Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: Are we in a simulation

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

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

Re: are we in a simulation?

Dear Friends, Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) andcomputational "power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds? Kindest regards, Stephen

Re: are we in a simulation?

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,

Re: are we in a simulation?

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)

Re: are we in a simulation?

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