On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non-virtual
reality environments have measure one in the space of environments
hosted by the UD, as UD* has the cardinality of the continuum,
whereas
virtual reality environments are strictly aleph_0.
But aren't "we" as physically instantiated beings, also of the
cardinality of the continuum?
Yes, we are, but not the virtual reality environments, which must be
countable by virtue of there only being a countable number of
programs.
With COMP, and via the UDA, the number of "real" environments
experienced must be the cardinality of the continuum, and would
include all the CantGoTu environments.
We could therefore conclude (contra Bostrom), that we are most likely
not in a simulation, but that we can never prove it by any finite
observation (Deutsch's CantGoTu argument).
I agree that sometimes we can know we're in a virtual reality -
Deutsch's chess VR example, for instance - but only by it being
logically incompatible with our existence as an observer.
The question remains - suppose someone finds a physical phenomenon
that contradicts the laws of physics derived from COMP. Does that
falsify COMP, or does it imply we're in a virtual reality? How can you
possibly distinguish those two situations?
We can't.
But this is similar to the fact that, for accepting that we can at
least refute a theory, we still need to bet that we are not dreaming
or that we are not in some emulation (made normal by being physical,
that is built on the top of the sum on all computations).
So, to answer the question more precisely, we will need to describe
more precisely how much the physical phenomenon depart from the comp
physics, like for the case with the natural physics. If the emulation
is gross (too big pixel) we can see quickly we are dreaming or
emulated, or branched to a virtual (programmed) environment/video-game.
By default, when I say that comp is falsifiable, I suppose we are at
the base level, and that QL and QM does describe the base levels.
Comp (and QL) saves us (normally) from the diabolical white rabbits,
but it does not save us from the human and indeed universal Löbian
consistent deception.
Bruno
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
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 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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
