Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 07-mars-07, à 04:40, Jesse Mazer wrote : > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/ > 0d5915764b7f3e08/fc56caf79ce58750?#fc56caf79ce58750 > > Jesse That is: 14 Mar 2001: Jesse wrote (in part): > A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about TOE's on this

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Well thanks Russell. Note that I was not doing a critic. I have the usual problem with the word "philosophy", which in many places (on the continent means just "marxism" or the more ("postmodern") relativism. But here I was mainly "complaining" that sometimes people talk like if I was pro

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:37:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what > Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not > trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Hi Mark, Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I said in the joining post my initial goal was just to understand molecular bi

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mark, you asked interesting questions, but I think the fundamental ones are still 'out there': MP:(bold and in bold): "I mean the big and unanswered question is WHERE are numbers? I would ask (joining your heresy): 1. Where did numbers come from? (an answer may be: They are GOD to believe in). 2.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno: > With comp, what holds 'your lot" together are the relation between > numbers. The apparent third person infinite regression stops at the > level of those relations. The first person is most probably confronted > with many infinities, but this should not be considered as > problematica

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

That's all fine and I appreciate the position (once we 'have gotten' to circumstances providing the idea of a Loeb machine) - what I want to inject is Dr. Johnson's stone, which is not 'mind-stuff'' and in his shoe DID HURT (his mind). Not vice versa. Please, let it go as a remark outside the discu

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Hi Brent, As you can guess, I am searching an old post of view which I intended to answer, and then I take opportunity to comment some other one, on some point which are perhaps somehow important ... Le 17-mars-07, à 21:19, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Le 17-mars-07,

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 21-mars-07, à 17:41, Brent Meeker a écrit : > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : >> >>> What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the >>> numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an >>> inherent relation li

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the >> numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an >> inherent relation like being relatively prime? > > > It is an inherent re

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : > What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the > numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an > inherent relation like being relatively prime? It is an inherent relation like being prime, or being th

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit : > >> >> Thank you Bruno! >> >> You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of >> illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire >> to report but I start to get a glimmering of why yo

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit : > > > Thank you Bruno! > > You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of > illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire > to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume* > comp and s

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 06-mars-07, à 07:44, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : > > Thank you for welcoming me Mark, > I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but > not all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put > it we might be able to describe the Why question about physi

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/19/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones > > outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, > without > > benefit

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones > outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without > benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that > non-comput

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, why should computa

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I have not extracted the measure (nor do I think Russell did to be > honest), but I have extracted the logic of certainty (credibility one) > associated to each hypostasis, and those corresponding to Plotinus > Matter (or "our" me

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:25:51PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > One response to this idea is that the non-computational worlds are overrun > with white rabbits, whereas the computational worlds allow the calculation > of a local measure, such as Russell Standish has described, which explain

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent >> universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite >> arithmetic (which would be a much smaller "everything"). >> >> And how do things "ru

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

ity turns into quality and increasing the info-basis MAY(?) result in also smarter understganding - i.e. better wisdom. So I put on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now. Regards John M - Original Message ----- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.co

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit : > But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent > universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite > arithmetic (which would be a much smaller "everything"). > > And how do things "run" in Platonia? Do we need temp

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent > >> universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite > >> arithmetic (which would be a much smaller "everything"). > > > > > > And while we're at it, why exclude

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like > being > > the one person in a million who has to win t

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being > > the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it is more like > > waking up to find that money has miraculously appeared in you

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is > > infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is > > zero or al

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is > > infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is > > zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky > > dip, you have to be some

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and > other small > > numbers but no integers greater that sa

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >When it concerns mathematics, I have developped a set of integers that I >myself call "unnatural numbers". An unnatural number U is an integer >that is bigger than every natural number N. And the inverse of an >unnatural number (1/U) is more close to zero than any real

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/16/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small > > numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all > > of them. A theory that just says "all integers exist" d

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

John M skrev: I looked at your paper, interesting. One question: what do you mean by "exist" (Notably: "does NOT exist)?   We think about it (no matter in how vague terms and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our thinking for that term, -

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Brent Meeker skrev: > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >> I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3 >> pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist. >> > Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually > agree with you that it doesn't exist - though

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > Suppose the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, Tegmarks argument does not require that the universe is infinite. It only requires that the universe is *very* big. So the universe can still be finite. If the universe is *enough* big it will contain ma

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the > identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not > in such or such cartesian picture, even the "concrete" knots I put in > my pocket. The knots looses its

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hi Brent, > > On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> > wrote: >>> > But these ideas illustrate a problem with >>> > "everythin

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Hi Brent, On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > > "everything-exists". Everything conceiv

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > "everything-exists". Everything conceivable, i.e. not > > self-contradictory is so ill defined

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But these ideas illustrate a problem with > > "everything-exists". Everything conceivable, i.e. not > > self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to assign > > any measure to it, and without a measure, somethi

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

John M wrote: > Bruno and Brent: > Are we back at the "Aris-total" i.e. the "sum" considered "more" than > its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes > more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. But components are only part of a reductionist model

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

s we discovered so far. We can think only within our already acquired knowledge. John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

ups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : (among others) Infinity is a logically impossible concept. Infinity Does Not Exist. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Bruno Marchal skrev: >> Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : >> >> Infinity is a logically impossible concept. >> >> I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some >> early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an > electron + > > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is infin

