On 10 July 2014 13:22, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > But I think ultimately it does. If you have do include the environment in > the computation (and Bruno has said maybe you do, it's just a matter of > "level") then I think it makes a metaphysical difference. Going back to my > example of the simulated aircraft; if we simulate the aircraft in CFD then > the meaning the variables (lift, drag,...) come from our physical world. > But if we simulate a whole world, including the aircraft, so those > variables have their meaning relative to the simulated world, then there is > really no sense in saying it's a simulation. In other words if you > simulate *all* the physics, then you haven't gotten rid of the physical > world, you've just created a separate world with it's own physics. >
Only if you think the Mathematical Universe hypothesis is correct. Otherwise you've only created a model of a separate world. However, you're being too obscure, again. I have no idea what your argument is supposed to prove, or what these simulations have to do with comp, or what this "metaphysical difference" actually means. Please state your case as clearly as possible, so I don't waste more time arguing about something you didn't mean to say. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
