (as observers thereof) are within the simulacra itself in some
way. For example, the moving playing on my TV screen is a simulation of
a jet plane flying through the air and not the "real thing" but I am not
the only possible viewer of that "simulated jet plane". There are
multiple observers possible and we are all "within" the same "reality".
It seems that for the bijective identity to hold between object and
best possible simulation there can only be one observer of the
simulation, the object itself, other wise there is the possibility of a
distorted view of the object and thus the bijection fails.... This
smells suspiciously like a definition of 1p!
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