Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-14 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi John: Thanks for the message. Perhaps one could call the incompleteness of the Nothing a vacuum energy because it always has and always will drive the dynamic of my system. Hal At 06:56 PM 5/6/2004, you wrote: Hal, before the time when we met on another list I tackled 'similar' concerns. Very

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-14 Thread Hal Ruhl
I am currently in the middle of rewriting my cell re Alastair's Agreed Fundamentals project along the lines of my recent posts. I attach a draft below because to an extent I believe it is similar to some of what Bruno is saying. Arithmetic truth is a component of all potential to divide [see

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-14 Thread George Levy
: George Levy To: Stephen Paul King Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Stephen, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear George, How does indeterminacy and multiple-world-occupation

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-13 Thread George Levy
Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear George, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: George Levy To: Stephen Paul King Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi George, I mainly agree with your remarks. Some ambiguity remains but I would like to take some time to succeed making them clear. A priori our approaches differs methodologically. Concerning your UDA question, could tell me if you were referring to the UDA presentation in 11 steps, or to the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-13 Thread George Levy
Hi Bruno Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi George, I mainly agree with your remarks. Some ambiguity remains but I would like to take some time to succeed making them clear. A priori our approaches differs methodologically. Concerning your UDA question, could tell me if you were referring to the UDA

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
am missing something. :_( Stephen - Original Message - From: George Levy To: Everything List Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:12 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Hi StephenStephen Paul King wrote: Dear George

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread CMR
IMHO, this latter situation seem to be what D. Deutsch proposes as a test for his MWI. If we can create a physical implementation of a quantum computation that has greater computational power than that allowed by the classical (as per the Copenhagen Interpretation or other interpretations) case,

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 15:59 11/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: snip I remember discussing this topic but I do not remember you calling me silly. Oh sorry you were only thinking it. Thank you :-) You are welcome. You know on these matters we can never be sure :-) Now when you say that the first person is all

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear CMR, - Original Message - From: "CMR" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Everything List" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? [SPK] IMHO, this latter situation seem to be what

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear George, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: George Levy To: Stephen Paul King Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Stephen, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear George, How

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread CMR
I'd love to take credit for George's arguments (he probablyknows morethan me, after all) but that wouldn't be ethical (andI don't think we want to revisit THAT thread!) cheers! Dear George, Interleaving. [CMR] It seems to me that if two worlds are indistinguishable from

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear George and CMR, Whops! My apologies. But does this cancel out what I wrote? Stephen - Original Message - From: CMR To: Stephen Paul King Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:02 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-12 Thread George Levy
Hi Bruno Bruno Marchal wrote: when you say that the first person is all there is I am not sure it fits nicely with the methodology I am following. I am not sure I understand why you don't need the UD, given that the UD is just a nice third person description of the comp plenitude. [That such

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread John M
ml show my approach in its forming (not even by far any similar to yours). Just FYI - I claim no part in the UD-related thoughts.G Cheers John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:59 AM Subject

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote: At 15:51 10/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: BM: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD. GL: No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all things. But to say that there is no plenitude without an UD does not mean that the UD is the origin of

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread George Levy
Russell OK. You are suffering from 3rd person thinking which leads you to these conclusions: 1) As a scientist experimenting with this simulated creature, you have absolutely no evidence that this creature is conscious. 2) You believe that the creature (conscious or unconscious) is stuck in

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread George Levy
Russell Remember the creature must be consistent with the world it observes and vice versa. An unchanging one bit world does not seem to be able to support the existence of a consistent conscious entity - at least not with our kind of consciousness. Let's move the creature up to a richer

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread Stephen Paul King
) case, then it would verify MWI. A failure of such would be a falsification. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: George Levy To: Everything List Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? RussellOK

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread George Levy
Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear George, My take of Russell's post is: Unless the creature had some experience that was not dismissible as a hallucination (1st person) and/or was witness by others (a proxy of 3rd person?) that lead him to the conclusion that

