On 3/1/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt - > > I think this answers my question to you, at least I think I see where > you're coming from. > > I would say that you have justification for saying that interaction > with the universe demonstrates mathematically modelable regularities > (in keeping with the principle of parsimony), rather than saying that > it's a simulation (which involves additional assumptions.) > > Do you think you have information to warrant taking it further? > > - Jef There is no way to know if the universe is real or simulated. From our point of view, there is no difference. If the simulation is realistic then there is no experiment we could do to make the distinction.
I think you mean "if the simulation is consistent" then there's no experiment we could do to make the distinction.
I am just saying that our universe is consistent with a simulation in that it appears to be computable.
I agree with you that it seems there's nothing more we can say in that case about whether or not it's a simulation.
One disturbing implication is that the simulation might be suddenly turned off or changed in some radical way you can't anticipate.
Hmm, I thought you just made the perfectly good point that there's nothing further we can say about whether or not our world is a simulation, so what basis do you have for worrying about whether the simulation might be turned off? In fact, I have it on good faith that it was in fact turned off, for about 3M "real" years, just around breakfast time this morning. It'll probably be shut down again, but what could possibly be disturbing about something that can't possibly be detected? - Jef ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
