On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
>> > Richard,
>> > On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> >> Bruno,
>> >> Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?
>> > Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come from
>> > arithmetic if comp is true and my reasoning correct.
>> > Bruno
>> Since energy is what makes things happen
>> then comp makes everything happen in Everett's universe.
> If comp made things happen then we could simulate petroleum production in
> a program and solve the world's energy problem. Instead, we find that in
> all real implementations of computing, comp invariably consumes net energy.
> Why would that be? Does comp allow anti-comp? Maybe we could run our
> computers backwards and get some kilowatt hours back.
Seems like this argument is confusing levels of simulations. If you have
one simulated world on a computer which is complex enough to have its own
simulated oil production, as well as simulated physical computers, then
those computers could be used to simulate another world, a
simulation-within-the-simulation. But obviously having petroleum production
in the simulation-within-the-simulation is not going to provide any energy
to the original simulated world, despite the fact that they are both
computer simulations. So, the fact that we cannot get energy from
simulations of oil production, and don't get wet from simulations of
rainstorms and such, is no argument against the idea that our own universe
might just be a computational system.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at