On 2/13/2013 5:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
[SPK wrote} What difference that makes a difference does that make
in the grand scheme of things? The point is that we cannot 'prove'
that we are not in a gigantic simulation. Yeah, we cannot prove a
negative, but we can extract a lot of valuable insights and maybe
some predictions from the assumption that 'reality = best possible
I just realized how to translate that into my view: "Reality = making
the most sense possible." Same thing really. That's why I talk about
multisense Realism, with Realism being the quality of maximum
unfiltered sense. Since sense is subtractive, the more senses you have
overlapping and diverging, the less there is that you are missing.
Reality = nothing is missing (i.e. only possible at the Absolute
level), Realism = you can't tell that anything is missing from your
perceptual capacity/inertial frame/simulation.
I don't like the word simulation per se, because I think that anything
the idea of a Matrix universe does for us would be negated by the idea
that the simulation eventually has to run on something which is not a
simulation, otherwise the word has no meaning. Either way, the notion
of simulation doesn't make any of the big questions more answerable,
even if it is locally true for us.
I like the idea of a Matrix universe exactly for that reason; it
takes resources to 'run' it. No free lunch, even for universes!!!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.