On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.
So there is only one possible world. That would seem to imply the world is determinstic.
How do you account for quantum randomness? Are you assuming hidden variables or
hyperdeterminism?
There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality, and all of those
simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly based in the actual logic of
reality at least in their essentials. Because these are real world views of real
biological organisms. They have to be accurate in their essentials for the organisms to
exist and function.
Yes that's all very well. We and other beings model the world in our minds. And (we hope)
those models are accurate. But that does not logically entail that there cannot be other
worlds with different physics and different beings making mental models of it. Are you
just asserting it as a contingent fact, or do you have some argument that only this world
with its physics is possible?
I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in "many possible worlds
with alternative physics, etc." when I've consistently argued just the opposite.
So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible world. You've
just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it. That doesn't logically entail
that no other "real" worlds are possible.
Brent
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
consider not just
> what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but the
whole
context of
> the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely
convincing
in the
> short term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is not in
accordance
> with the actual logic of that actual reality it will quickly or
eventually fail. The
> real being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients etc. in a
real actual
> reality with which it is in logical synch with.
So you're saying that although there are many possible world's (alternative
physics,
etc)
that can exist in simulations, only one of these is real. Which raises the
question, why
this one?
Brent
>
> Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running or the
simulated
> being will quickly die in the real actual reality in which it MUST have
an actual
> existence. So there will always be a way to tell if the reality you live
in is
simulated
> or not. If you actually exist then at least the basics must be in accord
with actual
> reality.
>
> Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a simulation
can be
wrong
> and the subject still function, but no essential ones. No matter how
simulated an
> internal reality is it still must exist in a real actual reality and this
will always
> eventually give a false simulation away when it is tested against actual
reality
by the
> test of whether it is consistent with the continued existence and
functioning of the
> subject.
>
> Edgar
--
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
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
