On 17 Jan 2014, at 08:55, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 LizR <lizj...@gmail.com>
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can
make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing
prevent us to do so.
Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
number of computations can be carried out in a finite time. Also,
within the game I got a solution to P vs NP so I got the Millennium
Prize!
Well those are not physical laws... but yes you could anyway by
deluding all self aware creature in the virtual world thinking so,
and anytime they would hint that isn't true, change their mind...
that would certainly affect their consciousness and free will... but
it could be done in principle.
But anyway that was not what I was talking about, I was talking
about physical laws not logic. You can make a totally logical
consistent virtual world with other physical laws as our reality...
nothing prevent us to do so, and if computationalism is true, we can
make that virtual world have conscious inhabitants.
OK. To insist, my point was only that such creature will soon or later
find that it is a simulation, unless you have changed only the
geographical laws, in which case they are both in the simulation and
in its normal rendering through the FPI on UD*.
In *that* case, you can stop the emulation without killing anyone.
(Like in a novel by Greg Egan).
You can simulate real different physical laws, not extractible from
comp, only for a finite time, or by doing yourself an infinite work to
prevent the creature to find the flaw (assuming of course they are
Löbian, free, and not brainwashed).
What happens below the substitution level is complex, the laws of
physics are non trivial.
Eventually I will explain how to translate the UDA in arithmetic. A
physical observation event will be a sigma_1 arithmetical sentence
(they are all provable by RA already), which is provable (and so keep
trueness through extensions) and consistent (so that "keeping trueness
is not trivial like in the cul-de-sac world, that is we assume
explicitly the existence of an extension). So, we get the logics of
the observation through Bp & p, and Bp & Dt,, and Bp & Dt & p. (and
others like B^n p & p & D^m t, with m < n).
But I have to explain more on modal logics, and its relation with the
logic of provability and consistency.
Bruno
Quentin
:-)
...sorry, I'll get my coat.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