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread Eric Hawthorne
I saw the documentary movie Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion the other day. In one scene, a group of monks is sitting around in a circle, and the Dalai Llama is overseeing. The monks are industriously and methodically placing individual tiny coloured beads (there are maybe 4 or 5 colours) around

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 15:51 10/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: BM: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD. GL: No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all things. But to say that there is no plenitude without an UD does not mean that the UD is the origin of all things. This is

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 16:13 07/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: My view is that the observer-experience simply consists in the (virtual) transitions from one observer-moment to another where the transition is filtered by having to be consistent with the observer-state. Note how the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-10 Thread George Levy
Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: At 16:13 07/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: My view is that the observer-experience simply consists in the (virtual) transitions from one observer-moment to another where the transition is filtered by having to be consistent with the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:51:34PM -0700, George Levy wrote: But you agree there is no plenitude without an UD. No I don't agree. I don't agree that the UD is the origin of all things. This is typical classical thinking. To paraphrase: In the beginning there was the UD (eg. x=x+1). And

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-07 Thread George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent assertion without using that lower levels have lower complexity and therefore higher measure. That is possible, but the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate the dumbness of the universal dovetailer

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 23:02 06/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent assertion without using that lower levels have lower complexity and therefore higher measure. That is possible, but the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent assertion without using that lower levels have lower complexity and therefore higher measure. That is possible, but the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate the dumbness of the universal dovetailer which is quite capable to

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-06 Thread Hal Ruhl
The following is a combination of several of my previous ideas which forces me to raise a question re measure in this thread. 1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case the definition of a Nothing. Any definition process simultaneously defines two entities. The

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-06 Thread John M
] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? The following is a combination of several of my previous ideas which forces me to raise a question re measure in this thread. 1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kory, Are you still there? I got funny responses from the webposter, it looks there is a problem with your mail address. Hoping to hear about you soon, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-05-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Ok Stathis, thanks for the precision. Anyway you give me the temptation to identify the soul

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 09:25 29/04/04 -0400, John M wrote: Bruno, I am sorry if my poorly chosen words irritated you, that was the farthest from my intentions. I can see, they did. Yes but that's ok. Thanks for caring. You give me the opportunity to take a new look to the Bochenski book. I did search that book for

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 29 April 2004 Bruno Marchal wrote: At 23:16 28/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: There is a single idea underlying much of the confusion in discussions of personal identity: the belief in a soul. Indeed. I use this term for a quality or substance which resides in a person

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Dear Stephen, At 13:44 29/04/04 -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: But there is no such thing as a delay in Platonia, but that is not my point. It is good it is not your point because there are delay in Platonia, at least in the sense I was using the word. A delay relative to a

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Ok Stathis, thanks for the precision. Anyway you give me the temptation to identify the soul by the first person. We will be able to prove (with the comp hyp) that not only the soul exists but (I forget to say) also that from the *correct* soul point of view, the soul is NOT a machine. But perhaps

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread John M
How about: self? is it a good enoug 1st person soul? John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Ok Stathis

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, I would like to focus on one thing, but will interleave comments on the rest.. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Hal Ruhl
The following is a combination of two of my previous ideas which together simplify my attempt to prove that a computer is a good model of the substrate of a multi universe venue for our apparent sequence of states. 1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-30 Thread Frank Cizmich
wow.. 2) A Nothing has an interesting logical problem: It can not answer any meaningful question about itself. Assuming there is a relevant meaningful question a Nothing would be incomplete. An inescapable meaningful question is its own stability. This is not only meaningful it is

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Stephen, At 12:15 28/04/04 -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: I struggle to find the right words to express the difficulty that I see. My problem is that your work ignores the computational complexity (NP-Completeness) of grading (defining measures) the relationships. This is due to the fact

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-29 Thread John M
- From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:06 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? At 11:03 27/04/04 -0400, John M wrote: Bruno: I really TRY to catch up with the discussions - Thanks for telling. however I can't help

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kory, So we met two important theories or machines: Classical Logic CL and Peano Arithmetic PA. As collection of theorems, the first is a subset of the second: PA | | | CL Now I have chosen PA to set the things. Any

