Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Oh, ok. I have my own version of the anthropic principle:
The content of a first person reality of an observer is the minimum
that is necessary and sufficient for the existence of that observer.
I am trying to include observer selection ideas in my
Dear Eric,
- Original Message -
From: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Oh, ok. I have my own version of the anthropic principle
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear George,
Interleaving,
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
HI Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Does
Dear George,
Interleaving,
- Original Message -
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?
HI Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
Does computational complexity
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Friends,
Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.)
and computational power requirements factor into the idea of
simulated worlds?
It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the
Scientific American
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does computational complexity (such as
NP-Completeness, etc.) andcomputational "power" requirements factor
into the idea of simulated worlds?
Yes, I think that's a point I was trying to
get accross in my previous post under this heading: That although in a certain
My corollaries to:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.
1. Any sufficiently detailed and correct reality simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
2. Any artificial consciousness which communicates in all
circumstances within the range of communication
Sorry about the graphics... There were'nt any except some italics I think.
I'll send this one in plain text.. tell me how it goes.
Hal Finney wrote:
George Levy writes:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to
Dear Friends,
Does
computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) andcomputational
"power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
George Levy writes:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN
html
head
Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to ignore that, aren't I? I guess you had
some neat graphics in your message that made all that HTML necessary,
along with requiring two copies of the text. Unfortunately for me,
We exist in an infinite number of simulations. Any arbitrary number of simulations
less than infinity would require a reason. We are led to this conclusion
by assuming a TOE which by definition has no a-priori reason. (This is the
philosophical rationale for postulating the plenitude)
Title: Re: are we in a simulation?
I agree, by definition no one can cap many-worlds theory with a god somewhere up the ladder without some new extra-dimensional (space*time) theory (unless, does level IV allow this?)
A pseudo-many-worlds multiverse can however have a god
12 matches
Mail list logo