On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 07:04:00PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > I thought of that - a kind of quantum Truman Show in which the computer > fakes QM effects with a pseudo-random number generator, or even some other > quantum source (like the laser?). However mere random sequences will not > fool a sophisticated enough lab experiment. Otherwise we'd never have got > MWI as a theory, we'd just have a science of disconnected randomness. In > fact what we have is entangled randomness, which requires far greater > computational sophistication on the part of the simulator. In fact a > quantum computer is definitely required - convincing fakes aren't good > enough. Given that a QC is possible, we can imagine our hero performing a > quantum calculation on it and then allowing the teleportation to the > simulated lab, where he carries out the same experiment. OK, so we can > allow the computer he is in to perform all kinds of tricks, like copying > the previous results etc, but then we're really in a murky situation, > because we've presumed that the computer *can't* simulate the actual > experiment but has to pull these dirty tricks, and I think that's
If you look at what the FPI implies, it is just that uncomputable sequences are part of the observations. With sufficient computing power, you emulate the same thing by dovetailing your conscious entity in all possible environments. After all, by COMP we're allowed to stop and start our conscious computations at will. This doesn't seem such a dirty trick, then. > illegitimate. We can't make special cases for the computer, allowing it to, > say, alter the protagonist's memory, or create the qualia of "Oh I got the > same result!" even though the result was actually different. The simulated > physics has to match the real physics in an arbitrarily sophisticated test. > Otherwise we have one of those inexplicable situations that Deutsch talks > about, that make a mockery of explanation itself. The notion of a simulated > Helsinki etc is meretriciously appealing. But we need to consider all > possible simulation scenarios, and that includes the most advanced and > far-reaching physical continuity tests possible. > Hmm - I never quite followed that argument :(. ISTM it is impossible, in general to know that one is experiencing the real world, as opposed to some simulation, just as it is impossible in general to know one is experiencing reality rather than some incredibly sopisticated and lucid dream. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/d/optout.