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-29 Thread Stephen Paul King
: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Hi Stephen, At 12:15 28/04/04 -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: I struggle to find the right words to express the difficulty that I see. My problem is that your work ignores the computational complexity (NP-Completeness) of grading (defining

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 27 April 2004 Bruno Marchal wrote: But you will be dead in the same sense that you will be dead in the next instant, at least with what I understand when you quote Parfit. In THAT case you shouldn't care at all in the presence of any possible threats, no? Yes, you could say that we die every

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 11:03 27/04/04 -0400, John M wrote: Bruno: I really TRY to catch up with the discussions - Thanks for telling. however I can't help feeling that what's going on is a physicalistic (?) I guess you are trying to provoke me here, isn't it? (I mean you are aware that I pretend (at least)

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 23:16 28/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: There is a single idea underlying much of the confusion in discussions of personal identity: the belief in a soul. Indeed. I use this term for a quality or substance which resides in a person throughout his life and is somehow responsible

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kori, At 10:55 27/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: At 10:17 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't worry, I will try NOT to give a 120h course in mathematical logic which is just impossible without chalk black board. But I will try to give some insights. I must think how to do it. It will help

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, This touches on a main portion of my difficulty with the notion that a Platonia based theory can be sufficient. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 13:55 27/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Ok, one last stab. You are going to be copied and teleported to 1000 different planets. Only your body and your brain will be copied. On 999 of these planets, everyone speaks Spanish, and on one planet, everyone speaks French. You don't

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Kory Heath
Hi Bruno, At 06:46 AM 4/26/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: The important point is that once we keep up comp through the eight points, we see that the laws of physics, whatever they are, must be given by the invariant in the comp-accessible worlds. I'm pretty sure I now understand points 1-8, but let me

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Kory Heath
At 06:08 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: (BTW, concerning Parfit, he still believe (in his book Reasons and Persons) that we are token. I have already argued that with the comp hyp we can only be type. That means we cannot been made singular. The only argument Parfit gives for our token

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 08:23 27/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: Hi Bruno, At 06:46 AM 4/26/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: The important point is that once we keep up comp through the eight points, we see that the laws of physics, whatever they are, must be given by the invariant in the comp-accessible worlds. I'm pretty

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 08:34 27/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: At 06:08 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: (BTW, concerning Parfit, he still believe (in his book Reasons and Persons) that we are token. I have already argued that with the comp hyp we can only be type. That means we cannot been made singular. The only

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread Kory Heath
At 10:17 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't worry, I will try NOT to give a 120h course in mathematical logic which is just impossible without chalk black board. But I will try to give some insights. I must think how to do it. It will help me, btw, to prepare my talk in Paris and Amsterdam so

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-27 Thread John M
illiterate planet? Can't we do better? John Mikes - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 6:08 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? At 13:55 27/04/04 +1000

RE: Fwd: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Jesse Mazer
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Lets go over this again. There is a 100% chance that some copy of Kory Heath will find himself in the non-bizarre world, even though there will be one billion copies which find themselves in the bizarre worlds. If that single, lucky copy is not *you*, then who is he?

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Kory, (Recall: the 1-9 points we mention can be find by clicking on http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m5384.html ) At 00:04 24/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: Thanks very much for your clarifications. I clearly misunderstood the intent of your point 8. I thought you were arguing that,

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
I remember discussing this with you a few months ago. I am still not convinced though :-) - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: Sunday, April 25, 2004 06:19 PM Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Saibal

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Saibal Mitra
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: Monday, April 26, 2004 03:00 AM Onderwerp: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote: This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 26 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote: I am definitely not claiming that only one of the copies is the real me. Every copy is the real me from its own perspective. But to each one of those copies, all the other copies are *different people*. This is true from any perspective, including the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Kory Heath
At 10:36 AM 4/24/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Does the fact that we never find ourselves in one of the bizarre, inconsistent worlds that are postulated to exist in Platonia cast doubt on the reality of these worlds and the validity of the underlying theory? Not yet. We know that the bizarre,