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron > + > > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its > > components; > > > Nor by any juxtap

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : > Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying > reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely > doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity. All right. But note that both String Th

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > >> On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> <

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > >> On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > wrote: > >> > >> Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > >>> How can you be sure? Maybe space is discre

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou skrev: >> On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> Stathis Papaioannou skrev: >>> How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete. >> Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the uni

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete. Yes, space (and time) is discrete.  Everything in the universe is finite, and the universe itself is finit

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > > On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > *Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer > > screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what >

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > Bent, Stathis, > > Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call > it SU. > Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular > fashion( L shape) > Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of > s

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Bent, Stathis, Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call it SU. Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular fashion( L shape) Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of some integer numbers of space unit? Pythagoras'

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + > > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its > > components; > > > Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior > entanglement. I

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, > it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' > theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion. > * > I w

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then > proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except > that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a > theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a mathematical theorem or even a Sherlo

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. > > > > > > Perhaps. I am not so sure. > > > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron > + proto

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > /Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. > Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock > Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. > / > > Brent, > > What do you mean by that? Mathematics is just assuming some axioms

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Tangentially: Brent: 'doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm ...' MP: For those who occasionally like a clever and entertaining read unencumbered by deep social comment can I recommend the adventures of Ms Thursday Next in 'The Eyre Affair' a novel by Jasper FForde, and in th

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.* I was trying to mark a distance in real world which is irrational accordin

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. Perhaps. I am not so sure. > You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + > proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its >

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock > Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists > in some Platonic realm. > * > > Brent, > > What do you mean by that? I do not get your

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

*Why? "Mathematical" means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. * Brent, What do you mean by that? I do not get your point. Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > /All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in > the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since > calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that > defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

OK, but it seems that we are using "reductionism" differently. You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two compone

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain > it. What's wrong with that? Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception) can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

erent. John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question. Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : I don'

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it. What's wrong with that? On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : > > > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ... > > > How could scien

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : > I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ... How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually testable. No scientist will ever say there is

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/11/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... ' > > MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who > threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of > acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... ' MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost which/who's mind and sensoria will be ever more wonde

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Dear Jesse, thanks for the cool and objective words. I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of physical science is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on. Ex

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

John M: > >Cher Quentin, >let me paraphrase (big): > >so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize. >Especially if it sounds helpful. Well, the basic assumption was more broad than that: it was that general relativity is a trustworthy theory of gravity. There's pl

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

27;s COMB to remove the added conclusions upon assumptions. No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary. John M - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Eviden

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/10/07, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i ENVY YOU, guys, to "know" so much about BHs to speak of a singularity. > I would not go further than "according to what is said about them, they > may > wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity". > Galaxies, whatever, fa

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

Hi John, Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does the "infinity" is "real" (we must still be in accordance about what it means) is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

i ENVY YOU, guys, to "know" so much about BHs to speak of a singularity. I would not go further than "according to what is said about them, they may wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity". Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much Dark

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

e process whereby survival might be ensured. Stathis Papaioannou - Original Message - > *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM > *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind. > 1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance > within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black > hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the sin

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

or the 'mind' of an amoeba? Just asking questions in extension of ourselves. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument SP wro

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.' MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind. 1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks to Russell and Stathis

On 3/8/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NB: I hope that my imaginary destination in your speculation of possible > post mortem exploits for my erstwhile sceptical soul is not a > post-Freudian slip. I know that many of my contributions to this and > other lists have lacked the erudite suc

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks to Russell and Stathis

Firstly a big thank you to Russell Standish for providing that incredibly succinct 'bit stream' summary of universal-dovetailer ontology. [Though only a vocational mathematician would seriously call it 'very simple' even if it does have less than 1% of Bruno's word count for his essay on the s

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

So are sets of cardinality \aleph_2 or sets of cardinality \aleph_{\aleph_0}. On the other hand, one set of cardinality 2^\aleph_0 appears to be big enough to explain all of observed reality. Maybe Tegmarkism is going too far... On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:19:03AM +0330, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

*All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information.* What about the realizab

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational > > >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up i

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational > >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my "Why > >Occams Razor" paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite >

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Russell Standish wrote: > >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my "Why >Occams Razor" paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite >of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:46:32PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in > > > ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological > > > continuit

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in > > ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological > > continuity; that is, you know you are the same person today as yesterday > > because you ha

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/6/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation > of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the > ability to *be* th

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/6/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation > of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the > ability to *be* the story. But when looking at this as a/n > [infinity^infinity] Many Worlds affair, no

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Thank you Bruno! You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume* comp and see where it leads. It seems that self-reference and recur

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > > Thank you for welcoming me Mark, > I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but not > all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put it we > might be able to describe the Why question about physical laws, which is > very

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Thank you for welcoming me Mark, I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but not all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put it we might be able to describe the Why question about physical laws, which is very interesting. 4) There exist a universal d

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:48:40PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/6/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to > > understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a > > random bitstream. Every

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/6/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to > understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a > random bitstream. Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches > with the observed bit being 0 or

  1   2   >