Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-15 Thread Eric Hawthorne
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?

2003-06-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
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?

2003-06-15 Thread George Levy
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?

2003-06-14 Thread Stephen Paul King
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?

2003-06-13 Thread George Levy
HI Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: 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 article about the ordering

Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-12 Thread George Levy
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?

2003-06-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear George, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM Subject: Re: are we in a simulation? Hi Stephen, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Friends, Does

Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-11 Thread John Collins
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

2003-06-10 Thread Eric Hawthorne
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?

2003-06-10 Thread George Levy
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?

2003-06-10 Thread Stephen Paul King
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?

2003-06-09 Thread John Collins
George Levy wrote: Everytime a "measurement" is made, the set of worlds spanned by this consciousness is defined more narrowly, but the number in the set remains infinite. In addition, each simulation in the set need not belong to the same "level."We're faced with the strange possibility

Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-09 Thread George Levy
John Collins wrote: George Levy wrote: Everytime a "measurement" is made, the set of worlds spanned by this consciousness is defined more narrowly, but the number in the set remains infinite. In addition, each simulation in the set need not belong to the same

Re: are we in a simulation?

2003-06-09 Thread Hal Finney
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?

2003-06-08 Thread George Levy
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?

2003-06-07 Thread David Kwinter
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