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 25 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote: QUOTE- Not yet. We know that the bizarre, inconsistent worlds must exist if the Platonia idea is correct, but we (or at least I) don't currently know how likely they are. In Platonia, there are X number of possible-next-states from my current state. (For

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Saibal Mitra
This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on this list a few years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists a measure over the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones. Also, note that there is no such thing as ''next possible'' states. Once you consider the whole

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Jesse Mazer
Saibal Mitra wrote: This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on this list a few years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists a measure over the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones. Also, note that there is no such thing as ''next possible'' states. Once you

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Eric Hawthorne
What Jesse and Saibal write is the key, I think. While all successor states are possible, only very few are experiencable and memorable by a coherent brain (computer) and mind (software decision path in your brain). I think that the only factor that makes these anything can happen/is

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread CMR
- Original Message - From: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 2:45 AM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? At 10:36 AM 4/24/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Does the fact that we never find ourselves in one of the bizarre, inconsistent

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Hal Ruhl
A little earlier I posted what I called a left wing proof that an ongoing computer output of a random succession of normal reals is a reasonable model for the dynamic boundary between the definitional pair Nothing and Everything. [I got left wing proof from an article by Keith Devlin on page

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Kory Heath
At 10:16 AM 4/25/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Consider now a similar theory, but multiple copies of you are allowed. The theory predicts that there will be one billion branchings of the world in the next second, with each branch containing a person who shares all your memories up to that

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Kory Heath
At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote: This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on this list a few years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists a measure over the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones. I don't believe there are any grounds for assuming that,

Fwd: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-25 Thread Kory Heath
Forwarded at the request of the author: From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 25 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote: QUOTE- Yes, your theory states that the chances are 100% that some copy will find itself in the non-bizarre world. But the theory also states that the chances are very low -

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 24 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote (in response to Bruno Marchal's post of 13 April 2004): QUOTE- Platonia contains every possible computational state that represents a self-aware structure, and for each such state there are X number of next-possible-states, which also exist in Platonia. The

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-23 Thread Kory Heath
Bruno - Thanks very much for your clarifications. I clearly misunderstood the intent of your point 8. I thought you were arguing that, if we analyze the structure of all possible 1st-person histories of all possible self-aware-subsystems in Platonia, we would find that histories that exhibit

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 05:27 21/04/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote a 10-point argument about determining whether or not we are simulated by some massive computer. Here is point 9 from that post: 9) Now, from computer science and logic, startlingly enough perhaps, we can isolate a measure on the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-21 Thread Kory Heath
Bruno Marchal wrote a 10-point argument about determining whether or not we are simulated by some massive computer. Here is point 9 from that post: 9) Now, from computer science and logic, startlingly enough perhaps, we can isolate a measure on the 1-person comp histories, and this give us the

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 13:08 13/04/04 -0700, George Levy wrote: Put in another way, *either* the massive computer simulates the exact laws of physics (exact with comp = the laws extractible from the measure on all 1-computations) in which case we belong to it but in that case we belong also to all its copy in

RE: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
At 09:58 13/04/04 -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: 6) This shows that if we are in a massive computer running in a universe, then (supposing we know it or believe it) to predict the future of any experiment we decide to carry one (for example testing A or B) we need to take into account all

RE: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-13 Thread Ben Goertzel
6) This shows that if we are in a massive computer running in a universe, then (supposing we know it or believe it) to predict the future of any experiment we decide to carry one (for example testing A or B) we need to take into account all reconstitutions at any time of the computer

RE: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-13 Thread Hal Finney
Ben Goertzel writes: So, in my view, we are faced with a couple different ways of introducing the arbitrary assumptions needed to justify induction: 1) make an arbitrary assumption that the apparently real physical universe is real 2) make an arbitrary assumption that simpler hypotheses are

Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

2004-04-13 Thread George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote: Put in another way, *either* the massive computer simulates the exact laws of physics (exact with comp = the laws extractible from the measure on all 1-computations) in which case we belong to it but in that case we belong also to all its copy in Platonia, and our