The argument that
many-worlds theory implies that we are 'almost certainly' in a computer
simulation has been put forward by many people, and there are many
similarly themed arguments used to suggest that many-worlds theory is 'obviously
not true'; most of these arguments contain well h
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” if it is of the
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)
Discre
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 poss
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 t
George Levy writes:
>
>
>
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, I
didn't see the special effects, since I am using a text-based
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 beh
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:
Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to ignore that, aren't I? I guess you had
some neat graphics in your mess
Dear Friends,
Does
computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) and computational
"power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
>Does computational complexity (such as
NP-Completeness, etc.) >and computational "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 cert
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 artic
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,
>
>
>
&
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 orderin
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 w
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 defin
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]
&
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 Stephe
17 matches
Mail list logo